Trump’s NATO Warning Sounds More Like a Threat
17 March 2026 AIMN EditorialBy Peter Brown, https://theaimn.net/trumps-nato-warning-sounds-more-like-a-threat/
When Donald Trump warned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could face a “very bad future” after a lukewarm response from allies to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, the remark sounded less like diplomacy and more like a threat.
NATO was not created to serve as a backup force for American military adventures. It was created for collective defence. The alliance’s core principle – Article 5 – obliges members to assist one another only if a member state is attacked.
That principle has been invoked exactly once: after the September 11 attacks, when NATO allies rallied to support the United States in Afghanistan.
But this situation is fundamentally different.
No NATO country has been attacked. No member state has invoked Article 5. The current tensions stem from U.S. military action against Iran, not from an assault on the alliance itself.
Under those circumstances, NATO members are under no treaty obligation to participate in a U.S.-led effort to reopen shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz.
Yet Trump’s message to allies is unmistakable: if they do not show up, the future of the alliance itself could be in doubt.
That turns the very idea of an alliance on its head.
Collective security works because nations believe they are joining a defensive pact – one where each country comes to the aid of another when attacked. It does not work if allies believe they are being asked to endorse or participate in conflicts they did not start and may not support.
Many European governments understand the stakes. Joining a military operation in the Persian Gulf could risk direct confrontation with Iran and potentially draw their countries into a wider regional war.
Their hesitation is not betrayal. It is caution.
And from their perspective, the question is obvious: why should NATO automatically rally behind an escalation that began with the United States?
Trump has long criticised NATO members for failing to spend enough on defence and for relying too heavily on American protection. But warning that the alliance itself could have a “very bad future” if allies refuse to follow Washington into a new confrontation moves beyond burden-sharing debates.
It begins to sound like coercion.
Alliances survive on trust – trust that members will defend each other when attacked, and trust that the alliance will not be used as leverage to compel support for unilateral decisions.
If that trust erodes, NATO’s greatest strength – unity – begins to weaken.
And once an alliance starts being treated less like a partnership and more like a tool, its future really does become uncertain.
Warning: This video of Trump airing his grievances about being snubbed by NATO countries is difficult to watch (apart from when the host speaks). You will most likely go through these stages: 1) Trump’s idiocy is entertaining, 2) Trump’s constant droning is becoming boring, and 3) I can’t take this rubbish anymore. (I made it to the the beginning of the third stage. You might do better.)
Safety meltdown: Trump’s weakening of nuclear reactor regulations sparks opposition
Morning Star 16th March 2026, https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/safety-meltdown-trumps-weakening-nuclear-reactor-regulations-sparks-opposition
Nuclear safety experts warn that sweeping cuts to oversight rules could undermine environmental safeguards as the White House races to bring new reactors online by 2026, says Chauncey K Robinson
ON MARCH 4, attorneys general from several states across the US announced they’d formed a coalition to oppose the Trump administration’s new rules slashing security and environmental requirements for experimental nuclear reactors.
The coalition asserts that the new rules incentivise the creation of “much more nuclear waste.” They argue that the fundamental nature of nuclear fission technology entails risks to the environment and public health, which the federal government is downplaying.
In January, exclusive reporting from National Public Radio revealed that President Donald Trump’s Department of Energy (DOE) quietly overhauled a set of safety directives related to nuclear power plants. The changes were shared with the companies the administration is charged with regulating, but not with the public, according to documents obtained by NPR.
As reported by the news outlet, the orders eliminate hundreds of pages of security requirements for reactors. The updated rules loosen protections for groundwater and the environment, cut back on record-keeping requirements, and raise the amount of radiation a worker can be exposed to before an official accident investigation is triggered.
The public announcement of this move didn’t come until early February, when the DOE finally disclosed the fact that it was establishing a categorical exclusion (CatEx) for the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures on the authorisation, construction, operation, reauthorisation, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors.
The DOE defended the change, claiming that it is “based on the experience of DOE and other federal agencies, current technologies, regulatory requirements, and accepted industry practice.” In a statement sent to NPR after it broke the initial story, the DOE asserted that the “reduction of unnecessary regulations will increase innovation in the industry without jeopardizing safety.”
Yet the announcement, and the Trump administration’s rationale for it, have drawn immediate backlash from critics who say the move is dangerous and irresponsible.
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, asserted that the experimental reactors have insufficient operating experience “to justify a claim that you can just turn them on and they’re going to be safe and that you don’t have to worry.”
The scientist said that the administration was taking a “wrecking ball to the system of nuclear safety and security regulation oversight that has kept the US from having another Three Mile Island accident,” referencing the historic 1979 nuclear meltdown in Pennsylvania.
The overhaul of the reactor rules came about after the president signed an executive order in May last year titled “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy,” which called for three or more experimental reactors to come online in time for the 250th anniversary of US independence on July 4 2026. The new rules seem to be intended to help the administration meet the unprecedentedly tight deadline, despite warnings of danger.
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which has usually been in charge of regulating commercial nuclear reactors, “advanced reactors” are defined as next-generation nuclear fission systems that “differ from today’s reactors primarily by their use of inert gases, molten salt mixtures, or liquid metals to cool the reactor core.
“Advanced reactors can also consider fuel materials and designs that differ radically from today’s enriched uranium-dioxide pellets within zirconium cladding.”
While the DOE touts these new reactors as being designed for improved safety, economics and environmental impact, scientific reports paint a different picture. In 2021, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that “they [‘advanced’ non-light-water nuclear reactors] are no better — and in some respects significantly worse — than the light-water reactors in operation today.”
Critics also note that Trump’s push for more nuclear reactors by July 4 may have less to do with “advancement” or celebrating our nation’s birthday than with the demands of AI and the tech billionaires connected to it.
Billions of dollars in private equity, venture capital and public investments are reported to be backing the reactors. This includes tech giants Amazon, Google and Meta.
Last year, when numerous nuclear power industry executives visited the Oval Office, Trump called the industry “hot” and “brilliant.” This sentiment seems to align with his aggressive public rejection of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Yet, the coalition of attorneys general — from Washington, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia — is sounding an alarm that the administration’s actions will be detrimental to the environment and communities.
“The words ‘exemptions,’ ‘exclusions,’ and ‘nuclear safety regulations’ should never be put together. When it comes to nuclear energy and public safety, there should be more safety regulations and environmental protections, not less,” said coalition participant California attorney general Rob Bonta.
“With this new exemption, the Trump administration is trying to run before it can walk by accelerating the development of certain experimental and largely unproven advanced nuclear reactors — just like the president himself acknowledged,” Bonta said in a statement.
Bonta noted that advanced nuclear reactors lack a proven track record of safety.
The coalition’s comment letter makes a number of key assertions. It states that the DOE failed to adequately consider the potential environmental impacts of advanced nuclear reactors and that the department provided no concrete data demonstrating the reactors do not have the potential to “create significant environmental impacts.” The letter also accuses the DOE of exceeding its authority to regulate nuclear reactors.
The recent expansion and deregulation of nuclear power around the globe, particularly in the United States, has been a cause of concern for many environmental and safety advocates who warn that the world is sliding further down a “slippery nuclear slope.”
This is an edited version of an article published at peoplesworld.org.
Alone at the Apex
17 March 2026 Michael Taylor AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/alone-at-the-apex/
From his position at the commanding heights of American power, President Trump has often conveyed a singular conviction: the world does not sufficiently recognise his leadership – or America’s preeminence under it.
While ordinary citizens contend with everyday concerns, the president has framed his role in sweeping, almost solitary terms, as if the United States – and by extension, he personally – bears responsibility for the globe’s direction. Gratitude, in this view, is scarce; deference, even scarcer.
Consider trade policy. The administration’s use of tariffs was presented as a masterful recalibration of global economic relations – a straightforward tool to restore fairness and protect American interests. Yet the response was not passive acceptance. Major trading partners, including close allies, imposed countermeasures of their own. What was intended as a decisive unilateral stroke became a cycle of retaliation, raising costs for consumers and businesses on all sides. The expectation of unilateral acquiescence met the reality of sovereign interests.
A similar pattern emerged with the proposal to acquire Greenland. The president highlighted its strategic value – vast Arctic real estate with clear national-security implications – and floated the idea of a purchase from Denmark. The Danish government and Greenland’s leadership rejected the notion outright, citing sovereignty and self-determination. What may have appeared a bold real-estate opportunity to one side registered as an affront to national autonomy on the other. The ensuing diplomatic friction, including threats of economic pressure, underscored a fundamental disconnect: not every asset is available for negotiation, no matter the bidder’s confidence.
Efforts at broader diplomatic architecture have encountered comparable resistance. The “Board of Peace,” envisioned as a new mechanism to resolve international disputes and oversee initiatives like Gaza reconstruction, was launched with American leadership at its centre. Yet participation has been limited, with skepticism from many quarters about its structure, authority, and resemblance to existing multilateral bodies. The absence of broad buy-in has left the initiative more aspirational than operational.
Most recently, the call for international naval support in the Strait of Hormuz – urging allies and affected nations to deploy warships to secure a vital global chokepoint amid tensions with Iran – has met with tepid or nonexistent commitments. Despite appeals to countries heavily dependent on the route’s oil flows, including longstanding partners, few have stepped forward. The United States finds itself shouldering the burden largely alone, as others prioritise their own strategic calculations over collective action under American direction.
One can anticipate the familiar refrain on Truth Social: grievances about unfair treatment, unappreciative allies, thwarted deals, and the solitary burden of American greatness. The pattern is consistent – a belief that bold American initiatives should command automatic support, met instead with the stubborn pluralism of an independent world.
The deeper tension lies here: the president appears to operate from an assumption of unchallenged primacy, where U.S. proposals carry inherent authority. Yet the international system has long since moved beyond unipolarity. Other nations – democracies and autocracies alike – possess their own agendas, red lines, and capacities to say no. They are not subjects awaiting edicts; they are actors with vetoes of their own.
This is not ingratitude so much as the ordinary friction of a multipolar era. The loneliness at the top is real, but it stems less from betrayal than from the quiet erosion of exceptional leverage. The hill may be high and gilded, but it is no longer solitary – and insisting otherwise only accentuates the isolation.
‘We deserve to know the truth’: 11 questions about US bases in Britain
From where they are exactly to the laws governing them, here’s what we need to know to hold the UK government accountable for Trump’s use of British bases
MARK CURTIS , Declassified 4th March 2026
Keir Starmer has given his approval for Donald Trump’s US to attack Iran using British military bases.
But the UK government imposes a considerable veil of secrecy over the US use of these bases, keeping the British public in the dark about how its territory is used in foreign wars.
Former Labour Party leader and independent MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “From transferring equipment to refuelling planes to surveillance flights, we deserve to know the truth about exactly what these military bases are and have been used for, whether to benefit the US or Israel or both.
“There is a reason why the government is so reluctant to tell us: they know that this information could tip British complicity in genocide and war into active participation. We will continue to push for a full, public and independent inquiry into the use of these bases.”
Here are some of the things we need to know about the US military and intelligence presence in the UK and British territories.
Where exactly are they?
We don’t know where all US military personnel in Britain are. Whenever governments answer questions about the US presence in the UK, they mention major bases which the US Air Force operate – such as at Fairford, Mildenhall and Lakenheath – but have also referenced “undisclosed locations”.
The government also says that, in addition to the major air bases with a US presence, there are six other designated Nato facilities in the UK, where US military personnel can also be located.
But Declassified recently found a US War Department document highlighting 22 American military sites in Britain, some of which successive UK governments have failed to mention. It is not clear how many of these 22 sites are currently hosting US military personnel.
Declassified has identified other locations in Britain that are likely to host US military or intelligence personnel, bringing the total to 24.
Even this may not cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane.
Keir Starmer’s government is also refusing to tell parliament how many US forces are located at each of its major bases in Britain. The reason it gives for not saying is that “we are in a new era of threat that remains more serious and less predictable”.
The government also refuses to say where the US has any navy, army or marine detachments in the UK. Incredibly, it says “the overall US force composition across its UK footprint is a matter for the US”.
Who really owns the US military sites in Britain?
This is also unclear. The US War Department document we found states that, as of 2024, it owned, leased or otherwise controlled 22 military sites in Britain, and that these are worth £11bn. The UK government contends that the War Department owns no facilities in Britain, making the exact terms of the US presence even more unclear.
The US document, for example, said its War Department owns 12 buildings covering over 39,000 square feet at RAF Oakhanger in Hampshire, which is a satellite ground station.
Yet in answer to a recent parliamentary question, the MoD said it owns RAF Oakhanger.
The government also says it owns MOD Bicester, which is another site where the US War Department says it holds 261 buildings. What are the terms and conditions governing these holdings?
What military operations does the US conduct from Britain?
Governments have refused to give us the full picture. The standard response is: “The Ministry of Defence does not comment on the operational activity of other nations”, even when they’re operating in Britain.
When the US bombed Iran in June last year, the MoD refused to say if US aircraft based in Britain had been involved.
The MoD also refuses to say if the US has used its British bases to transport arms to Israel.
What US military operations need UK approval?
Britain has a vague agreement with the US on the use of British bases, going back to a 1952 communiqué between prime minister Winston Churchill and president Harry Truman. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.declassifieduk.org/we-deserve-to-know-the-truth-11-questions-about-us-bases-in-britain/
Pro-nuclear group faces questions over ‘links’ to major London PR firm.
BRITAIN Remade is the apparently “grassroots” group leading the push
to overturn Scotland’s ban on nuclear power. But The Ferret has found
that two of its directors come from a firm which lobbies for the UK’s
biggest nuclear company.
Britain Remade organised the recent launch of the
“Scotland for nuclear energy” campaign and has repeatedly called for
Holyrood to reverse its long-standing opposition to new atomic energy. The
“pro-growth” group campaigns to make it easier to build things in the
UK – including housing, transport links and clean energy.
It says it is
“independent” and “grassroots”. But it has been alleged that
Britain Remade has close ties to the London-based public relations firm
Stonehaven. Stonehaven represents EDF – the French energy giant that owns
Scotland’s last operational nuclear power station at Torness in East
Lothian. EDF could be one of the biggest beneficiaries of any move to lift
the ban on new nuclear plants.
A Ferret investigation into the relationship
between Stonehaven and Britain Remade uncovered that BRM Futures Ltd –
the private company behind the campaign group – recently named two senior
Stonehaven figures as directors. We also found other overlaps including
that Britain Remade had been incorporated at an address that was previously
the registered office of Stonehaven, by an individual whose name resembles
that of Stonehaven’s finance director.
Critics argued the public has “a
right to know who is behind any campaign” otherwise there was a risk of
Scottish democracy being “undermined behind closed doors”. Britain
Remade told The Ferret it had “never taken a penny of corporate money”,
sets its own priorities and campaigns “on what we think matters for the
country”. It also said any claim that funders get a veto on anything it
writes or campaigns on is “categorically untrue”.
However, despite
direct questions, it did not confirm the nature of its relationship with
Stonehaven or whether it had been set up by anyone at the firm. Stonehaven
did not respond to a request for comment. Companies House filings –
updated on February 3, just two days before the Glasgow launch of the new
nuclear campaign – show that BRM Futures Ltd appointed Pandora Lefroy and
Rachel Wolf as directors in October 2024. Lefroy has worked at Stonehaven
for more than 10 years and is now the firm’s managing partner. Wolf is
the chief executive of Public First, another consultancy firm bought by
Stonehaven last year, and now sits on the board of the wider Stonehaven
Group Holdings Limited. Filings show that BRM Futures Ltd was incorporated
in February 2022 on the first floor of an office building called Thavies
Inn House, in the Holborn area of London. Until three months previously,
that same address had been Stonehaven’s registered office.
The sole
founding director listed on the incorporation document was Henry Frank
Lewis. He resigned in November 2022 when the campaign was officially
launched and current staff members Sam Richards, Sam Dumitriu and Jeremy
Driver were appointed. Stonehaven’s finance director is Harry Lewis.
Britain Remade did not respond to a question about whether he and Henry
Frank Lewis were the same individual. Like EDF, Britain Remade is named as
a client of Stonehaven on the professional lobbying register. It has also
reportedly used technology provided through Stonehaven to launch a petition
on onshore wind that secured more than 11,000 signatures. James Mitchell, a
professor of public policy at the University of Edinburgh, said the public
should be “very wary” of any organisation which was unwilling to
provide “such basic information”.
“The public has a right to know who
is behind any campaign pursuing a policy including, crucially, who funds
the campaign and with what level of funding,” he said.
The National 15th March 2026
Why should Trump get all the blame?
10 March 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/why-should-trump-get-all-the-blame/
I’ve just read an article about planning nuclear power for a “post-Trump world” I’m wondering how many people are actually doing just that – planning for a “post Trump world.” Well, Donald Trump isn’t one of them. He’s got a pretty good plan for re-election in 2028. Never mind the fact that the USA Constitution forbids a President from having a third term in office. Heck, by 2028 there won’t be an American Constitution if Trump is still in office.
One way or another, I’d bet that Trump won’t be in office for that third term. By 2028, the apparently dim-witted American public might just not vote for Donald Trump, however colourful and entertaining he might be. Or the Republicans might have had enough, and somehow kicked him out in the meantime. Or some more dramatic events might have made him lose his grip on power – a nuclear war? He might even be in gaol – though I guess that’s a silly left-wing fantasy. Or even the seemingly immortally healthy Donald might get sick, or even die.
I just hope and pray that he is not assassinated. That would turn him into a martyr. A saint? As a recovered Catholic, I do think kindly of my old church. I just can’t imagine that current Catholicism could stomach the idea of Saint Donald Trump.
But anyway, I digress. And indeed this whole post is a digression. But to try to get to the point – what is wrong with the leaders of the Western world? It seems that only Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz has denounced the USA/Israel’s illegal attack on Iran. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney in January, briefly saw through Donald Trump, but by March, Carney had second thoughts, and fell into line in the conga dance behind him. The UK wavered and waffled, but ended up supporting the war. Confusion reigns in the EU. As for Australia – words fail me, as the ruling so-called Labor Party wriggles about, trying to deny that it supports the USA/Israel war. Twas so nice of Albanese to present Trump with a pretty little statue-thing of an AUKUS submarine.
It’s not just the war on Iran. It’s the support for Israel’s genocide. It’s the spectacle over two years, of politicians giving Trump standing ovations, smiling happily as they shake hands with this deranged, ignorant, sociopathic President of the USA. Surely they could manage mere politeness, and not a complete vision of fawning servility.
And when it all goes to shit, as it surely will, what will be their legacy? Will they be remembered as leaders of insight and integrity? Will they be remembered at all. Most likely, they’ll be gone and forgotten after the next election.
Let’s just remember, that pathetic lying confidence man, Trump, could not have done so much damage, so much harm, caused all that suffering, without their support.
Macron accosted
Moment rattled Emmanuel Macron is confronted by activists who storm stage during nuclear summit
By PERKIN AMALARAJ, FOREIGN NEWS REPORTER, Daily Mail, 0 March 2026
The protesters, dressed sharply in black suits and ties, interrupted Macron and UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi as they were greeting heads of state today.
They held banners bearing the Greenpeace logo and reading ‘Nuclear Power = Energy Insecurity’ and ‘Nuclear power fuels Russia‘s war.’
One of them shouted at Macron, ‘Why are we still buying uranium from Russia?’ to which the president replied, ‘We produce nuclear power ourselves.’
France has its own uranium enrichment capacity, but also imports enriched uranium for its power plants, including from Russia, according to the latest customs data published by the French government.
Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom accounted for about 44% of the global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025, according to the World Nuclear Association.
European nuclear power producers have struggled to wean themselves off these supplies four years after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Around 15 Greenpeace activists blocked arriving convoys outside the venue in Boulogne-Billancourt on the outskirts of Paris on Tuesday, the environmental campaigning group said in a statement.
France is hosting the second world nuclear energy summit on Tuesday, where world leaders will meet to discuss and promote nuclear power.
The protesters, dressed sharply in black suits and ties, interrupted President Emmanuel Macron and UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi as they were greeting heads of state today
One of them shouted at Macron, ‘Why are we still buying uranium from Russia?’
‘For Greenpeace France, the holding of such a summit is an anachronism, an event completely out of touch with reality and with the lessons to be learned from the tragic situations of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, the strikes on Iran, and the impacts of the worsening climate disruption,’ the group said.
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen today called Europe’s turn away from civilian nuclear power a ‘strategic mistake’, arguing that the Middle East war had exposed the continent’s fossil fuel ‘vulnerability’.
‘It was a strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emission power,’ she said at the opening of a nuclear energy summit just outside Paris as the US-Israeli war with Iran entered its second week.
‘For fossil fuels, we are completely dependent on expensive and volatile imports. They are putting us at a structural disadvantage to other regions,’ she said at the summit, which aims to boost the use of civilian nuclear energy.
‘The current Middle East crisis gives a stark reminder of the vulnerability it creates,’ she added.
‘We have home-grown low-carbon energy sources: nuclear and renewables. And together, they can become the joint guarantors of independence, security of supply, and competitiveness – if we get it right.’
Macron struck a similar note, saying civilian nuclear power helped provide energy sovereignty.
France has its own uranium enrichment capacity, but also imports enriched uranium for its power plants, including from Russia,…………………………………………………………………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15631733/Moment-rattled-Emmanuel-Macron-confronted-activists-storm-stage-nuclear-summit.html
Trump, Netanyahu down to last card in criminal Iran war
10 March 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/trump-netanyahu-down-to-last-card-in-criminal-iran-war/
President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister began their second war on Iran in 7 months with just 2 war crime cards to play.
The first card was the US, Israeli version of Blitzkrieg from the air. Kill Iran’s beloved leader the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demand surrender, then wait for the 90 million Iranians to capitulate to new masters Trump and Netanyahu. That was projected to take just about 72 hours.
As expected, millions of Iranians came into the streets following Khamenei’s assassination. But not to welcome the grisly invaders bombing them. It was to show near total support to the Islamic government, cheering them on to inflict as much retaliation possible to repel the Trump Netanyahu criminal tag team.
And they are succeeding, causing massive damage to US military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait. Saudi Arabia and UAE. All 6 are running out of defensive interceptors provided by Uncle Sam. Why? Trump is giving them all to himself and his war partner Netanyahu. When this is all over, the Gulf States will never again trust America for their defense. They may even tell the US to vamoose the region PDQ.
Iran is also bombing Israel night and day, giving Netanyahu, flying around the region 24/7 to avoid Khamenei’s fate, a taste of what he visited on Palestinians in Gaza for 2 years.
That leaves Trump and Netanyahu with their last war crime card to play. Bomb Iran to smithereens till there is no more Iranian weapons or personnel left with which to retaliate.
Big problem facing America and Israel is size. Both Israel and US military facilities nearby are compact in size making them easy targets, while Iran, the 17th largest country by area, has their tens of thousands of missiles scattered and largely unreachable.
Now that Iran has chosen to fight to the death rather than capitulate as expected, the advantage may be tiltng in their favor. Rumors surfacing Trump is pondering an off ramp to stop the bleeding he has no way of controlling.
Worst case scenario remains that Netanyahu may get so desperate facing unfathomable defeat, he escalates to war crime card 3… nuke Tehran.
Trump hints U.S. will turn to Cuba after Iran: ‘Just a question of time’
Kevin Breuninger, Fri, Mar 6 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/05/trump-cuba-iran-regime-change.html
Key Points
- President Donald Trump suggested his administration will turn its sights to Cuba after U.S. military operations in Iran are done.
- It “will be just a question of time before you and a lot of unbelievable people are going to be going back to Cuba, hopefully not to stay,” Trump told a crowd at the White House.
- On Iran, Trump said the U.S. and Israeli militaries are continuing to “totally demolish the enemy.”
President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested his administration will turn its sights to Cuba after U.S. military operations in Iran are finished.
“What’s happening with Cuba is amazing,” Trump said at the White House while participating in a visit of Inter Miami CF, the 2025 Major League Soccer champions.
“We think that we want to fix — finish this one first, but that will be just a question of time before you and a lot of unbelievable people are going to be going back to Cuba, hopefully not to stay,” Trump said to the Miami-heavy audience that included people of Cuban heritage.
The comments show Trump, less than a week into an escalating military conflict in the Middle East, is considering another major foreign policy move.
“We want you back, and we don’t want to lose you. We don’t want to make it so nice that they stay. But some people probably do want to stay. They love Cuba so much,” he said. “That was another one that wasn’t supposed to happen.”
Trump turned his focus to Cuba after providing a boastful update on the war in Iran, where he said the U.S. and Israeli militaries are continuing to “totally demolish the enemy.”
Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been “doing a fantastic job.”
“And you’ve been doing a fantastic job on a place called Cuba,” Trump added, prompting applause from the room.
Trump’s latest remarks on Cuba follow previous hints, some less subtle than others, that he and his allies have dropped about their plans for the Caribbean island nation.
“Cuba’s next,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday on Fox News after the Iran strikes began.
In an interview with Politico earlier Thursday, Trump predicted that after Iran’s regime is toppled, “Cuba’s going to fall, too.”
Trump also took credit for choking Cuba’s economy to force them to the negotiating table, which he had vowed to do after the U.S. military in January attacked Venezuela, a major supplier of oil to Cuba.
“We cut off all oil, all money, or we cut off everything coming in from Venezuela, which was the sole source. And they want to make a deal,” he told Politico.
“We are talking to Cuba,” Trump also said in that interview. “How long have you been hearing about Cuba — Cuba, Cuba — for 50 years?” he added. “And that’s one of the small ones for me.”
Israel planned this war on Iran for 40 years. Everything else is a smoke screen.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyah……… gloated: “This combined effort allows us to do what I have hoped to achieve for 40 years: to crush the regime of terror completely. That’s my promise and this is what is going to happe
And all the while, Israel’s own arsenal of nuclear weapons, undeclared and therefore unmonitored, has been an open secret.
The embers of resistance – in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen – have not been snuffed out. With the attack on Iran, they are being fanned into a fire
Jonathan Cook, Mar 06, 2026
It is near impossible to make sense – at least from the justifications on offer – of what US President Donald Trump really hopes to achieve with his and Israel‘s blatantly illegal war of aggression on Iran.
Is it to destroy an Iranian nuclear weapons programme for which there has never been any tangible evidence, and which Trump claimed just a few months ago to have “completely and totally obliterated” in an earlier lawbreaking attack?
Or is it intended to force Tehran back to negotiations on its nuclear energy enrichment programme that were brought prematurely to an end when the US launched its unprovoked attack – talks, we should note, that were made necessary because in 2018, during his first term, Trump tore up the original deal with Iran?
Or is the war supposed to browbeat Iran into greater flexibility, even though Trump blew up the talks at the very moment Oman, the chief mediator, insisted that Tehran had capitulated on almost every one of Washington’s onerous demands and that a deal was “within our reach“?
Or are the air strikes designed to “liberate” Iranians, even though the early victims included at least 165 civilians in a girls’ school, most of them children aged between 7 and 12?
Or is the aim to pressure Iran to give up its ballistic missiles – the only deterrence it has against attack, and which would leave it utterly defenceless against US and Israeli malevolent designs?
Or did Washington believe Tehran was about to strike first, even though Pentagon officials have confided to congressional staff that there was zero intelligence an attack was about to happen?
Or is the goal to decapitate the Iranian regime, as the strikes have already achieved with the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei? If so, to what purpose, given that Khamenei was so opposed to an Iranian nuclear bomb that he issued a religious edict, a fatwa, against its development?
Might Khamenei’s successor – having seen how utterly untrustworthy the US and Israel are, how they operate as rogue states unconstrained by international law – now decide that developing a nuclear bomb is an absolute priority to protect Iran’s sovereignty?
No clear rationale
There is no clear rationale from Washington because the author of this attack is not to be found in either the White House or the Pentagon. This plan was cooked up in Tel Aviv decades ago.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, admitted as much on Sunday. He gloated: “This combined effort allows us to do what I have hoped to achieve for 40 years: to crush the regime of terror completely. That’s my promise and this is what is going to happen.”
Those four decades, let us note, were also the timeframe for an endless series of warnings from Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders that Tehran was only months away from developing a nuclear bomb.
Netanyahu has been peddling this same urgent, nonsensical pretext for attacking Iran all that time. For 40 years, each year has been proclaimed the very last opportunity to stop the “mad mullahs” from obtaining a bomb – a bomb that never materialised.
And all the while, Israel’s own arsenal of nuclear weapons, undeclared and therefore unmonitored, has been an open secret.
Europe helped Israel develop its bomb, while the US turned a blind eye, even as Israeli leaders espoused a suicidal doctrine known as the “Samson Option“, which posited that Israel would rather detonate its nuclear arsenal than suffer a conventional military defeat.
The Samson Option implicitly rejects the idea that any other state in the Middle East can be allowed to acquire a bomb and thereby level the military playing field with Israel.
It is that very premise that, for decades, has guided Israeli policy towards Tehran. Not because Iran has shown an inclination to develop a weapon. Nor because its supposedly “mad mullahs” would be foolish enough to fire them at Israel were they ever to acquire them.
No, it was for other reasons. Because Iran is the largest and most unified state in the region, one with a rich history, a strong cultural identity and a formidable intellectual tradition. Because Iran has repeatedly shown itself – whether under secular or religious leaders – unwilling to submit to western, and Israeli, colonial domination.
And because it is looked to as a source of authority and leadership by Shia religious communities in neighbouring countries – Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen – that have a history of similarly refusing to bow to Israeli hegemony.
Israel’s fear was that, were Iran to follow North Korea and acquire a nuclear weapon, Israel would be finished as the West’s most useful militarised client state in the oil-rich Middle East.
Stripped of its ability to terrorise its neighbours, stoke sectarian division and help project US imperial power into the region, Israel would lose its rationale. It would become the ultimate white elephant.
Israeli leaders – grown fat on endless military subsidies paid for by US taxpayers and given licence to plunder the Palestinians’ resources – were never going to willingly step off their gravy train.
Which is why Iran has rarely been out of Israel’s sights……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The last time Iran had a democratic government, in the early 1950s, its secular, socialist prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, outraged the West by nationalising Iran’s oil industry for the benefit of Iranians.
The CIA’s Operation Ajax toppled him in 1953 and reinstated the brutal Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as monarch, or Shah, allowing the US and Britain to take back control of Iran’s oil.
The backlash was 26 years coming. Islamic clerics rode an outpouring of popular hatred for the US and Israeli-backed Shah to launch their revolution…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Pact with the devil
Washington’s western allies may be privately uncomfortable at being visibly associated with another illegal US-Israeli war. But in supporting more than two years of genocide in Gaza, they already made their pact with the devil. There is no going back now.
Which is why Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Australia all dutifully lined up behind the Trump administration as the mayhem began………………………………………………………………………….
The embers of resistance – in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and potentially in new sites like Bahrain – have not been snuffed out. And now, with the attack on Iran, they are being fanned into a fire with every new crime, every new outrage, every new atrocity. https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/israel-planned-this-war-on-iran-for?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=476450&post_id=190093136&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=17yeb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
.
Xi Hints At More Top Purges, Issues Warning To ‘Corrupt Elements’ In Chinese Army
by Tyler Durden, Mar 09, 2026, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/xi-hints-more-top-purges-issues-warning-corrupt-elements-chinese-army
One of the big themes to come out of China over the past several months (and even years) has been Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (apparently ongoing) sweeping purge of PLA military command ranks on the basis of “corruption” – or rather what is most probably perceived disloyalty.
Already there’s been several top dismissals including the firings of multiple members of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and dozens of generals – some even placed under house arrest, as well as a broad purge of the Chinese Communist Party.
Xi this weekend hinted there could be more to come, freshly warning Saturday during a speech to delegates from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the People’s Armed Police that disloyalty to the party – or else selfish dealings and corruption – will not be tolerated.
“There must be no place in the military for those who are disloyal to the party, nor any place for corrupt elements,” Xi said.
He then called for strict oversight in “key areas such as fund flows, the exercise of power, and quality control” during the country’s next five-year plan which is set to be approved later this month.
Here’s more of what he said via Chinese state sources:
It is essential to fully strengthen the Party’s leadership and Party building in the military, and make Party organizations at all levels even stronger, Xi said, stressing the need to translate the Party’s leadership strength into development momentum.
It is important to consolidate the ideological foundation that ensures officers and soldiers follow the Party and its guidance, and ensure that modern weaponry and equipment are placed in the hands of politically committed personnel, Xi said.
A former CIA analyst who follows Chinese elite politics, Christopher K. Johnson, recently told the NY Times of the ongoing purge trend:
“This move is unprecedented in the history of the Chinese military and represents the total annihilation of the high command.”
The PLA has seen significant internal turmoil, especially since the Communist Party’s 20th Congress in late 2022. Several top military figures – including Defense Ministers Li Shangfu and Wei Fenghe, and CMC Political Work Department head Miao Hua – have disappeared or been removed, and many more followed.
“AIPAC Is Toxic”: Illinois Races Expose a Shifting Democratic Landscape
SCHEERPOST, March 8, 2026 Joshua Scheer
The shift comes amid growing criticism of the pro-Israel lobby. Senator Chris Van Hollen recently telling a Jewish audience at a J Street conference that the actions of American Israel Public Affairs Committee were “un-American.”
A growing divide over the war with Iran is emerging inside Democratic politics and within AIPAC itself, and nowhere is it more visible than in Illinois.
According to reporting by Jewish Currents, several Democratic congressional candidates in Illinois who are backed by the powerful pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have publicly criticized the U.S. attack on Iran—despite the lobby’s strong support for the military action.
The break highlights a political dilemma for AIPAC as it pours millions of dollars into Democratic primary races across the country in an effort to maintain strong congressional backing for Israel.
AIPAC praised Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran, describing the move as “decisive.” But the Democratic candidates the group has supported in Illinois have largely taken the opposite position, condemning the U.S. attack while carefully avoiding direct criticism of Israel’s role in the conflict.
Among them is Illinois State Senator Laura Fine, who warned that Trump’s decision could send the Middle East into further chaos and suggested the president’s actions were grounds for impeachment. Other AIPAC-backed candidates—including former congresswoman Melissa Bean, Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, and Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears‑Ervin—also criticized the strikes, describing them as unconstitutional, dangerous, or an immoral “war of choice.”
Yet none of the candidates have openly challenged Israel’s involvement in the conflict, reflecting the delicate balancing act facing Democrats who rely on AIPAC support while campaigning in districts where Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the war.
Political analysts say that tension is not accidental. Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, noted that Democratic voters are strongly against the war.
A recent poll by The Washington Post found that roughly 87 percent of Democrats oppose the conflict with Iran. As a result, many candidates are directing their criticism at Trump rather than confronting AIPAC or Israel directly.
“They have to be careful if they want to keep AIPAC support,” Duss explained.
The same political dynamic is playing out in several other races. In New York, Representative Dan Goldman, who has received backing from AIPAC, criticized Trump for defying the Constitution in launching the attack but did not mention Israel. Goldman is currently facing a progressive challenge from former New York City comptroller Brad Lander.
Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Representative Valerie Foushee narrowly defeated progressive challenger Nida Allam in a Democratic primary where the Iran war emerged as a late campaign issue. Allam ran television ads highlighting her opposition to the war and criticizing Foushee for accepting donations from defense contractors. Foushee also opposed the war and attempted to distance herself from AIPAC during the race.
Progressive candidates have seen stronger results in other states. In Texas, Reverend Frederick Haynes won the Democratic primary in the heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Haynes has been outspoken in criticizing Israeli policies in Gaza and has also opposed the war with Iran.
Advocates on the left say the results reflect a broader shift within Democratic politics. Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said recent primaries demonstrate how rapidly the political landscape is changing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
In a joint statement, several progressive candidates—including Peters, Ahmed, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, and union organizer Anthony Driver—accused Trump of dragging the United States into what they described as an unnecessary war backed by AIPAC, and called on their opponents to reject the lobby’s “pro-war agenda.”……………………………………………………………. https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/08/aipac-is-toxic-illinois-races-expose-a-shifting-democratic-landscape/
Germany to scrap deadline for finding a nuclear waste storage site
04 Mar 2026, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-scrap-deadline-finding-nuclear-waste-storage-site
Germany has given up on naming a deadline for finding a suitable location for the safe and long-term storage of highly radioactive waste, reports public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. A draft bill by the environment ministry, which is in charge of the process, says the existing 2031 target date is not realistic. A statutory deadline does not fit the complex requirements of the site selection process, the draft said, according to the broadcaster.
Germany shut down its last nuclear power plants in 2023, but must still safely dispose of decades of accumulated radioactive waste. A report commissioned by the country’s Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) said in 2024 that the search for a suitable site was likely to last until the 2070s. The environment ministry has also said the 2031 target was unrealistic, but argued that progress in the search process should still be considered when assessing possible timelines.
Only weeks ago, environment minister Carsten Schneider said the goal was to decide on a location by the middle of the century. However, the draft bill no longer mentions this target date.
The 2031 deadline was set in the country’s 2013 law on finding and choosing a nuclear waste repository.
Germany must find a place to safely store 1,900 large containers, or around 28,100 cubic metres, of high-level radioactive waste in a location that can be considered secure for hundreds of thousands of years. The material must remain retrievable for the first 500 years to allow for implementing alternative solutions.
Heat-generating nuclear waste accounts for only five percent of Germany’s radioactive refuse, but causes 99 percent of the radiation. It is currently held at temporary storage facilities near the nuclear power stations and in central interim repositories. Once a decision on a location is made, building the final repository is scheduled to take about 20 years. Transporting and storing the refuse will then take several decades more, meaning the entire process will last well into the next century.
Back on its heels, will Israel nuke Iran?
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 8 Mar 26, https://theaimn.net/back-on-its-heels-will-israel-nuke-iran/
Trump’s deranged war on Iran is spiraling out of control. US bases are being pounded, neutralizing their ability to monitor, much less shoot down Iranian drones and missiles. But Iranian firepower is no threat to the US homeland 6,000 miles from Iran.
Not so for Israel which is being devastated by Iran’s enormous stockpile of drones and missiles. Having been dastardly attacked by Israel and the US last June while negotiating in good faith, unlike Israel and US, Iran was ready for dastardly attack 2.0.
Assassinating Iranian leader Ali Khamenei, the leader who issued a Fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons, was astonishingly stupid. It had the opposite effect of encouraging the Iranian people to rise against the Islamic government to allow delusional Trump to pick a US puppet successor.
Iran’s response has been ferocious, creating both physical chaos and now societal unrest thruout Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu, hoping to avoid Khamenei’s fate, is spending most of his time flying around the region while communicating with his beleaguered government and military. He doesn’t plan to go down with the Israeli ship of state.
Netanyahu is seeing the existential threat he unleashed upon Iran boomeranging back on Israel itself. That conjures up the worst nightmare scenario of this nightmare war. Will Netanyahu dip into his stock of 300 nukes and drop one on Tehran to stop further Israeli disintegration they brought upon themselves?
This possibility should have the hair on fire of everyone in the Trump administration promoting this senseless, self-destructive war. Then again, some of them are so deranged they view their folly as a holy war which will create Armageddon, bring Jesus back to earth to lift up to heaven those who believe, while us sane folks fall into hell. This madness is being fed to bewildered soldiers in dozens of military stations in every service branch.
2,473 nukes have been exploded in tests since the 2 nukes America fired in anger destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago. There are many reasons for this insane, unprovoked, criminal war to be ended. Topping the list is keeping Netanyahu from making nuclear explosion number 2,477 the first to obliterate a city since number 3 obliterated Nagasaki.
1 This Month
18 March Webinar @ 1 PM EST: An Assessment of SMR Projects: The Case of Canada
register for the zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o8BIIOUvQ2ONJR1nta65DQ#/registration
of the week – STOP SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN CANADA
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (146)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 