NORTH AMERICA « nuclear-news

Expert Warns of ‘Rubber Stamp’ Approvals as Ontario Expands Nuclear Spending

the changes effectively shift final authority from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to cabinet if concerns arise during assessment. It also shifts accountability if those decisions eventually go wrong—although the elected officials involved would likely be out of office by the time the full impacts were known.

the budget “goes on at some length about how wonderful [nuclear projects] are in terms of their economic contributions, but never actually talks about costs.”

the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

June 3, 2026, Nathaniel Crouch, https://www.theenergymix.com/expert-warns-of-rubber-stamp-approvals-as-ontario-expands-nuclear-spending/?utm_source=The+Energy+Mix&utm_campaign=7f479c951f-TEM_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc146fb5ca-7f479c951f-510028305

Federal impact assessment reviews for two Ontario nuclear projects risk serving as little more than procedural approvals, a Toronto environmental studies professor says, as they move through the process without first identifying the reactor types to be built.

Ontario’s Wesleyville Project in Port Hope has several reactor technologies under consideration, and the Bruce C expansion near Kincardine has not yet selected a technology, either. Both are undergoing federal impact assessment.

Mark Winfield, a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University, told The Energy Mix he is also concerned that proposed federal approval reforms, combined with Bill C-5 passed last summer, and the newly announced National Electricity Strategy, could lead to what he called “the explicit politicization of decision-making on nuclear projects.” Where “once projects are designated as being in the national interest,” he said, “they will be approved regardless of what the technical reviews find.”

That would be “a very dangerous situation when dealing with what will be first-of-kind reactors in Canada, or in some cases globally,” he added.

Winfield said the changes effectively shift final authority from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to cabinet if concerns arise during assessment. It also shifts accountability if those decisions eventually go wrong—although the elected officials involved would likely be out of office by the time the full impacts were known.

“The implication of going to cabinet is that the regulator’s concerns could be overridden for political or economic reasons,” he said, recalling Harper government’s 2008 decision to fire the CNSC chair after the rejection of the MAPLE reactors at Chalk River.

Winfield said Canada’s new electricity strategy seemed to “aggressively skate over” the cost implications of its nuclear heavy focus, as nuclear energy continues to be subject to enormous capital costs and construction delays.

“Essentially the federal strategy seems to be following Ontario’s lead—a heavy emphasis on gas and nuclear, and mostly ignoring the global movement in the direction of renewables.”

Ontario, Ratepayers Confront Growing Nuclear Costs

Critics have warned that Ontario’s nuclear expansion strategy could carry major long-term financial consequences.

In May, the Ontario government announced a $300-million cost-sharing agreement with Bruce Power to advance early planning for the expansion of the Bruce C nuclear complex, a project the province said would support 18,900 jobs and help make Ontario home to the largest nuclear generating facility in the world.

The announcement marked one of the clearest signals yet that Premier Doug Ford’s government sees large-scale nuclear expansion as the backbone of Ontario’s future electricity system. It also landed amid criticism that the province is shifting billions in electricity costs onto taxpayers, obscuring the long-term price of nuclear refurbishments, new reactors, and small modular nuclear projects.

Ontario’s 2026 budget led the province into a $13.8-billion deficit, with energy expenditures— and nuclear energy in particular—central to the shortfall. The government’s budget documents flagged large “amounts for electricity cost relief” and related line items, but stopped short of detailing long-term capital costs. That omission drew sharp criticism from electricity system experts.

Winfield said the budget “goes on at some length about how wonderful [nuclear projects] are in terms of their economic contributions, but never actually talks about costs.” Using figures the province provided for electricity supports, Winfield calculated that electricity-related spending accounted for roughly half the deficit—about $6.9 billion on the books—but said it would be difficult to figure out exactly how much of that line item in the budget is nuclear related because the figures are “deliberately opaque.”

Environmental Defence Canada Programs Director Keith Brooks too linked the deficit to rising nuclear and legacy refurbishment costs, as well as growing use of gas power plants to meet growing demand while the nuclear plants are being brought online.

29% Rate Hike

Last November, Ontario raised its basic electricity rate by 29% and simultaneously expanded rebate programs, which the government framed as short-term relief and a change in cost allocations. Both Winfield and Brooks said those measures masked the underlying driver: rising costs tied to refurbished and new nuclear plants. “What they seem to be doing is setting a precedent—allowing the costs for these projects to be charged to ratepayers before they’re built,” Winfield said, adding that the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Revealed: USAID, National Endowment for Democracy & Open Society Quietly Bankroll Cuba’s “Independent” Media In Push for Regime Change

All this, however, pales in comparison to the resources the U.S. has dedicated to Radio and TV Martí. Founded in 1985 by the Reagan administration, the Miami-based network boasts dozens of full-time employees and receives tens of millions of dollars from Washington annually.

Anti-government media are only a small portion of the huge array of groups Washington secretly funds and supports. From musicians and academics, to civil society, educational, and religious groups, to think tanks, charities and NGOs, there exists a vast nexus of organizations receiving vast sums of money from the U.S. government.

Alan Macleod, 6 June 26, https://www.mintpressnews.com/revealed-usaid-ned-open-society-quietly-bankroll-cubas-independent-media-in-push-for-regime-change/290942/

Amid escalating U.S. aggression towards the Cuban island through a maximum pressure campaign and the threat of military intervention, the United States government has been covertly funding a huge network of Cuban media outlets that claim to be independent in a push for regime change against the independent socialist government.

These outlets present themselves as unbiased investigative journalism, but are quietly being financed by Washington through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society Foundation in order to sow discontent across the Caribbean nation, softening it up for a potentially “imminent” invasion by the Trump administration.

Cuba faces some of its worst energy blackouts in its history, thanks to the U.S. blockade, which is attempting to strange the island into submission. As a Communist state defying U.S. orders, Cuba has, since 1959, been in the crosshairs of Washington, who are attempting to overthrow the government. MintPress sheds light on this shady regime change nexus.

CubaNet is one of the most influential and well-established news outlets covering affairs on the Caribbean island. Founded by anti-government activists in 1994, the site has become the go-to source of information for corporate media, who regularly cite it, and present it as an objective and unbiased independent media (e.g., The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and The Los Angeles Times). CubaNet reporters have written op-eds in major U.S. newspapers such as USA Today, calling for an immediate change in government on the island.

‘Independent Journalism,’ Brought To You By The U.S. State Department

But CubaNet is not as independent as it seems. The outlet is bankrolled by the U.S. national security state. CubaNet has received millions of dollars in funding from USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the Open Society Foundation.

One currently active $500,000 USAID grant, for instance, was awarded to CubaNet to “engage on-island young Cubans through objective and uncensored multimedia journalism.” While ostensibly a laudable goal, even the grant’s own one-sentence description hints that its purpose is to undermine and attack the Cuban government. It states that it will (emphasis added) “increase the free flow of information to and from Cuba in order to offset the regime’s disinformation campaigns.”

Another news organization receiving huge sums of money from Washington is ADN Cuba. Literally meaning “Cuba’s DNA,” the outlet has amassed a significant following online, boasting over 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, over 200,000 on Instagram, and over 1.3 million on Facebook. It describes itself as “an independent media outlet committed to freedom and democracy in Cuba.” Yet it is actually based in Spain. And it does not seem particularly committed to transparency about its funding.

What is clear, however, is that ADN Cuba has received millions of dollars from the U.S. national security state. In September 2024, USAID approved a $1.1 million grant to ADN Cuba – a gigantic amount of money for an organization that publishes barely one story per day on its website. This was on top of a $1.5 million allocation for the 2022-2024 period. Indeed, since 2020, ADN Cuba has received in excess of $3 million from USAID alone. This relationship is not disclosed to readers– even in stories directly covering USAID funding Cuban media– and is relegated to the footnotes of obscure U.S. government funding databases.

Diario de Cuba is another Spanish-based news outlet that publishes a wide variety of stories, all with one thing in common: a deep aversion to the Cuban government. The BBC describes it and CubaNet as key sources for impartial news, run by journalists who “report without censorship and to paint a broader picture on the country’s reality.”

And just like CubaNet, Diario de Cuba has received seven-figure funding from Washington. Between 2016 and 2020, Diario de Cuba received $1.3 million in USAID cash – almost as much as CubaNet over the same period. This generous funding has allowed it to reach a global audience, with over 600,000 followers on Facebook alone.

Regime Change Networks

The Central Intelligence Agency used to directly (and secretly) sponsor hundreds of media outlets across the world. However, after a series of scandals and more information about its nefarious activities came to public attention, Washington decided to outsource many of its most controversial foreign operations to organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Carl Gershman, the NED’s longtime president, said, explaining the 1983 decision to create his organization. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein agreed: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he told The Washington Post.

Under the guise of democracy promotion and human rights, the U.S. government channels money to political and social groups across the world in order to maximize its strategic goals, including regime change.

In recent years, the U.S. has used the twin organizations of the NED and USAID to bankroll anti-government protests in Hong Kong, to attempt a color revolution in Belarus, to overthrow the government of Ukraine in 2014, and to organize riots across Iran earlier this year.

In Cuba, the NED and USAID played a critical role in organizing a (failed) uprising against the government in 2021. USAID in particular spent millions of dollars funding, organizing and promoting the San Isidro Movement – a collective of musicians, artists, and journalists– to lead a counter-revolution on the island.

San Isidro members were at the forefront of a wave of nationwide protests that July. The demonstrations were immediately signal boosted by Western corporate media, top celebrities, and U.S. politicians, including President Biden. Neitzens were flooded with the astroturfed “SOS Cuba” campaign, that trended across the Internet for days.

In the end, however, the coordinated efforts of the U.S. failed to convince ordinary Cubans to take to the streets, and the movement quickly petered out.

Esteban Rodríguez, a key member of the San Isidro movement, is a producer at ADN Cuba.

When U.S. Money Is Paused, “Independent” Media Immediately Collapse

The importance of U.S. government money to the survival and operations of these outlets was underlined early last year when the Trump administration chose to freeze funding to USAID and the NED. Announcing the decision, Elon Musk, then head of the Department of Government Efficiency, described USAID in particular as a “viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.”

The effect on Cuban media was immediate. As soon as the money stopped flowing, dozens of organizations faced immediate liquidation. CubaNet published an emergency editorial asking readers to make up the shortfall. “We are facing an unexpected challenge: the suspension of key funding that sustained part of our work.” they wrote; “If you value our work and believe in keeping the truth alive, we ask for your support.” “Without [USAID] funds, it will be extremely difficult to continue,” CubaNet director Roberto Hechavarría Pilia added.

Diario de Cuba was in similarly dire straits. Its director, Pablo Díaz Espí, noted that “aid to independent journalism from the government of the United States has been suspended, which makes our work more difficult,” asking readers to donate.

Musk’s decision accidentally revealed a sprawling network of over 6,200 reporters and nearly 1,000 outlets worldwide that were quietly being trained, supported, and bankrolled by the CIA front, all under the banner of promoting “independent” media and freedom of information.

Another supposedly independent Cuban outlet plunged into crisis was El Toque (The Touch). Founded in 2014 and receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NED, El Toque publishes in Spanish and English, and attempts to manipulate the exchange rates in Cuba.

The funding cut hit them badly, with editors announcing that they would immediately have to lay off half their staff (15 people) and stop working with dozens of freelancers, while looking for alternative funding sources.

El Estornudo (The Sneeze), is also generously financed by NED. In 2021 alone, the endowment awarded the investigative journalism outlet $180,000. It also receives copious support from the Open Society Foundation, although it insists that none of this U.S. money comes with any strings attached or affects its output.

While Western media often portray the Cuban media landscape as a David-and-Goliath fight between plucky independent media facing repression, and a sprawling state-sponsored propaganda apparatus, the gigantic sums handed out to these “underdogs” make them by far and away the best funded outlets on the island. A 2023 Guardian article, for instance, profiled 24-year-old photojournalist Pedro Sosa, who worked for both El Toque and El Estornudo. It presented the pair as “offer[ing] real reporting over stodgy state media” and journalists as poor and vulnerable truth tellers standing up for “freedom,” and facing a “crackdown” from the state.

But it also let slip that working for U.S.-backed media is not as bad a career move as portrayed, and is, in fact, an extremely lucrative profession. It casually mentions that salaries at tiny El Toque are ten times that of even the most senior journalists working in Cuban state media. In reality, then, these oppressed free speech warriors are actually some of the richest individuals on the entire island, thanks to the power of the U.S. dollar, which pays them handsomely to produce a constant stream of anti-government news.

In the end, the U.S.-backed outlets need not have worried, and NED and USAID funding resumed after some restructuring.

Jobs For the Boys

Unlike the rest of the journalism industry, workers at Radio and TV Martí enjoy strong job security and six-figure wages, despite the fact that the Cuban government is able to jam and block many of their broadcasts from reaching Cuba, meaning precious few people consume its content.

Since its creation, Washington has spent at least $800 million on Radio and TV Martí.

The outlets profiled make up only a small portion of the network of anti-government media being funded by the United States. Most of the recipients of American money remain anonymous – a decision taken in part to hide their identities and preserve their credibility inside Cuba.

The National Endowment for Democracy considers Cuba a “long-standing priority,” and is currently officially funding 32 separate projects on the island.

Media related grants include one $80,000 project titled “Strengthening Access to Information,” which promises to:

“[E]nhance access to information and promote critical thinking, the organization will produce daily reporting and analysis across various formats, providing independent perspectives on issues affecting citizens’ daily lives, including freedom of expression, public safety, human rights, and other pressing social concerns.”

Another $115,000 grant, titled “Expanding Access to Uncensored Media” notes that it will:

“[P]romote independent information, the organization will provide narrative journalism on censored topics, conduct investigations, and produce in-depth articles, photo essays, and opinion pieces while strengthening the media’s operational capacity.”

Thirty-one of the thirty-two projects hide the recipient’s name and identification, meaning that those groups working with the CIA cutout organization are generally only ever identified if they advertise this relationship, or, like when U.S. money was temporarily halted in 2025, they call for help.

Two of these bodies include The Observatorio Cubano de Derechos Humanos (Cuban Observatory of Human Rights, or OCDH) and lawyers’ group, Cubalex.

Both groups produce reports denouncing the Cuban government, and are regularly cited as impartial authorities on human rights on the island in Western outlets, such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post. But what readers are not told is that both organizations are bankrolled by the U.S. national security state.

Records show that USAID has given almost $1.5 million to the OCDH. NED support, meanwhile, was crucial to Cubalex’s inception in 2010, and Washington continues to pay its staff wages to this day. As the company’s executive director, Laritza Diversent said last year,

“Without the support of National Endowment for Democracy, Cubalex would not have existed; to do the work we do requires resources. For 14 years, NED has been supporting us. Last October, after trying a lot of times, we [also] achieved a state Department grant.”

Thus, there is barely a corner of the anti-government Cuban opposition that has not been reached by U.S. money, either through government organizations such as the NED or USAID, or through institutions such as the Ford Foundation and Open Societies Foundation, which have historically performed a similar role in promoting American interests abroad.

Many of these groups are headquartered in South Florida, where U.S. government money is helping to subsidize thousands of jobs for the Cuban-American community. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that a significant part of Miami economy is propped by taxpayer money funding counter-revolutionary forces. Ironic, considering that conservative Cubans often vehemently object to government welfare programs in both the U.S. and Cuba.

Digital Bombardment

In 2010, a new social media and messaging app, Zunzuneo, took Cuba by storm. From nowhere, it went viral, picking up tens of thousands of users – a very large number for the time on such an internet-sparse island.

None of its users, however, were aware that the platform had been secretly created by USAID in order to promote regime change. Their plan was to first provide an excellent service that would capture the market, then to slowly drip feed Cubans anti-government messaging, and finally to direct them to join “smart mobs”, aimed at triggering a color revolution.

In an effort to hide its ownership of the project, the U.S. government held a secret meeting with Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, aimed at getting him to invest in the project. It is unclear to what extent, if any, Dorsey helped, as he has declined to speak on the matter.

Zunzuneo was abruptly shut down in 2012, perhaps because the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (which oversees TV and Radio Marti) had already created a new program called Piramideo.

Piramideo marketed itself as an app that allowed Cubans to receive world news for free, and without censorship. Almost immediately, however, locals reported being deluged with fake news about anti-government protests that never happened. Piramideo was shut down in 2015, after reporting on U.S. government meddling in Cuba caused a scandal and diplomatic embarrassment.

Today, however, with Cubans increasingly using American social media apps, this kind of subterfuge is largely unnecessary, as it can be done out in the open. During the 2021 San Isidro protests, apps such as Instagram and Twitter were openly participating in the attempt to overthrow the government, taking no action against a massive boom of clearly fake bot accounts parroting the exact same messages (down to the typos) and using the same astroturfed hashtag. Twitter’s editorial team even placed the protests – which drew barely a few thousand people into the streets nationwide – at the top of its “What’s Happening” for over 24 hours, meaning that every user worldwide would be notified. The failed putsch has come to be known as the “Bay of Tweets.”

Unending War on Cuba

In October, for the 33rd consecutive year, the United Nations voted overwhelmingly (165-7) to call for an end to the American blockade against Cuba. This economic war was established by the Eisenhower administration, in response to the Cuban Revolution of 1959, which overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista.

These illegal unilateral coercive measures, which an internal U.S. government memo states are designed to “decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government,” cost Cuba billions every year, and severely impede its development.

The U.S. attempted to invade Cuba in 1961, and brought the world to the brink of annihilation during the subsequent Cuban missile crisis. It reportedly attempted to kill its leader Fidel Castro hundreds of times, and carried out waves of terror attacks against the country, including using biological weapons on the island.

Successive administrations continued the economic war against Cuba, which was ramped up after the fall of the Soviet Union. But the Trump State Department, run by Cuban-American Marco Rubio, has taken it to a new level, declaring the island to be one of its top priorities.

Trump himself has declared that Cuba is “next” on the list of countries being targeted for regime change. “We may stop by Cuba after we’re finished” with Iran he said last month.

In response, Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel said his country was ready to repel any U.S. invasion, as it did during the Bay of Pigs, stating:

“The moment is extremely challenging and calls upon us once again, as on April 16, 1961, to be ready to confront serious threats, including military aggression. We do not want it, but it is our duty to prepare to avoid it and, if it becomes inevitable, to defeat it.”

It is in this context that the U.S. government’s funding of a vast array of media outlets targeting Cuba should be seen; the media attack is just one facet of Washington’s multipronged approach to regime change.

Many of the organizations profiled here publish in English, and nearly all are used as supposedly credible sources of information on Cuba for Western corporate media, meaning that U.S. State Department narratives are laundered into the public consciousness through this network.

Many Cubans and Americans are completely unaware that their news about the island comes largely through a matrix of shady outlets quietly funded by the U.S. national security state via the NED and USAID. Their purpose is to keep up the flow of negative stories in order to soften the public up into accepting regime change on the island. After all, in war, truth is always the first casualty.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams. Follow Alan on Twitter for more of his work and commentary: @AlanRMacLeod.

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

3 CommentsMay 15th, 2026

Alan Macleod

What’s Hot

Hezbollah’s Cheap FPV Drones Are Making Israel’s High-Tech Military Obsolete

The Battle for Bint Jbeil: Israel Revisits A Symbolic Defeat As Resistance Holds The Line

Iranian Jewish Association Describe Israel as “Ominous Zionist Regime” After Israeli Strikes Destroy Historic Synagogue on Passover

US & Israel Bomb 307+ Medical Facilities in Iran Carrying on Long Tradition of Targeting Medical Workers

Hezbollah Destroys 50 Israeli Merkava Tanks in Three Weeks As Israel Fails to Occupy South Lebanon

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | media, SOUTH AMERICA, USA | Leave a comment

The Israelization of the United States Military Is Proceeding. “Where and How Will it All End? Ask Donald Trump!”

By Philip Giraldi, Global Research, June 02, 2026, https://www.globalresearch.ca/israelization-united-states-military/5928401

Thank You Congress and President Trump!

Few Americans know the history of how Israel’s “wag the dog” relationship with the United States developed.

Israel’s 1967 successful war against its neighbors demonstrated to military planners in Washington how a qualitative edge in weapons could enable a small country to resist much larger and seemingly more powerful adversaries. Israel was largely supplied with French weapons at the time that reportedly out-performed the Russian equipment in the hands of Syria and Egypt.

As a consequence, in 1968, with strong support from a heavily lobbied Congress, Zionist influenced US President Lyndon B Johnson approved the hitherto blocked sale of F-4 Phantom fighters to Israel, establishing the precedent for continuing US support of Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, generally referred to by the acronym QME, over its Arab and Christian neighbors.

Five years later, in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the United States and Israel came to an understanding whereby they tacitly adopted the doctrine of active US maintenance of Israel’s QME. After that war, the United States also quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel, effectively replacing France as Israel’s largest arms supplier.

This de facto commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge was subsequently made explicit by President Ronald Reagan and has been confirmed by every US administration since that time. Substantial supplementary weapons shipments under Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump have even supported Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its attacks on non-threatening Syria and Lebanon. This policy was in part justified initially based on a US adoption of the Cold War strategy of opposing Arab client states of the Soviet Union and was also due to the growing power of Israel’s US Lobby. Today, Israel is by far the largest recipient of US foreign military aid, receiving $3 billion per year guaranteed plus many extra weapons in support of specific needs and initiatives which many have linked to the enablement of a policy of systematic aggression by Israel and the commission of war crimes.

So what was once seen as a form of security guarantee for Israel has now become a monster, with Israel using the support provided by the relationship to initiate wars against its neighbors, to include most recently Lebanon, Syria and Iran. The White House and Congress have invariably supplied Israel with all the weapons it seeks as well as providing money for its economy and political support in international organizations like the United Nations. Israel’s Lobby, regarded as the most powerful foreign policy lobby deployed against Congress and the White House, has used its access to power to constantly expand its role in weapons development to satisfy what Israel sees as threats against it. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become the dominant partner in the relationship, including regarding the decision making about war and peace.

Currently Israel and its friends in Washington are moving to complete integration of many aspects of how our military operates at various levels with Israeli counterparts. No other US “ally,” which the Jewish state is not technically, including NATO members, has anything like this access and ability to influence developments.

Those who think Israel has too much power have a point as it is even strong enough to shut down First Amendment Freedom of Speech, both by suppressing or even criminalizing what it regards as criticism of itself. Few Americans are aware that even though Israel is widely known to be a major nuclear weapons power, members of the US government are not allowed to state that that is the case because it would embarrass the Jewish state and plausibly trigger legal restrictions on the weapons that the US could supply it with. And the irony is that Israel only has the weapons because it stole the nuclear fuel and timers from the United States. President John F Kennedy tried to stop the nuclear weapons program and many believe he was assassinated by Israel as a result!

And the one-way street benefitting Israel gets worse! Per the story that I reported recently, Congress is considering passing a bill that will give Americans serving in the Israeli army US government provided full benefits like education, jobs and medical care just as if they had been serving in the United States military. Indeed, the legislation currently working its way through Congress would, for the first time in American history, treat service in a foreign army both legally and in practice as equivalent to service in the US armed forces — but only where that foreign army is Israeli. House Resolution 8445, sponsored by Republican Congressmen Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania and Max Miller of Ohio, would amend existing legislation so that Americans who enlist in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) are treated “in the same manner as service in the uniformed services” of the US. Not surprisingly, many of the “Americans” involved are also dual national Israeli citizens. If the changes come into effect the result will be to considerably and uniquely narrow the gap between Israel and the US in terms of rights and benefits but with benefits going only in one direction, i.e. to serve Israeli interests and with the US taxpayer paying the bill!

In addition to that, the most recent US government gift to Israel sponsored by the United States House of Representatives, a misnomer as the House is actually the Knesset West, is the national Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 released on May 13^th. Section 224 of the House version of the Act entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” integrates “US-Israeli military research and development, co-production of weapons systems, licensing agreements, AI, directed energy, data integration, and missile defense.” It creates the framework for “bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of US-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation.”

The result is to completely connect the functionality of the US military with that of the Israeli military. The implementation of the agreement would arguably do more to irreversibly link the US military to the Israeli military than the $200 billion in military assistance Israel has received from the United States since its founding in 1948.

Critics note how Section 224 would combine the US and Israeli defense sectors in many areas particularly vital to the battlefields of the future, including autonomous systems and cyberwarfare. It would also greatly increase Israeli influence over the US beyond what it already has through the Israel Lobby and its dominance of the mainstream media. It would enable Israel to expand or start new co-production facilities like it already has in a number of states, giving the Israeli government additional leverage through providing jobs in the US, thereby securing friends in Congress whose districts are affected. The result could well be a White House backed by Congress that is even more prone to go to war based on the Eretz “Greater” Israel fantasies of people like Netanyahu and his insane Security Chief Itamar Ben-Gvir.

A persistently pro-Zionist Congress has accomplished this shift in the relationship quietly, almost secretly. Though it has been done clearly channeling through the White House and Netanyahu’s leadership, it has been obtained without the knowledge and consent of the American people to whom the US government is allegedly responsible. And, of course, all the integration expenses will be borne by the US taxpayer. Interestingly, of course, it should also be noted that the integration of the US military with that of Israel comes at a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in and dislike of the Israeli government. That is perhaps no coincidence as Netanyahu seeks to create unbreakable legal and administrative ties between the two countries though with little in the way of obligations on the part of Israel.

Ben Freeman at the Quincy Institute observes how

“The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent. And this all comes at a time when the Israeli military has repeatedly used U.S. weapons in strikes that have violated international humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the US itself) in the Trump administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.”

So there you have it. The United States is on a downward spiral engineered by its own government in collusion with a tiny apartheid state that specializes in crimes including torture, genocide and assorted other offenses against humanity.

Where and how will it all end?

Ask Donald Trump!

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Starve, Strangle, Invade: How Washington’s Siege of Cuba Is Pushing a Nation to the Brink

What makes the situation particularly tragic, Benjamin argued, is Cuba’s long history of providing medical assistance to the world. She recalled being treated by Cuban doctors while working in Africa and noted that Cuba has trained physicians and deployed medical missions across dozens of countries. Even under severe economic constraints, Cuba has maintained a reputation for international medical solidarity that far exceeds what might be expected from a small island nation.

Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.

June 3, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/03/starve-strangle-invade-how-washingtons-siege-of-cuba-is-pushing-a-nation-to-the-brink/

Medea Benjamin warns that a decades-long economic war against Cuba has escalated into what she calls a “medieval siege,” as fuel shortages cripple hospitals, food systems and daily life while U.S. officials openly discuss military options.

For more than six decades, Washington has tried to force Cuba to its knees. Today, according to peace activist Medea Benjamin, that campaign has reached a new and dangerous stage. Fuel shipments have been blocked, foreign companies threatened, humanitarian aid obstructed and military rhetoric intensified, creating what Benjamin describes as a modern-day siege designed to break the Cuban economy and the Cuban people alike.

In this wide-ranging conversation with Dr. Margaret Flowers, Benjamin argues that the crisis unfolding on the island is not the result of natural disaster or governmental incompetence, but of deliberate U.S. policy. She details how shortages of fuel have crippled transportation, disrupted hospitals, spoiled food supplies and contributed to worsening public health conditions. The goal, she says, remains largely unchanged from the earliest days of the Cold War: create enough hardship that Cubans turn against their government.

But the discussion goes beyond Cuba. Benjamin places the escalating pressure on Havana within a broader pattern of U.S. foreign policy — one that relies on sanctions, coercion and military power to maintain global influence even as that influence declines. From Venezuela and Iran to Palestine and beyond, she argues that economic warfare has become a preferred tool of empire, inflicting immense humanitarian costs while remaining largely invisible to the American public.

At a moment when reports of possible military action against Cuba are once again circulating, Benjamin issues a stark warning: what is happening in Cuba today is not simply a foreign policy dispute. It is a test of whether the United States will continue down a path of punishment, intervention and regime change, or whether ordinary people can build enough pressure to choose diplomacy, solidarity and peace instead.

For more than sixty years, the United States has sought to isolate, punish and ultimately reshape Cuba through economic warfare. Yet according to longtime peace activist and CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin, what is happening today goes far beyond the familiar story of sanctions and diplomatic hostility. Speaking with Margaret Flowers on Clearing the FOG, Benjamin described a rapidly escalating campaign that she says has pushed Cuba into a humanitarian emergency while raising fears that Washington could be laying the groundwork for direct military intervention.

Benjamin did not mince words when describing current U.S. policy.

“I struggle to find the correct adjective,” she said. “It is so horrific that there’s almost no words.” What began decades ago as an attempt to create economic pressure on Cuba has, in her view, evolved into something far more extreme: a policy designed to systematically cut off every possible source of fuel, trade, investment and survival.

The consequences are visible throughout Cuban society.

According to Benjamin, the island is facing severe fuel shortages that have crippled transportation, disrupted industrial production and created rolling blackouts that affect nearly every aspect of daily life. Hospitals struggle to maintain services. Refrigerators stop working, causing food to spoil. Public transportation becomes unreliable or nonexistent. Families living in apartment buildings face interruptions in water supplies because pumps cannot operate consistently without electricity.

Perhaps most alarming, Benjamin pointed to rising infant mortality rates as evidence of a public health crisis that she believes is directly connected to the tightening blockade. Cuba once boasted one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Western Hemisphere, often outperforming wealthier nations including the United States. That achievement, she warned, is now being undermined by shortages of medicine, medical equipment and basic necessities.

Yet today, she says, the country that has helped save lives around the globe is struggling to obtain the fuel and medical supplies needed to care for its own people.

At the center of the crisis is oil.

Benjamin explained that the Trump administration has effectively declared that “not one drop of oil” should reach Cuba. Since January, she said, only a single Russian tanker has successfully delivered oil to the island, while other shipments have reportedly been pressured, delayed or canceled. Countries that might normally assist Cuba have faced threats of sanctions, tariffs or other forms of retaliation from Washington.

The blockade’s reach extends beyond governments. New sanctions target foreign companies operating in key Cuban sectors such as energy and mining. Benjamin cited the example of a Canadian company that had worked in Cuba for decades but is now severing ties under mounting U.S. pressure. The strategy, she argued, is designed not merely to isolate Cuba economically but to make normal commerce virtually impossible.

China has attempted to provide assistance, sending rice and helping construct solar energy projects, while solidarity groups continue delivering humanitarian aid. But Benjamin stressed that food aid alone cannot solve the crisis. Without sufficient fuel, transportation networks collapse, power grids remain unstable and basic economic activity becomes impossible.

The contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy became especially clear when Flowers asked about Washington’s proposal to provide roughly $100 million in assistance to Cuba through selected organizations.

Benjamin called the offer deeply hypocritical.

The economic damage caused by sanctions, she argued, amounts to billions of dollars annually. Offering a fraction of that amount while continuing the policies responsible for the suffering is akin to creating a crisis and then presenting oneself as the rescuer. She noted that Cuban officials estimated the proposed aid represented only a tiny portion of what sanctions cost the country.

While humanitarian groups continue delivering food and medicine under limited exemptions to U.S. sanctions, Benjamin warned that aid alone cannot address the scale of the crisis. Organizations including CODEPINK, Global Exchange, Global Health Partners and others have mobilized delegations and donations, but they are attempting to fill a gap created by a policy that deliberately restricts Cuba’s access to international trade and finance.

More troubling still is the growing discussion of military action.

Benjamin pointed to reports that U.S. military assets have been repositioned in the Caribbean and that officials connected to Southern Command have indicated preparations exist for a possible operation against Cuba. While she acknowledged uncertainty about whether Washington intends a full-scale invasion, targeted regime-change operation or continued economic strangulation, she argued that the rhetoric itself creates instability and fear.

She believes advocates of regime change are hoping that worsening conditions will eventually provoke unrest and political upheaval on the island.

The recent U.S. indictment of Raul Castro, now 94 years old, further fuels those concerns. Benjamin argued that reviving a decades-old case involving the “Brothers to the Rescue” aircraft serves less as a legal action than as a political pretext. She compared it to earlier efforts to criminalize leaders in other targeted countries before pursuing broader interventionist objectives.

The larger issue, however, extends far beyond Cuba.

Throughout the interview, Benjamin repeatedly returned to a theme that has defined much of her activism: the connection between U.S. foreign policy and domestic inequality.

America’s military spending, she argued, continues to grow even as political leaders claim there is insufficient money for healthcare, affordable housing, education and other public needs. She pointed to a Pentagon budget that now exceeds one trillion dollars annually and questioned why basic social investments remain politically impossible while military expenditures expand almost without debate.

Benjamin also linked foreign intervention to migration, surveillance, policing and the erosion of civil liberties at home. The consequences of empire, she suggested, do not remain overseas. They eventually return to shape life inside the United States itself.

Yet despite her grim assessment of current events, Benjamin ended on a note of cautious optimism.

She argued that the global balance of power is shifting. Countries across the Global South are developing alternatives to U.S. dominance through new economic partnerships and institutions. China, BRICS nations and other emerging centers of influence are creating a world that is increasingly multipolar, reducing Washington’s ability to dictate outcomes unilaterally.

At home, Benjamin believes ordinary people must build new forms of solidarity and political engagement. She highlighted the “Summer of Peace and Love” initiative, which seeks to create community spaces for organizing, education, mutual aid and antiwar activism. Drawing inspiration from movements such as Occupy Wall Street, she argued that people need opportunities not only to protest existing systems but to model alternatives rooted in cooperation and democracy.

As the interview concluded, Benjamin delivered a straightforward message: Americans who oppose military escalation should pressure Congress to support measures that would block any invasion of Cuba and reject another chapter of interventionist foreign policy.

Whether one agrees with her analysis or not, the warning she offers is unmistakable. Cuba is not simply facing another round of sanctions. According to Benjamin, the island is confronting a coordinated campaign of economic suffocation whose human costs are already being measured in shortages, blackouts, deteriorating health conditions and growing uncertainty about what comes next. In a world already scarred by war and confrontation, she argues that the last thing the Caribbean needs is another conflict manufactured in Washington.

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, SOUTH AMERICA, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Startups Are in “Advanced Negotiations” to Buy Cold War Plutonium

While it seems like a win-win for nuclear waste cleanup and clean energy development in the United States, some critics are concerned about safety and security implications of the deal. Currently, this highly dangerous, weapons-grade material is kept in a highly regulated and secure environment. Selling it to energy companies would significantly compromise oversight. “The plan has generated debate and some unease among nonproliferation experts,” the New York Times reports. “If finalized, it would mark the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies.”

By Haley Zaremba – Jun 03, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Startups-Are-in-Advanced-Negotiations-to-Buy-Cold-War-Plutonium.html

The Trump administration is in “advanced negotiations” with nuclear startups, including Oklo, to convert more than 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium into commercial reactor fuel — the first time the U.S. government would make such material available to private companies.
The move is framed as a fix for a critical nuclear fuel supply chain bottleneck, with Russia controlling roughly half of global uranium conversion capacity and squeezing Western reactor development.
Nonproliferation experts are raising safety and security concerns, warning that moving weapons-grade material out of tightly controlled government facilities significantly reduces oversight.

As nuclear energy regains favor around the globe, competition for nuclear fuel is heating up. In an era of multiple and compounding energy crises driven by conflict, climate, and the power-hungry artificial intelligence boom, nuclear has resurfaced as a highly strategic option for building up energy security and independence for many nations around the world. But nuclear fuels supply chains are highly concentrated, and many of them are controlled by Russia, presenting critical geopolitical tradeoffs.

Today, there are only five plants in the world that operate large-scale uranium conversion, and half of that capacity is in the hands of the Kremlin, resulting in a critical resource bottleneck and geopolitical pain points. Accordingly, “U.S. nuclear energy faces fuel supply chain vulnerabilities, with tight uranium supplies, geopolitical risks, and rising costs threatening both existing reactors costs and advanced reactor development,” according to a January report from Stanford Energy.

It is therefore in the United States’ strategic interest to build up alternative nuclear fuel supply chains, preferably home- and friend-shored ones. But it’s a little late for the United States to get a foothold in alternative uranium markets, as Russia and China, which never saw a decline in their respective nuclear sectors, have already been cornering them for years.

“Russian and Chinese players have been very keen to secure access to resources in central Asia and Africa, creating a very aggressive competitive environment,” Benjamin Godwin at Prism Strategic Intelligence told the Financial Times last year.

The United States is taking steps to build up its own uranium supply chains, as the country is home to plentiful natural reserves of the 92nd element. But the country is also home to another vast reserve of nuclear fuel that is far more readily accessible — decades of stockpiled nuclear waste. Research into recycling spent nuclear fuel indicates that resource utilization could be boosted by a jaw-dropping 95 percent.

“Used nuclear fuel is an incredible untapped resource in the United States,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish told World Nuclear News back in February. “The Trump Administration is taking a common-sense approach to making sure we’re using our resources in the most efficient ways possible to secure American energy independence and fuel our economic growth.”

And now the Trump administration is looking to a new, and significantly more controversial, source of recycled nuclear fuel — cold-war era nuclear warheads. The government wants to convert weapons-grade plutonium into viable nuclear fuel as part of the Trump administration’s aim to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy.

The United States is sitting on more than 50 tons of plutonium left behind by nuclear weapons programs. The Department of Energy had previously planned to dilute and bury the hazardous material, but the Trump administration wants to give it new life in nuclear reactors and has entered into “advanced negotiations” with a handful of nuclear startups to begin the process of selling the plutonium for use as nuclear fuel.

“A lack of fuel is one of the biggest choke points in expanding nuclear power right now,” said Jacob DeWitte, the chief executive of Oklo, one of the companies in conversation with the Trump administration about acquiring plutonium to power its next-gen small nuclear reactors. “This will help us get more nuclear power online faster.”

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power Returns to the Forefront of Quebec’s Energy Debate

“It’s an industry that’s generally heavily subsidized by the government, because the private sector is less willing to take on these risks,” adds Jean-Pierre Finet. He points out that the majority of nuclear power plant construction projects, which typically span about a decade, exceed their scheduled timelines and budgets. “Public funds are used to mitigate the risks of these projects,” he notes, adding that customers are then called upon to absorb the excess costs.

Nuclear power continues to polarize the debate. Here’s why.

French-language article, by Juliane C Lelarge, Le Devoir, June 3 2026

As Ottawa accelerates its nuclear development, Quebec evaluates various energy scenarios, and new Liberal leader Charles Milliard says he is open to the sector. Nuclear power is resurfacing in the public debate. Presented by its supporters as a carbon-free solution to meet growing electricity demand, nuclear power continues to polarize the debate. Here’s why.

Why is there a resurgence of interest in nuclear power?

The electrification of society and the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels, particularly in transportation and buildings, are expected to lead to a marked increase in electricity demand over the coming years, explains Karim Zaghib, a professor of chemical engineering at Concordia University and former director of research at Hydro-Québec. He also highlights the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and data centers, which is likely to exacerbate this pressure.

Current geopolitical instability and aspirations for energy independence are also fueling a global resurgence in the nuclear industry. And the development of new technologies, such as small modular reactors, is reinforcing this trend, although some experts are calling for caution.

This interest was particularly evident in the preliminary drafts of the Integrated Energy Resources Management Plan (PGIRE), published in March, which explores a scenario involving a return to nuclear power, even though many industry stakeholders question the influences behind this inclusion.

“We know, for example, that in Quebec, the firm AtkinsRéalis [formerly known as SNC-Lavalun] is lobbying in this direction. There are also American corporations exerting pressure,” explains Jean-Pierre Finet, an analyst with the Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie.

Does nuclear energy have advantages?

Nuclear power is among the energy sources with the lowest CO2 emissions over its entire life cycle, on a par with wind and hydroelectric power. “Compared to wind power, it also has the advantage of being quieter and having no significant impact on the landscape or land use,” explains Karim Zaghib, who notes that Quebec’s geography—and its multitude of waterways—is well-suited to the installation of power plants.

According to Guy Marleau, a professor in the Department of Engineering Physics at Polytechnique Montréal, nuclear infrastructure also has a much longer lifespan: 60 years for a power plant, compared to an average of 12 years for a wind turbine. The electricity production of a nuclear power plant is also incomparable to that of renewable energy sources, he notes.

Karim Zaghib views nuclear power as a complement to wind and solar energy, and stresses the importance of diversifying energy sources to ensure the grid’s resilience. This is because nuclear power provides a more stable baseload energy supply, he explains.

In Jean-Pierre Finet’s view, however, nuclear power’s inflexibility is a disadvantage. “With hydroelectric power, we can adapt to demand. With nuclear, it’s like having the pedal to the metal all the time,” he explains, noting that energy produced during periods of low demand is sold at a low price, or even at a loss. “That’s why we buy a lot of low-cost energy from Ontario, which sometimes has no choice but to offload it.” Advances in energy storage also put the issue of renewable energy’s intermittency into perspective, he says.

“Nuclear power is sometimes seen as an alternative for more climate-skeptical stakeholders who reject renewables on principle,” notes Philippe Gauthier, an energy analyst at the Rivières Foundation, citing the energy strategy implemented by the Trump administration in the United States as an example.

What would reinvesting in the sector in Quebec entail?

“It would be extremely expensive,” Philippe Gauthier states right off the bat, noting that nuclear development is one of the most costly forms of energy production.

Another challenge: Quebec’s nuclear expertise is disappearing. “To shut down the Gentilly plants, Hydro-Québec had to reach out to its retirees, who were the only ones left with that expertise,” recalls Philippe Gauthier. This lack of expertise makes the industry still very much an American one, asserts Jean-Pierre Finet, who rejects the argument for energy sovereignty. He points out that Canada’s largest federally-owned nuclear facilities, the Chalk River Laboratories, have been managed since 2025 by a private American consortium, some of whose largest companies are linked to the U.S. defense sector.

Is the issue of safety still relevant today?

“Today, safety is a given,” argues Karim Zaghib, noting that accidents are now very rare. The issue that remains a subject of debate is radioactive waste. “With our current drilling capabilities, we’re able to bury it tens of kilometers underground,” says the researcher.

“The waste issue is far from resolved,” counters Jean-Pierre Finet. He cites as an example the discharge of toxic wastewater from the Chalk River facilities into the Ottawa River in 2024. The nuclear project, which in recent weeks received a federal grant of $2.2 billion, calls for the burial of large quantities of radioactive waste near the surface. This part of the project is the subject of litigation, including with the Anishinaabe community of Kebaowek, which won a victory on this matter on May 28 in the Federal Court of Appeal.

More broadly, experts criticize the nuclear industry for a real lack of transparency. “The current oversight process is practically nonexistent,” laments Philippe Gauthier, who believes the ties between the industry and regulatory bodies are too close. He cites as an example the case of the 62.8 tons of irradiated uranium fuel that was transported in secret on Quebec’s roads in the summer of 2025.

Several experts interviewed believe that the global trend toward a return to nuclear energy must also be analyzed in light of the phenomenon of nuclear rearmament. “The military industry needs the civilian industry to develop its expertise,” explains Philippe Gauthier. “We cannot ignore the fact that military applications are still part of the nuclear equation.”

Is the development of nuclear power part of a transition strategy?

“We must not confuse adding carbon-free generation with decarbonization,” explains Jean-Pierre Finet. “All we’ve done so far is add carbon-free generation without reducing the rest of our [fossil fuel] consumption, which doesn’t reduce GHG emissions. It’s mainly a pretext for further industrialization.”

According to him, the issue isn’t about increasing energy production, but about better managing its distribution and consumption, particularly through more efficient use and storage.

More broadly, experts are calling on governments to dare to talk about energy conservation. “It seems like we’re doing all this to avoid having to change our behaviors, and then our lifestyles. The extractivist approach is not sustainable,” argues Mr. Finet.

June 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

The atomic clock is ticking.

Western countries build far more slowly, when they build at all. The Darlington SMR is one of only six in the entire Western Hemisphere to begin construction in the past 40 years. Of those, only two, located in the U.S., completed construction, both spectacularly late.

A nuclear project’s schedule and cost are inextricably linked: Any delay will eat into contingencies, and, if sustained, will blow budgets to smithereens. Moreover, delays compound the already daunting challenge of financing the project.

even within the nuclear industry, many doubt SMRs can offer sufficient advantages to attract orders; the results of the first SMR in a G7 country could settle the matter.

Will Canada’s first new nuclear reactor in decades be built on time? Here’s how an Ontario utility’s promises stack up against the numbers

Matthew McClearn, The Globe and Mail, June 4, 2026, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-nuclear-reactor-ontario-power-generation-utility/

The race to build Canada’s first new nuclear reactor in more than three decades has officially begun on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

In late April, the Ontario government announced that the foundation of the building that will house the reactor had been lifted to its final resting place, down a 35-metre-deep vertical shaft, by one of the world’s largest crawler cranes. The foundation weighed more than 950 tonnes – heavier than three Airbus A380s, the government said.

With that, a clock started ticking.

As far as Ontario Power Generation is concerned, the Darlington small modular reactor, or SMR, has been under construction for about a year now. But according to nuclear industry bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and Mycle Schneider Consulting, which compile data on nuclear projects globally, construction officially begins with the placing of concrete for the foundation of the reactor building.

OPG and its partners – including reactor developer GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, construction company Aecon Group Inc., and architect-engineer AtkinsRéalis Group Inc. – have just four years and seven months to complete construction and connect the reactor to the grid, as promised, by the end of 2030. Once built, the reactor could supply enough electricity to power 300,000 homes. It’s a crucial first step for Ontario’s energy plans, which envision building many more reactors in the coming years.

Nuclear plants join high-speed rail, large bridges and tunnels, hydroelectric dams (think Site C) and major IT initiatives (think the federal Phoenix payroll system) on the list of complex engineering works that are highly likely to suffer lengthy delays. They’re akin to the Olympics for project managers; by promising the SMR in less than five years, OPG has effectively promised a gold medal.

Don’t let the “small” moniker fool you: The Darlington SMR is no minor undertaking. Lately, as many as 1,500 workers have been on-site on a typical work day.

OPG’s lengthy task list includes building the first-ever BWRX-300 reactor, a robust containment building to house it, a control building which will include the main control room, and another structure to house the turbine generator. It must also complete support structures for the other three planned units. They include a water cooling system complete with underground tunnels, and a switchyard.

According to an analysis of data from Mycle Schneider Consulting by The Globe and Mail, few reactors have been built in less than five years in recent history.

The fortunes of corporate executives, politicians, suppliers and even the nuclear industry itself depend on whether OPG’s team can demonstrate they are as exceptional as their political masters claim.

Why would completing a reactor in five years be difficult?

Canada’s nuclear industry finished building its last nuclear power reactor more than three decades ago. The 25 Candu reactors that started construction between 1958 and 1985 took an average of slightly longer than seven years to bring into commercial operations. Many of those reactors have been refurbished, which has reinvigorated Ontario’s nuclear industry. Even so, many of the skills required to build a plant from scratch have atrophied.

The closest Canadian analogue to the Darlington SMR might be Douglas Point, the earliest attempt to construct a commercial nuclear power plant. When work began in 1960 in Tiverton, Ont., Canada had limited experience building nuclear plants. Just like Douglas Point, the Darlington SMR is essentially a prototype. Douglas Point’s 200-megawatt output placed it in the same class. It took 8½ years to build.

Canada’s fastest build was Pickering-3, running from late 1967 to early 1972. Those years spanned a period when Ontario hit its stride building multiple reactors, but shows tight timelines were achievable back then.

How long has it taken to build nuclear plants globally?

China dominates modern reactor construction: According to Mycle Schneider Consulting data, 44 of the 75 reactors that began construction worldwide since 2016 are there. Yet few Chinese reactors are delivered within five years.

Boasting about modular construction techniques, American reactor developer Westinghouse promised it could build its AP1000 reactor in just 36 months. Four AP1000s eventually started construction in the U.S. in 2013. Two of them, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, took more than a decade each. The other two, V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3, in South Carolina, were abandoned after roughly four years; efforts to restart their construction are now under way.

The only reactor attempted in France so far this century, Flamanville-3, was planned to take a little more than four years. It took 17. The only two reactors started in the United Kingdom since 2016 were at the Hinkley Point station, Britain’s largest nuclear power site; they’re approaching 12 years and counting, still under construction.

Why are nuclear builds so frequently delayed?

Nuclear projects face delays for numerous reasons. But some cardinal sins occur regularly, such as proceeding without a complete set of detailed blueprints.

The two V.C. Summer units in South Carolina, for example, began construction when engineering designs were incomplete. Drawings often turned out to be not constructible, sending designs back to the drawing board. Those changes, in turn, led to more work for subcontractors, which provoked disputes over who’d pay the resulting costs. Any changes also had to be approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

A report by Jean-Martin Folz, former head of French automaker Peugeot, found that construction at France’s Flamanville-3 also began without a complete set of validated plans. The result was that the plant’s design continuously changed during construction, and lots of work had to be redone.
Quality control is another common stumbling block. At Flamanville-3, Mr. Folz catalogued a wide range of defects including poor welds and badly-manufactured forged components. Defects can lead to a cycle of delays, rework and disputes.

Once delays start piling up, it’s hard to recover. At Flamanville, Mr. Folz noted that Électricité de France tried to accelerate work schedules to get back on track. That only led to other problems, leading to further rework and delays, not to mention overloaded and demoralized crews.

After years of poor performance, the construction of the Vogtle units in Georgia was placed under new management. Don Grace was an engineer hired by the Georgia Public Service Commission to evaluate the project’s progress. During testimony in 2022, he explained that the new proponents “prematurely” started testing equipment at the plant, even as construction continued.

The problem? Mr. Grace said it resulted in too many workers toiling alongside one another on compressed timetables – a problem dubbed “stacking of crafts.” That was exacerbated by management’s tendency to defer planned work to achieve near-term milestones that provided “an inaccurate impression of having made significant progress.”

Mr. Grace put it this way: “The scope of work for a new nuclear plant is so large, and how the proper scoping and sequencing of all the activities comes together is highly important.”

What’s behind OPG’s confidence?

OPG believes the BWRX-300, while being first of its kind, is the simplest-ever boiling water reactor, a mature American-designed technology. There are more than 100 of them operating worldwide, so many of its basic principles have been demonstrated before.

OPG also counts on modular construction techniques to speed things up. The Darlington SMR’s base mat is a good example: It is comprised of 56 sections that were manufactured off-site. Upon delivery to Darlington, they were welded together in a special building with a retractable roof, then lifted into place by crane. In theory, this should be more efficient than assembling a warren of rebar, erecting forms and then pouring huge volumes of concrete.

“Many components will be pre-assembled offsite into larger modules and lifted into place – such as skid-mounted systems and pre-assembled piping – reducing onsite duration and risk,” wrote OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly in a written response to questions.

OPG is also taking an off-the-shelf approach wherever possible. For example, the plant’s turbine and generator are to be the same standard units already proven in natural gas plants.

And OPG is using what it calls an “integrated project delivery contract model,” which it says will encourage partners to collaborate, share risks and rewards, and maximize efficiency. Previous nuclear projects have demonstrated that how contracts are written, and how the various stakeholders work together, matters a great deal – especially when unforeseen challenges arise.

Of note, Mr. Kelly wrote that the plant’s design was completed in December.

What’s at stake?

Most immediately, the fate of the Darlington SMR. A nuclear project’s schedule and cost are inextricably linked: Any delay will eat into contingencies, and, if sustained, will blow budgets to smithereens. Moreover, delays compound the already daunting challenge of financing the project: Owners must wait that much longer to start earning revenue by generating electricity.

Though contracts haven’t been signed yet, Ontario has already committed to build three more BWRX-300s. Its existing nuclear plants all have four identical reactors, an approach that has demonstrated significant benefits. An $8-billion one-off lemon would be a costly miss.

The Darlington SMR is the signature project of Nicole Butcher, who assumed OPG’s top job in early 2025. Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce, who approved it, has bet heavily on OPG’s prowess, insisting the utility stands alone in building on-time and on-budget.

Mr. Lecce’s entire vision for Ontario’s electricity hinges on that statement being true. His plan involves a major expansion of nuclear power, in which the SMR would be followed by two much larger projects, the combined cost of which would likely be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Failure to deliver the comparatively modest Darlington SMR might compel a rethink.

Similarly, the federal government has invested considerable political and financial capital in SMRs. Yet of all the research clusters and demonstration units promised over the past decade, the Darlington SMR is just about the only one still standing. Ottawa has provided billions of dollars in financing, thus becoming a substantial minority owner in the project, and referred it to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new Major Projects Office.

Other utilities around the world have expressed interest in building their own BWRX-300s. More than 100 Canadian companies have signed agreements to provide components and services for the Darlington SMR; successful delivery could lead to contracts if global utilities feel bold enough to build their own.

SMRs represent a promising but untested approach to manufacturing reactors – one that emphasizes simplification and mass production. Whereas large reactors are purchased almost exclusively by resource-rich utilities, SMRs are marketed as being cheaper and quicker to build – and thus suitable for a broader range of customers. Yet even within the nuclear industry, many doubt SMRs can offer sufficient advantages to attract orders; the results of the first SMR in a G7 country could settle the matter.

And that’s why the Darlington SMR is one of the most important nuclear projects worldwide.

No pressure.

June 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, technology | Leave a comment

The Disappearing Aid Check: The Future of US–Israel Defense Support

What top Israeli officials — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — are quietly backing is not a reduction in American support, but a reorganization of it: shifting billions in resources from State Department–administered foreign aid grants into general Pentagon procurement accounts, industrial partnerships, and sustainment pipelines. The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.

Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Steven Simon, May 26, 2026

Executive Summary

The United States and Israel are now approaching the renegotiation of their 10-year defense Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU. Israeli officials have said they want to phase out US military grant aid — a position that sounds like a step toward ending US military assistance to Israel. It is not.

Since fiscal year 2019, the United States has provided $3.3 billion per year in Foreign Military Financing, or FMF, grants to Israel, plus an additional $500 million per year for missile defense cooperation. About 25 percent of this FMF grant money has gone toward offshore procurement, or OSP, funds allocated to Israel to spend domestically on its own defense industry and military equipment. Effectively, it is a US subsidy for Israel’s military industrial complex.

This OSP precedent is slated to end with the expiration of the current MOU. This has fueled Israeli proposals to phase out FMF grants altogether, replacing them with a relationship centered on US–Israeli defense integration. This would embed Israeli firms and Israeli–origin intellectual property inside larger Pentagon programs and production. Unlike the foreign assistance process, the military procurement framework would not be subject to the political scrutiny of Congress and the State Department, but would be evaluated on bureaucratic criteria such as cost, readiness, and capability. This shift would likely be justified by reframing US support not as a handout to Israel, but as an investment in American military readiness, industrial capacity, and jobs.

At a time when the US–Israel relationship should be scrutinized in light of Israeli actions that run counter to US interests, such a structural shift would be counterproductive. To avoid this outcome, any procurement-centered relationship should meet these three basic requirements:

Clear metrics to assess whether Israeli participation in Pentagon programs serves US defense requirements.
Program-level transparency regarding the existence, scale, cost, and rationale of each procurement program.
Cross-committee coordination in Congress to ensure visibility and accountability to non-military congressional oversight committees.

The current deal — and why it is running out of road

This brief explains what the shift in US aid for Israel means: where the money actually goes, who controls it, who benefits, and why the standard debate about ending aid misses the consequential change.¹……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What “ending aid” actually means

…………………………………. ending aid in this context does not mean ending US financial support for Israel’s military and defense sector. It means changing the institutional form through which that support is delivered. The concept, in effect, is not to reduce support for Israel’s military; it is to shift it from the foreign-operations budget and the State Department’s oversight to the Pentagon’s procurement, research and development, industrial base, and sustainment machinery…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The new architecture — how money moves in a defense-industrial model

To understand what replaces the grant, it helps to understand how the Pentagon actually spends money on defense cooperation, and why that process looks so different from foreign aid…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Conclusion — quieter does not mean smaller

The post-2028 US–Israel defense relationship will likely be recast to reduce its political profile. The annual aid vote, one of the most predictably contentious moments in future US foreign-policy debates, may fade away, replaced by procurement decisions that attract little public attention and even less organized opposition. Israeli officials will be able to claim, accurately in formal terms, that Israel no longer receives American aid. American officials will be able to defend the spending as investment in US readiness rather than largesse to a foreign partner…………………………………………………….

For observers trying to understand US–Israel relations, the practical implication is methodological. The aid vote is no longer the right place to look. Instead, the key data will be located in the procurement budget, industrial-base investments, sustainment pipeline, IP licensing arrangements, and workshare provisions. The consequential decisions will be made in those domains.

Annex: Key terms and reference figures………………………………https://quincyinst.org/research/the-disappearing-aid-check-the-future-of-us-israel-defense-support/?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_1_21_2025_13_26_COPY_01)&mc_cid=3131e3a216#h-annex-key-terms-and-reference-figures

June 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump blasts Netanyahu as Iran Talks Stall over Beirut

Juan Cole, 06/02/2026, https://www.juancole.com/2026/06/blasts-netanyahu-beirut.html

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Monday began with a statement issued by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs cautioning that the United States and Israel, by their egregious violations of the ceasefire concluded on April 8, are jeopardizing the ongoing talks aimed at achieving an armistice. The ministry, which is headed by Abbas Araghchi, underlined that the ceasefire involved a cessation of hostilities on all fronts.

The ministry accused the United States of repeatedly violating the ceasefire by its attacks on commercial Iranian shipping. Moreover, it said, Israel has grossly violated the ceasefire by launching a vicious attack on Lebanon, violating its sovereignty and killing or wounding thousands of Lebanese and displacing two million, while destroying essential infrastructure.

The ministry said that the US has a direct responsibility to cease attacking Iranian shipping and an indirect responsibility to rein in the Israel atrocities, warning that Iran will take measures to act in self-defense to ensure its interests.

The Tasnim news agency, which is close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, reported that these violations of the ceasefire, especially the Israeli invasion and devastation of south Lebanon, had led the Iranian side to cease all talks and the exchange of texts through mediators.

The agency said that the Iranian government insists on the end of Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon and its complete withdrawal from Lebanon. Otherwise there will be no further dialogue with the United States.

Moreover, the report said, Iran is determined to block the Strait of Hormuz completely, and to activate further fronts, including the Bab al-Mandeb or “Strait of Tears” at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Red Sea has been an alternative route for shipping, including of oil and gas, given the closure of the Persian Gulf.

The official status of these threats is unclear, according to BBC Monitoring .

Israel has sent troops deep into Lebanon and has expelled some 275,000 people from the metropolitan area of the coastal city of Tyre in the south, making threats to level the suburbs of Beirut where Shia Muslims predominate and to bomb the Lebanese capital. Hezbollah has continued to fight back against the Israeli invasion, showering northern Israel with rockets and sometimes managing to kill or wound Israeli troops and to take out Merkava tanks.

Asked about these reports of a halt to negotiations by CNBC’s Eamon Javers, President Donald J. Trump replied , “I don’t care if they’re over, honestly.” In case the message wasn’t clear, he repeated, “I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less.” He complained that the talks had “started to get very boring.”

Trump attempted to intervene in reality by Tweet, saying he would ask Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “what’s going on with Lebanon.” He thundered, “There will be no Troops going to Beirut, and any Troops that are on their way, have already been turned back.”

He claimed to have spoken to Hezbollah indirectly, saying, “they agreed that all shooting will stop — That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.”

Netanyahu remained defiant, boasting of having taken the Crusader castle Beaufort and threatening, “if Hezbollah does not cease attacking our cities and citizens—Israel will attack terror targets in Beirut. This stance of ours remains unchanged. In parallel, the IDF will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon.”

Barak Ravid at Axios reported that according to a US official, Trump’s phone call to Netanyahu was explosive, with the American president “pissed off” about Netanyahu’s threat to bomb Beirut. Ravid reports that his source alleged Trump told the prime minister, “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

Trump for his part insisted that the negotiations with Iran were continuing “at a rapid pace.”

Many energy analysts believe that if the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues through the summer, by September we could see $200 a barrel petroleum and a severe global economic recession. The consequent economic crisis domestically could produce a blue wave, i.e. a big Democratic victory in the midterms, which would hobble Trump in his final two years in the White House.

June 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Trump Finally Admits Aloud: “We Shouldn’t Have Been in Iran”

June 1, 2026 Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/01/trump-finally-admits-aloud-we-shouldnt-have-been-in-iran/

Donald Trump may have delivered the most honest assessment of the Iran War yet — entirely by accident.

In an interview conducted not by a journalist but by his daughter-in-law on Fox News, Trump stumbled into a confession that cuts through months of White House triumphalism, media cheerleading, and endless declarations of victory. After boasting that Iran’s navy was “100% gone,” its air force was “100% gone,” and that the United States had effectively defeated the country militarily, Trump casually admitted something extraordinary:

“We should not have been in Iran.”

There it was. Buried beneath the bluster, threats, and self-congratulation was the truth opponents of the war have been shouting since the first bombs fell.

The problem is that Trump wasn’t offering a reckoning. He wasn’t acknowledging the thousands killed, the billions spent, the global economic disruption, or the dangerous precedent of launching another war based on claims that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon despite years of intelligence assessments saying otherwise. Instead, he delivered the admission while simultaneously threatening to “finish it off militarily” if negotiations fail.

This is the defining contradiction of American empire. Leaders admit the wars were mistakes only after they’ve launched them. They acknowledge the disasters while preparing the next escalation. Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan was a mistake. Libya was a mistake. Yet the machinery that produced those catastrophes continues to operate exactly as designed.

Trump’s interview wasn’t merely a display of contradiction. It was a rare glimpse into a political system so detached from accountability that a president can openly admit a war should never have happened while still insisting it was necessary, successful, and ready to resume at any moment.

For the families burying loved ones, for Americans paying the bill, and for a region left smoldering in the wake of another U.S. intervention, that isn’t leadership.

It’s a confession.

June 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Will Trump sideline Israel in order to make a deal with Iran?

Donald Trump reportedly has a deal on the table to suspend fighting and begin negotiations to end the Iran war and the resulting global economic crisis. But Israel and Iran hawks see it as a disaster and are working to undermine it. Who will win out?

Mondoweiss, By Mitchell Plitnick May 31, 2026

According to available reports, the purported agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran to entrench the current ceasefire was ready to be signed and presented to the public, and Trump was going to retire to his “situation room” to confer with his people and announce it.

If that seemed too good to be true, it turns out it was, at least for the moment.

Eventually, Trump is going to have to decide whether to accept an MOU that will be harshly attacked by Israel and Iran hawks or resume the fighting. Choosing the former is out of character for the beleaguered president, but resuming the fighting will bury him deeper in this quagmire and will intensify the global economic crisis.

This mistrust is why Iran wants this MOU rather than a comprehensive deal. They want to move slowly, confirming American sincerity with actions, not words, every step of the way.

Trump, on the other hand, is struggling to decide what to do amid conflicting, powerful political pressures. His team has, apparently, negotiated the terms of the MOU, but he is indecisive about implementing it. These are the consequences of a weak, unqualified person in the White House.

This political quicksand that Trump continues to sink into is another in the long list of reasons why other presidents have refused to let Israel draw them into a war with Iran. Now that Iran has the upper hand, it is dictating the framework of ending the war.

Trump wanted to end it with a comprehensive deal, a grand bargain. That has been completely thwarted by Iran, which insists on a staged process to confirm American intentions after two surprise attacks. Trump’s absurd idea of expanding the Abraham Accords was a last, desperate attempt to try to come out of this debacle with a win big enough for him to claim that it was all worth it.

He made that desperate grab because the MOU, although not addressing some of the biggest issues, would include some immediate concessions to Iran that will be viewed by Trump’s allies as significant setbacks.

The concessions that have been rumored—which include funding Iran’s reconstruction, sanctions relief, and releasing frozen Iranian funds, for which he will be accused of “sending pallets of cash” to Iran, just as Trump once accused Barack Obama—are going to be attacked by Iran hawks. But for Trump, the immediate priority is reopening the Strait of Hormuz quickly and doing as much damage control as he can before the congressional elections in November.

The MOU would, according to the reports, accomplish that. Iran would allow ships to move through the Strait and would start removing impediments, such as mines, from the area, while concurrently, the U.S. would gradually lift its blockade of Iranian ports. The fighting would stop, including in Lebanon, although the specific terms of that and whether Israel would be forced to completely withdraw from southern Lebanon have not been mentioned. Iran would reiterate its long-standing pledge not to create a nuclear weapon.

Beyond that, the MOU would outline the topics for further talks that would, it is hoped, lead to a permanent peace deal. 60 days would be allotted for those talks, which would include Iran’s nuclear program, a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, a permanent system for managing the Strait, the lifting of sanctions, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

Trump unintentionally confirmed much of the rumored content and limitations of the MOU:

“Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb. The Hormuz Strait must be immediately open, no tolls, for unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions. All water mines (bombs), if any, will be terminated (we have removed, through detonation, numerous such mines with our great underwater mine sweepers. Iran will complete the immediate removal and/or detonation of any mines that are left, which will not be many!). … The enriched material, sometimes referred to as “Nuclear Dust,” … will be unearthed by the United States (which, it is agreed, is the only Country, along with China, with the mechanical capability of doing so!), in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED. No money will be exchanged, until further notice.”

Though the language is Trumpian, there is much to read into this message, both in its contents and its omissions.

Trump’s demand about destroying the so-called “nuclear dust” leaves open the option of Iran diluting its highly enriched uranium and agreeing to IAEA inspections going forward. That’s an Iranian proposal, which Trump is trying to own. Doubtless, Iran would be fine with him making that claim for his own political purposes.

Dilution, however, would not be good enough for Israel or its allies in Washington. Nor are they going to be happy about Trump even mentioning money. His declaration that no money will change hands “until further notice” implies that there will, eventually, be such “further notice” if the process of the MOU is followed.

It is worth noting that nowhere in any of the talk of either the immediate terms of the MOU or the framework for negotiations going forward that it would imply is there any mention at all of Iran’s missile and drone programs or its support of regional allies, which are often termed “proxies” by the media.

A disaster for Netanyahu and Iran hawks

Israeli reporter Ben Caspit, citing a “senior Israeli political source,” reports that Benjamin Netanyahu faces a political disaster if Trump ends the war.

“This time, the prime minister’s hands are tied. He is completely paralyzed and knows that he will not be able to do anything, even if the agreement signed between the United States and Iran remains the disaster he now defines it as,” an anonymous Netanyahu associate told Caspit.

That same insider also said that Netanyahu now longs for the days of Joe Biden. It is a classic case of being careful what you wish for……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The next president, whomever that might be, will have the same opportunity. The terms for a permanent agreement with Iran will be clear: a workable agreement on the Strait, IAEA inspections ensuring Iran doesn’t develop a nuclear weapon, and a path forward that includes a resuscitation of the Iranian economy, and regional agreements to ensure the security of the Gulf states, including Iran.

In other words, the JCPOA, in all the dimensions Obama envisioned. All we need to get there is the same resolute determination to do the sensible thing that Obama showed when he too froze Israel out of the process so he could do something wise. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/will-trump-sideline-israel-is-order-to-make-a-deal-with-iran/

June 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Canadian nuclear company Bruce Power has launched a CAD1 million (USD722,000)bribery system to win over municipalities.

World Nuclear News, 2 June 2026

Bruce Power has launched a CAD1 million (USD722,000) Regional Municipal Readiness Assessment Fund to support municipalities in the Bruce, Grey, and Huron counties in advancing planning related to the proposed Bruce C Project. The fund is designed to support studies and assessments that help municipalities prepare for the potential opportunities and impacts associated with Bruce C – a proposed new power plant of up to 4.8 GW at the Bruce Power site in Ontario – with individual projects to be completed by the end of 2027.

“Municipal leadership is critical in planning for large-scale infrastructure opportunities,” Pat Dalzell, Bruce Power’s Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Market Development, said. “This new fund will help to ensure communities are well positioned to capture economic benefits while maintaining the services and quality of life residents depend on.”

brennainlloyd . 3June 26

June 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Congress quietly moves to integrate US and Israeli militaries

In the first step towards shifting aid further into the shadows, the House’s 2027 NDAA would all but fuse the two countries’ armed forces together

Ben Freeman, Responsible Statecraft, Fri, 29 May 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-us-military/

At a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just proposed tying the U.S. to the Israeli military more than ever before.

Buried in the House’s version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in 1948.

Section 224 lays the groundwork for bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of U.S.-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. The U.S. and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.

If fully enacted, this proposal would provide a higher level of military-industrial integration than the U.S. has with any other country in the world. To be sure, the U.S. has worked closely with its NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains, most notably via the Defence Production Action Plan. And, as the number one arms dealer in the world, the U.S. provides weapons to militaries across the globe. But that is mostly a one-way street, with the U.S. providing weapons to foreign buyers who only occasionally make parts for those weapons themselves, as in the case of the F-35’s global supply chain.

Section 224 would be a different beast entirely. It would fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber. It would also bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the U.S. beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers. It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie.

The result could well be a U.S. political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the U.S. into military conflicts in the Middle East.

This unprecedented level of U.S.-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of U.S. military assistance. As laid out in a recent Quincy Institute brief, authored by Steven Simon, this shift from an aid model to a military integration model has troubling implications, namely:

The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.

This all comes at a time when the Israeli military has repeatedly used U.S. weapons in strikes that have violated international humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the U.S. itself) in the Trump administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.

The enormous gulf between what most Americans want and what the president is doing when it comes to Israel and what Congress is proposing here should not be ignored. Just 30% of respondents to a New York Times/Sienna poll from mid-May believe Trump made “the right decision” to go to war with Iran, with 64% saying it was wrong. An Institute for Global Affairs poll released earlier this week dove even deeper into the American psyche when it comes to arming Israel, finding that “Just 16 percent say the United States should keep supplying Israel with weapons without new restrictions. Thirty-eight percent want to stop supplying weapons entirely, and another 24 percent want weapons conditioned on how they’re used.”

Yet, mainstream leadership in both parties remains largely pro-Israel and continues to shape the base legislative text before amendments and broader congressional debate open it to the full body, as is the case with this NDAA provision.

Though slowly, tides within both parties are shifting as more and more members speak out against the growing divide between Israel’s actions and America’s interests. For example, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday that, “The Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values.” On the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) have openly decried the Israel lobby’s corrosive influence — a stance that may have, at least partially, cost both of them their seats in Congress.

What can other members of Congress who are concerned about Israel’s destabilizing actions do right now? Stop the Israeli-U.S. military-industrial merger in its tracks. Lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region.

June 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Species at risk score a reprieve

May 31, 2026 by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/05/31/species-at-risk-score-a-reprieve/

Canadian court sends radioactive waste dump plan back to the drawing board in a win for wildlife and the Kebaowek First Nation and others who protect them

News from Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada Kebaowek First Nation, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada Foundation.

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada, Kebaowek First Nation, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada Foundation welcome a significant victory following the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to dismiss Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) appeal regarding the Species at Risk Act permit issued for the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River.

The Court upheld the Federal Court’s earlier ruling and ordered Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to reconsider its decision to grant the permit.

The permit would have authorized CNL to destroy endangered species and their habitats in order to construct a massive radioactive waste disposal facility less than 1.1 kilometres from the Ottawa River (Kichi Sibi), a watershed that provides drinking water to millions of Canadians.

In its decision, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that ECCC failed to adequately explain how it determined that all reasonable alternatives had been considered and that the best solution had been selected, as required under the Species at Risk Act.

The Court emphasized that the Minister’s reasons lacked sufficient transparency, intelligibility, and justification, and directed ECCC to conduct a new determination.

The Court also confirmed that the Federal Court’s interpretation of section 73 of the Species at Risk Act is not binding on ECCC and that the Minister must independently provide a clear and reasonable analysis when reconsidering the permit application.

Furthermore, the Court found that the public notice issued by ECCC failed to provide a meaningful explanation to Canadians about why endangered species would be harmed in support of the project.

The ruling represents another important legal milestone in the ongoing efforts to protect species at risk, uphold environmental laws, and ensure accountability in decision-making surrounding the proposed NSDF.

“The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that Environment Canada must go back and do its job properly. This decision reinforces what we have been saying from the beginning: decisions that threaten endangered species, sensitive ecosystems, and our sacred river must be based on a transparent, rigorous, and lawful process,” said Chief Lance Haymond of Kebaowek First Nation. “Kebaowek remains committed to protecting the Kichi Sibi, defending our responsibilities to future generations, the drinking water of millions of citizens of Quebec and Ontario, and ensuring that Indigenous rights and environmental protections are respected every step of the way.”

The area selected by CNL for the NSDF is home to numerous species protected under the Species at Risk Act, including the Blanding’s Turtle, Little Brown Bat, Northern Myotis, Tri-coloured Bat, Canada Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler, Whip-poor-will, Eastern Wolf, and Black Ash.

The proposed site consists of mature forests, wetlands, streams, and critical habitat that have remained largely undisturbed for decades. The organizations argue that CNL’s site selection process failed to adequately assess alternative locations that may have posed fewer risks to endangered species and their habitats. The Court’s decision now provides an opportunity for ECCC to conduct a more rigorous and transparent review of the evidence before making a new determination.

“This decision is an important victory for science, transparency, and common sense,” said Ole Hendrickson, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area. “The Court recognized that the public deserves meaningful explanations when decisions are made that could result in the destruction of endangered species and their habitats. The ecological value of this site is extraordinary, and it deserves careful consideration before irreversible damage is permitted.”

“This ruling confirms that environmental protections under the Species at Risk Act cannot simply be treated as a procedural box to check,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

“We will continue working to ensure that all reasonable alternatives are fully examined and that the protection of species at risk remains a central consideration. More generally, we will work to ensure that the principle of “justification” is enshrined in Canadian law, as recommended twice by the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Edwards added.

“The Court’s decision reinforces a fundamental principle: Canadians have the right to understand why environmental harm is being authorized and whether less damaging alternatives exist,” said Gretchen Fitzgerald, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada Foundation. “This case is about accountability, transparency, and ensuring that environmental laws are applied as Parliament intended. Sierra Club Canada Foundation remains committed to supporting efforts that protect biodiversity and uphold the public interest.”

This decision builds upon two important Federal Court rulings related to the proposed NSDF project. In March 2025, the Federal Court ruled that the Species at Risk Act permit issued for the project must be reconsidered because reasonable alternative locations were not properly assessed.

In a parallel case, the Federal Court also ruled in favour of Kebaowek First Nation regarding the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the duty to consult in the NSDF licensing process. That landmark decision is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal and is expected to help clarify how Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and UNDRIP should be applied in federal regulatory decision-making across Canada.

While the Court has returned the matter to ECCC for redetermination rather than permanently rejecting the permit, the organizations intend to actively participate in the reconsideration process. They will continue to present evidence demonstrating that alternative locations exist and that the proposed Chalk River site is not the best option for protecting species at risk and their habitats.

The organizations also note that CNL may seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, although leave applications are granted only in a small number of cases involving issues of national importance.

Kebaowek First Nation, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada Foundation remain united in their commitment to protecting the Ottawa River watershed, safeguarding endangered species, and ensuring that environmental decision- making respects both ecological integrity and Indigenous rights.

For more information on Kebaowek First Nation’s efforts to halt the NSDF project, visit Stop Nuclear Waste website. For more information on how to support Kebaowek First Nation’s legal efforts, visit Kebaowek First Nation – Raven Trust.

June 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Legal | Leave a comment

Trump’s failed Iran war may prevent war with China

1 June 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/trumps-failed-iran-war-may-prevent-war-with-china/

One possible blessing from Trump’s criminal, failed war on Iran? Trump squandered so many offensive and defensive missiles in 39 futile bombing days, he’s doesn’t have enough left to provoke war with China over Taiwan.

At his recent Chinese summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned Trump that a war with the US over Taiwan could erupt if the US does not tone down endless provocations over Taiwan.

But Taiwan is not the only issue provoking possible war with China. Ever since President Obama announced his ‘Pivot to Asia’ in 2011, the US national security state and military have been beating the drums about China’s growth making them America’s biggest potential enemy. Many in this cabal warn that war with China would be likely, possibly inevitable. They urged that US policy be prepared for war and build up US offensive and defensive capability for such eventuality.

But while Trump never officially pivoted back from Asia to the Middle East, his foreign policy did. By senselessly attacking Iran February 28, he set in motion the diminution of US missile stocks making war with China virtually impossible.

How diminished?

Trump squandered over 1,000 Tomahawk missiles on Iran in 39 days. It will take over 1,800 days to replace those Tomahawks in Trump’s over hyped trillion dollar weapons industry.

There’s more. Trump wasted roughly 300 THAAD interceptors and 1,000 Patriot interceptor to defend against Iranian missiles. It will take over 1,000 days to replace those at the current annual production rate for both.

More still. The US supplies Patriots to Ukraine and 17 other countries. We’ve not only run out of Patriots to supply them, we’ve had to claw some back. This will speed up Ukraine’s inevitable collapse and cause those other 17 nations to reexamine their reliance on the US for their defense.

Sensible folks in the administration and military looking at the near empty missile cupboard are telling Trump regarding possible war with China… ‘Faggedaboudit.’ That may be the only ray of hope for peace emanating from Trump’s criminal and failed Iran war.

June 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries