A Case for War? Iran’s Non-Existent Nuclear Weapons Program
ByWilliam O. Beeman, Apr 14, 2026, https://americancommunitymedia.org/oped/a-case-for-war-irans-non-existent-nuclear-weapons-program/
The United States’ repeated attacks on Iran over more than 40 years are based on a lie: that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Vice-President J.D. Vance, who led the U.S. delegation in cease-fire talks with Iran on April 10-11, once again repeated this lie in his demand that Iran declare that it “will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon.”
The current Iranian regime has done much that has disturbed the world community since the Islamic Revolution of 1978-1979. They have supported Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, the Assad Regime in Syria, and militant groups throughout the Middle East. They have repressed dissent in their own country, including incarceration and execution of many thousands of Iranian citizens, with little justification. For these actions the regime deserves severe condemnation.
However, what Iran has not done and has never done is to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran’s critics hide behind the phrase “Iran’s nuclear ambitions” as if that vague phrase constitutes proof that a nuclear weapons program exists. It does not exist and has never existed. So why does this unsubstantiated accusation remain a live issue?
The answer is surprisingly simple. When Iran was an ally of the United States during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was re-installed from exile in a CIA-led coup in 1953, the United States fervently encouraged Iran to develop nuclear technology. After the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79, when Iran was seen as opposed to the United States, its nuclear program was suddenly seen as suspect and dangerous.
Iranian nuclear development started during the Eisenhower administration as part of the “Atoms for Peace” program. In 1957, the United States signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with Iran stipulating that the United States would provide Iran with technical assistance, nuclear fuel, and a small research reactor. This resulted in the establishment of the Tehran Nuclear Research Center in 1959. In 1967, under the Johnson administration, the United States delivered a five-megawatt research reactor to Iran along with weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to fuel it.
In 1968, Iran and the United States were founding signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which was eventually signed by virtually every nation on earth except for Israel, India, and Pakistan. (North Korea initially signed and then withdrew. South Sudan, founded in 2011, never signed the treaty).
The NPT prohibits nations that did not have a nuclear weapons program at the time of signing from ever developing nuclear weapons. At the same time, the NPT guarantees the right of all countries to pursue non-nuclear-weapons programs to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The treaty also requires nations that already had nuclear weapons to protect the rights of other nations to develop their own nuclear technology, including the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. (Aside from Iran, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, and Argentina all have active nuclear enrichment programs today).
From this point on, until the 1978-79 Revolution, the United States encouraged nuclear development in Iran, urging companies like Westinghouse and General Electric to sell nuclear power reactors to the Shah’s government. At one point 23 nuclear power plants were envisioned.
But following the Iranian Revolution and the 444-day hostage crisis when U.S. officials were held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran became suspect in the eyes of the United States. The nuclear program that had once been so fervently encouraged became a point of attack against the Islamic Republic.
The idea that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon stems from a 1984 United Press International article entitled “Ayatollah’s Bomb in Production for Iran.” On April 26, 1984, the U.S State Department under the Reagan administration — with no evidence that Iran had the equipment or the capability to produce a bomb — nevertheless urged a world-wide ban on providing nuclear materials to the country.
The eight-year Iran-Iraq war was then underway, and the Reagan administration feared that Iran could develop a weapon to use against Iraq. Another press article from The Washington Post in 1987 entitled “Atomic Ayatollahs” continued the alarm.
Even though Western intelligence agencies repeatedly insisted that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program, U.S. officials — buoyed by negative public opinion of the Iranian regime — continued the accusation. The first U.S. imposed economic sanctions levied on Iran in relation to its nuclear program were imposed by President Bill Clinton in 1995.
In 2003 the George W. Bush administration, under urging from neo-conservatives bent on effecting regime change throughout the Middle East, again accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons program.
From this point on, the specter of Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” became a mantra in Washington, despite Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei having issued a religious edict prohibiting nuclear weapons development that same year. President Bush imposed further U.S. economic sanctions, increasing tensions between the two nations.
After more than 10 years, the Obama administration was able to create the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As part of the agreement, Iran agreed to curtail its uranium enrichment program as a “confidence building” measure to assure that it would not violate the provisions of the longstanding NPT.
After President Trump canceled the JCOPA during his first presidential term in 2017, the idea that Iran still had “nuclear ambitions” became the baseline excuse for continued U.S. sanctions. No matter Iran’s transgressions, this one accusation remains the principal reason for continued hostilities culminating in the current war between the two nations.
The base fact is that Iran has never been shown to have had a nuclear weapons program. All intelligence organizations involved with nuclear containment agree on this fact. Nevertheless, as was seen in the failure of the Islamabad talks, Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” continue to be the pretext for U.S. attacks.
Will Trump nuke Iran?
Never has humankind seen so much power concentrated in the hands of one so capricious. Whether the ceasefire will hold, for how long, and in what ways is for the days ahead to tell. No one—not even Donald Trump—knows the end game. But the constant is the man whose finger can push the nuclear button. A man used to quick, vacuous victories through bullying and unbridled force is rancorous, thwarted, and vengeful.
What once seemed preposterous is now a palpable possibility.
When Trump, echoing Gen. Curtis LeMay’s 1965 threat toward North Vietnam, threatened to “obliterate” Iran and bomb it “back into the Stone Age”—rhetoric repeated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—he wasn’t just posturing. In fact he was signaling that in an administration which respects no norms, mushroom clouds may be acceptable.
By Pervez Hoodbhoy | Opinion | April 10, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/will-trump-nuke-iran/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Will%20Trump%20nuke%20Iran%3F&utm_campaign=20260413%20Monday%20Newsletter
No one—not even Donald Trump—knows the end game as the six-week old US-Israeli war on Iran enters a temporary ceasefire. Just look at the head-spinning time-line:
Sunday, April 5 (infrastructure destruction-I): “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the fucking strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
Monday, April 6: (infrastructure destruction-II): “Their infrastructure could be taken out in one night. I’m telling you, no bridges, no power plants. I’m considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil.”
Tuesday, April 7 (morning) (threat to commit genocide): “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change… maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?”
Tuesday, April 7 (evening): Announcement of two-week Pakistan-mediated ceasefire.
Never has humankind seen so much power concentrated in the hands of one so capricious. Whether the ceasefire will hold, for how long, and in what ways is for the days ahead to tell. No one—not even Donald Trump—knows the end game. But the constant is the man whose finger can push the nuclear button. A man used to quick, vacuous victories through bullying and unbridled force is rancorous, thwarted, and vengeful. He has been stymied by a recalcitrant theocratic state that has taken blow after blow, withstood the killing of its venerated leader, the bombing of its cities, the destruction of vital infrastructure, and the systematic targeting of its schools and universities.
Weeks later, when it should rightly be on its knees, Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz and refuses to negotiate while it is being bombed. Instead, it continues to cause mayhem among America’s allies and take potshots at Israel. Imagine Trump’s frustration, especially after his bloodless victory in Venezuela.
But a so-far-unbroken taboo, inviolate since the nuclear ash settled over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, may crack. What once seemed preposterous is now a palpable possibility. When Trump, echoing Gen. Curtis LeMay’s 1965 threat toward North Vietnam, threatened to “obliterate” Iran and bomb it “back into the Stone Age”—rhetoric repeated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—he wasn’t just posturing. In fact he was signaling that in an administration which respects no norms, mushroom clouds may be acceptable.
The “how” and “when” remain open questions, but if the ceasefire ceases to hold the crosshairs are likely fixed on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant or, just as probably, Isfahan, where Iran’s fissile material was allegedly transferred before the June 2025 attack. Buried deep beneath a mountain of solid rock, Fordow is the nuclear facility that Trump had earlier claimed to have “obliterated.”
The math of escalation is inexorable: Iran reportedly holds roughly 450 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium. While a rudimentary gun-type nuclear weapon would be assembled using 80-100 kilograms of this material, a sophisticated implosion-type bomb needs 20-25 kilograms of uranium enriched to contain 90 percent of the uranium 235 isotope, a process requiring only some weeks. If Iran has mastered the complex engineering required for the latter, its current reserves represent a potential arsenal of eight to 10 nuclear warheads.
The game hinges on the upgrade. Iran can push its stockpile to weapons-grade in a matter of weeks. Conventional “bunker busters” like the GBU-57 have already failed; 14 were dropped on Fordow and Natanz in 2025, yet the heart of the program kept beating. To achieve absolute destruction, the hammer would have to be nuclear.
If the United States chooses to go nuclear in Iran, the Pentagon’s solution would likely be an earth-penetrating warhead like the B61-11 or the newly deployed B61-12. Washington would frame such a strike not as a Hiroshima-style apocalypse but as a “clinical necessity”—a tactical operation designed to kill hundreds rather than tens of thousands.
But Iran will not surrender quietly and would retaliate with everything it has. A lucky strike from a sophisticated missile could sink an American aircraft carrier; a coordinated swarm of drones and missiles could turn major Arab oil terminals into pillars of fire. At that point, the “clinical” experiment could end, and the apocalypse might begin as the United States reaches for its next nuclear target.
Even for a man who finds gratification in the suffering of others—who celebrated the recent destruction of Iran’s biggest bridge followed by cars plummeting down—Trump’s nuclear ambitions are constrained by American electoral politics and the upcoming November elections, a potentially hostile public reaction, and a somewhat reluctant military.
For now, America and Israel are operating in lockstep. They reportedly executed coordinated strikes on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant—which has nothing to do with bomb-making—on March 18 and April 4. These were presumably “signaling strikes” since they destroyed only an auxiliary building and killed a single guard. Their intent was clear—even if the endgame is not. The message has been received: In coordination with the Israeli Defence Forces, over 200 high-level Russian technicians have already evacuated Bushehr, leaving behind only a skeleton crew to manage a potential emergency shutdown.
But “signaling” near a live reactor is a high-stakes gamble with an unclear ultimate purpose. While the plant continues to feed the grid, a direct hit on its containment dome would trigger a radiological catastrophe far exceeding that of Chernobyl or Fukushima. With 70-80 tons of uranium dioxide in its core and a massive inventory of spent fuel lying in nearby cooling ponds, a breach would shroud the Persian Gulf with a lethal miasma of radioiodine and cesium-137. This wouldn’t just be a strike against a regime; it would be a death sentence for the region’s environment and its people.
Israel—which pulverized Gaza to rubble and seeks a similar outcome in South Lebanon—may have fewer inhibitions than the United States. Where Washington might hesitate, Israel may well aim for the dome. For America’s Gulf allies—the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman—the fallout would range from the devastating to the permanent, the outcome depending on wind direction and speed.
With an undeclared arsenal of over 150 warheads and reliable means to deliver them to any corner of Iran, Israeli nuclear strikes on Iranian population centers are no longer a fringe theory; they would become a live strategic option in Jerusalem if somehow Iran manages to breach the Israel’s Iron Dome missile defenses more regularly and with greater effectiveness.
Operation Epic Fury is now entering its sixth week. As yet there are no direct negotiations, just a temporary ceasefire. With optimism in short supply, the world is watching a grim lesson unfold. The takeaway for every middle power and so-called rogue state is becoming undeniable: If you have the bomb, you don’t get bombed. The race is on to get it while they still can.
Trump is trying to distract us from Pope Leo’s calls for peace. Don’t take the bait.
Not only does Pope Leo not think Iran should have nuclear weapons, he does not think any country should have them, including the United States.)
American Magazine, by Sam Sawyer, S.J.April 13, 2026
If you are outraged—which would be both understandable and justifiable—by President Donald Trump’s social media attack last night on Pope Leo, take a moment to step back and follow the pope’s example rather than taking the president’s bait.
You may remember that at the beginning of May, during the preparation for the conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV, the president posted an A.I.-generated image of himself as pope dressed in a white cassock and miter, his hand raised in blessing. The White House’s official X account later reposted the image, which remains up on the account.
As the America team in Rome and back at home discussed how much to cover that story, I reminded my colleagues that to the degree that the Trump-as-pope meme meant anything, it meant that Mr. Trump was unable to tolerate anyone other than himself commanding the world’s attention.
As the America team in Rome and back at home discussed how much to cover that story, I reminded my colleagues that to the degree that the Trump-as-pope meme meant anything, it meant that Mr. Trump was unable to tolerate anyone other than himself commanding the world’s attention.
Mr. Trump posted a screed against Pope Leo late on the evening of Sunday, April 12. It was, as my colleague James Martin, S.J., posted last night, “unhinged, uncharitable and un-Christian.” It was immeasurably beneath the dignity of the office of the president. (Not satisfied with merely attacking the Vicar of Christ, Mr. Trump posted another A.I.-generated image, this one seeming to depict himself as Jesus.)
Mr. Trump’s post also makes little sense. It achieves the almost impressive feat of becoming less coherent the longer you think about it.
It slams Pope Leo as “WEAK on crime,” probably Trumpian code for Leo’s opposition to the administration’s immigration policy. It then veers into a tirade about priests and ministers being arrested for holding services during the pandemic, followed by Mr. Trump’s praise for the pope’s brother Louis as “all MAGA.” Finally, turning to the foreign policy disagreements that probably triggered the post, it accuses Leo of thinking “it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.” (Not only does Pope Leo not think Iran should have nuclear weapons, he does not think any country should have them, including the United States.)
In the most muddled part of the attack, Mr. Trump says he is the reason that Leo got elected as pope and that the cardinals in conclave thought that was “the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump.” This manages to be wrong both coming and going. It is farcical as an account of the motives of the cardinals and, as I will explain below, it misunderstands the purpose of Leo’s own witness entirely.
Far more telling than anything in the president’s post was the timing of it. During a weekend full of bad news for Mr. Trump, his post followed a lack of progress in negotiations with Iran and the resounding electoral loss of his favorite European leader, Viktor Orban, in Hungary. Relative to the Catholic world, his post came the day after Pope Leo XIV led a prayer vigil for peace in St. Peter’s and was joined in prayer all around the world. It came within hours of a “60 Minutes” broadcast of an unprecedented joint interview by three U.S. cardinals, in which they clearly laid out the church’s moral objection to both the Iran war and the administration’s mass deportation agenda.
Mr. Trump, however, was not responding to any of those events in kind. Mr. Trump’s outburst is not trying to convince anyone of his claims but rather to make people angry. In that sense, its incoherence is more a feature than a bug.
The way his attack on the pope functions best for Mr. Trump, like so much of the ragebait with which he pollutes our collective consciousness, is by pulling attention back to him so that we talk about him within terms that he has set. If we are doing that, Mr. Trump does not much care, I suspect, whether we agree with him or oppose him, because at least we are back in orbit around him.
Perhaps the way in which Pope Leo presents the greatest challenge to President Trump is in his consistent demonstration of what it looks like to remain morally centered on the Gospel instead of acting for or against Mr. Trump’s interests. In general, even when offering critiques that respond to American foreign policy moves, as in his description of Mr. Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable,” Pope Leo does not mention the president by name. In part, this follows well-established Vatican diplomatic practice, but it is also meant to remind us that the pope is speaking more from principle than he is in response to persons, even the most powerful person on earth. When Leo is speaking more explicitly about persons, it is to call our attention back to people who are suffering: the poor and the victims of war or violence.
Leo has also encouraged U.S. bishops to speak up more forcefully and more frequently. As can be seen in recent days, both from the “60 Minutes” interview by Cardinals Cupich, McElroy and Tobin and the swift response by Archbishop Paul Coakley, the president of the national bishops’ conference, to Mr. Trump’s threat against Iranian civilization, the pope has been strikingly successful in encouraging the bishops to exercise such leadership……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.americamagazine.org/many-things/2026/04/13/trump-pope-leo-truth-social/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Trump%20is%20trying%20to%20distract%20us%20from%20Pope%20Leo%20s%20calls%20for%20peace%20%20Don%20t%20take%20the%20bait&utm_campaign=Daily%204%2013%2026
Sea-level rise is a health crisis and we must hold polluters accountable
There are moments in history when a crisis long treated as distant reveals
itself to be intimate, immediate and profoundly human. Sea-level rise is
one of those moments.
For years it has been discussed in the abstract
language of centimetres, coastal infrastructure and future projections.
This can make it seem like a technical challenge – something for
engineers and planners to grapple with.
But rising seas are already
damaging bodies, minds, livelihoods and cultures. Sea-level rise is a
present-day health crisis. When saltwater intrudes into freshwater
supplies, health suffers. When floods overwhelm sanitation systems,
diseases spread. When farmland is inundated by king tides, nutrition
deteriorates. And when people are forced to contemplate leaving the land of
their ancestors, they face a painful mix of physical, financial, emotional,
cultural and spiritual harm. The effect of sea-level rise on property lines
and insurance procurement is clear.
But what is being lost goes far deeper
– it’s safety, dignity, continuity and belonging. Across low-lying
coastal regions and small island states, including throughout the Pacific,
communities are living with this reality today. For Indigenous peoples
especially, land is identity, memory, law, kinship, sustenance today and
connection to a shared future.
Guardian 7th April 2026,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/07/sea-level-rise-health-crisis-christiana-figueres
Trump’s Extreme Use of Military Is Stirring a Crisis of Conscience Among Troops
US soldiers have a rich history of questioning the wars they’re told to wage abroad.
By Sam Carliner , Truthout, April 13, 2026
s President Donald Trump increasingly uses the U.S. military to carry out his agenda through brute force, organizations that provide counseling services for U.S. servicemembers are reporting growing numbers of calls. These calls have further spiked in response to Trump’s war on Iran, one of the most unpopular in U.S. history.
The United States has carried out the war through intense attacks on densely populated civilian areas, the impact of which was clearly shown in the bombing of a girls’ school, killing well over 100 children. Not even concerned with selling the war to the public, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has leaned into treating the intervention as a “holy war” for Christianity.
Mike Prysner, an Iraq War veteran and executive director at the Center on Conscience & War (CCW), told Truthout that troops are telling his organization that they don’t want to be involved in the killing.
“That’s pretty much all of the cases that we have,” Prysner said. “It’s all people who don’t want to take part in killing in a war that they don’t believe in, and this war has made them realize that they can’t take part in any kind of U.S. military action ever again.”
The CCW, formerly the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors, was founded in 1940 to assist religious communities whose beliefs prohibited them from participating in war. Over time, and as a result of broadening criteria for who can qualify as a conscientious objector (CO), the organization evolved to assist troops of all backgrounds whose values prevent them from being able to participate in war.
Prysner told Truthout that in recent weeks CCW has already been able to help several servicemembers become COs to avoid being deployed.
To reach more servicemembers experiencing crises of conscience, CCW and other organizations including the Quaker House founded the GI Rights Hotline in 1994. Steve Woolford, a resource counselor at the Quaker House, has taken calls for the hotline since 2001 and agreed that the war on Iran, and Trump’s broader use of the military, has caused a spike in calls.
“The biggest increase has come from people who are feeling a lot of opposition to the ways the military’s currently being used,” Woolford said. “That includes people who feel like they don’t want to be sent into cities and point a weapon at U.S. citizens, they don’t want to be part of what to many of them look like war crimes, shooting down speedboats in Venezuela that wouldn’t be able to make it to the United States, and I would say with the invasion, or whatever you want to call it, ‘Operation Epic Fury’ in Iran, there’s been significant opposition to that.”
Woolford clarified that not all troops who call the hotline are able to leave the military by filing as COs. While every member of the military has that right, the process requires applicants to prove that they have deeply held antiwar beliefs. This means that even if someone is opposed to certain orders or operations, they don’t qualify as CO if they aren’t opposed to participation in all wars.
Prysner said that the social pressure in the military can also make it difficult for troops to declare themselves COs.
“Especially for people who have deployments happening, you’re telling all of your brothers and sisters in uniform that you don’t believe in what you’re doing and you’re not gonna be able to do it with them,” Prysner said. “The thing is, the people that we’re dealing with, they simply don’t have any other choice … They cannot live with themselves participating.”
Echoes of Antiwar History
This is not the first time that members of the military have questioned their role in U.S. wars. In fact, there is a rich history of GI dissent throughout U.S. history.
The role of antiwar veterans was especially important in bringing about the end of the Vietnam War. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-extreme-use-of-military-is-stirring-a-crisis-of-conscience-among-troops/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=de92a70740-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_04_13_09_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-de92a70740-650192793
Israel is losing its grip on U.S. politics
By Dave Reed , Mondoweiss, April 12, 2026
We’ve been covering the shift in American politics on Israel for years. Donald Trump’s disastrously failed war on Iran has accelerated it.
For years, conventional wisdom held that support for Israel was a third rail in U.S. politics. Phil Weiss has written a library of analysis and coverage on that here at Mondoweiss over the past 20 years. Uncritical support for Israel was toxic for politicians to touch, impossible to oppose, and self-reinforcing across both parties through the combined pressure of donor money, media consensus, and institutional loyalty. That consensus is broken forever. It didn’t break because of a sudden moral awakening in Washington. That will never happen, on virtually any issue. If you need any more proof of that, just look at the way the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein are being treated, or refer to the fact that even massacres of schoolchildren haven’t moved Congress to do something about guns in the country. The consensus across the political elite on Israel broke because Israel’s conduct in Gaza, Lebanon, and now in its open effort to torpedo an end to the war with Iran, has become a liability that American politicians can no longer ignore.
Michael Arria, our U.S. correspondent, documented this week how military aid to Israel has finally become a true litmus test in Democratic Party primaries. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced she will vote against all military aid to Israel, including weapons classified as “defensive,” a position she had previously hedged. Even J Street, the organization meant to offer a counter to AIPAC’s extremism but locked in perpetual confusion about its identity, is even now opposing U.S. support for the Iron Dome missile defense system. AIPAC, once considered the most powerful of all the many lobby groups, is now a liability in Democratic races, losing key primaries and watching candidates run against it by name. A recent NBC News poll shows just 13 percent of Democrats view Israel positively. These numbers are not marginal; they represent a fundamental and permanent realignment of the Democratic base. Politicians, candidates, and political institutions are paying attention.
This fracturing is thankfully not limited to the left. The Iran war has cracked open the MAGA coalition in ways that the genocide in Gaza could not. Powerful conservative commentators commanding huge audiences and figures closely aligned with the MAGA movement have been openly and harshly critical of Trump over the war. The widespread, and correct, view is that Netanyahu manipulated Trump into a conflict that serves Israeli interests, not American ones. The critique of the tail wagging the dog is now being advanced loudly by people who would never have entertained it two years ago. The political ground is moving, dramatically, in the months before an all-important mid-term election. Republican figures with aspirations for more power, such as J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, are beginning to distance themselves from the Iran debacle………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/04/weekly-briefing-israel-is-losing-its-grip-on-u-s-politics/
Hormuz Dateline
What Iran Actually Understands
Iran does not need to win a naval war in the classical sense. It only needs to make transit uncertain, costly, and politically radioactive. Mines, drones, missiles, fast boats, electronic piracy, and the psychology of fear are enough to turn a chokepoint into a garotte. That is the essence of asymmetry: a state under pressure parlays geography into power. Tehran does not need to dominate the sea. It needs only to make everyone else remember that the sea is not theirs.
The US-Israeli axis has long acted as if the region were a board and its opponents pieces. Hormuz shreds that assumption with the patience of geography.
14 April 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/hormuz-dateline/
The war now has the smell of salt, oil, and old empires trying to defy the tide.
Thirty-three kilometres. That is the width of the Strait of Hormuz at its narrowest navigable point: two shipping lanes, each two miles wide, one in, one out, with a median strip of Iranian territorial water between them. Through those lanes passes approximately 21 million barrels of oil every single day. That is one barrel in every five consumed anywhere on earth. Add the liquefied natural gas, and you have roughly 20 percent of all the LNG traded on global markets squeezing through a corridor you could drive across in less than half an hour. A fifth of the world’s energy supply running through a gap that geography, not American naval doctrine, placed there.This is not a side theatre. This is the throat of the world economy, and in this war it has become the place where the old American order goes from swagger to strain. What was once sold as a system of irresistible reach; US power, Gulf oil, the dollar, the naval umbrella, the client-state arrangement, now looks clapped-out, ruinously costly, and exposed as it is caught, hoist by its own petard, dependent on a choke point that cannot be bullied out of geography.
No aircraft carrier in the world can widen the Strait of Hormuz by a single metre.
The Arithmetic of Vulnerability
The numbers matter because official language exists precisely to hide that fact.
When the Iran-Iraq war threatened these waters in the 1980s, oil prices doubled within months. When Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping began in late 2023, global shipping insurance rates for Gulf-adjacent routes increased by up to 600 percent within weeks. Lloyd’s of London has now quietly tripled war risk premiums for vessels transiting the Gulf. That is not a diplomatic assessment or a Pentagon briefing. That is the financial system’s hard-nosed verdict on what is actually happening, stripped of all the official language about deterrence and security and the rules-based order.
While Trump posts to Truth Social about erasing civilisations and US admirals post to Facebook about historic firsts, the insurance market is pricing the reality that the propaganda is designed to conceal.
Australia has a particular stake in this arithmetic that the Albanese government would prefer its citizens not examine too carefully. Australia sends approximately 80 percent of its LNG exports through or near the Gulf corridor. When Hormuz is threatened, Woodside’s share price moves. The war that Albanese insists Australia is not involved in is directly affecting the income of Australian energy companies and, through them, the superannuation balances of ordinary Australians. Pine Gap processes targeting data for the strikes. Australian-made F-35 components are in the payload. And Hormuz is where the bill arrives.
What Iran Actually Understands
Iran does not need to win a naval war in the classical sense. It only needs to make transit uncertain, costly, and politically radioactive. Mines, drones, missiles, fast boats, electronic piracy, and the psychology of fear are enough to turn a chokepoint into a garotte. That is the essence of asymmetry: a state under pressure parlays geography into power. Tehran does not need to dominate the sea. It needs only to make everyone else remember that the sea is not theirs.
This is a strategic fact Washington cannot deny. Or lie about. The US-Israeli axis has long acted as if the region were a board and its opponents pieces. Hormuz shreds that assumption with the patience of geography. Israel can strike, assassinate, bomb, and escalate, but it cannot turn the Gulf into a risk-free zone. The US can threaten, sanction, and deploy, but it cannot guarantee the one thing the market demands most: confidence. That is the precise point at which imperial force runs into imperial limits. Empires can break things. Claim to rule the world. But it’s not so easy to rebuild trust once the world has called your bluff.
The ruling classes of all three powers; American, Israeli, Iranian are happy to gamble with systems they do not themselves live inside. They talk deterrence but they mean coercion. They may say security but they mean control. They may invoke peace but they build the conditions for the next war. It is the coastal fishermen, the dockworkers, “sea-gulls”, the tanker crews, and the families living with the knowledge that a misfire, a mine, or a drone can change the day in an instant who live inside the system these men are gambling with. That distinction matters. It is, in fact, the only distinction that matters.
The Petrodollar’s Exposed Seam
The petrodollar order was always more fragile than its keepers cared to admit. It rests on a Faustian bargain: Gulf oil will flow, the US will police the sea lanes, the dollar will stay as the world’s reserve currency, and regional rulers will play along so long as the deal suited them. Hormuz is where that bargain begins to fray.
The petrodollar system requires that oil be priced and settled in US dollars. That settlement runs through SWIFT, the global payments network, from which Iran has been excluded as an act of economic warfare. That exclusion has produced a direct, rational, and accelerating response: China, Russia, India, and an expanding coalition of the economically non-aligned are developing alternative settlement systems specifically designed to route around the dollar’s dominance.
This is not ideological posturing. It is financial self-defence against a system that has been openly weaponised. Hormuz is where that process becomes visible to everyone simultaneously.
The dollar’s centrality has depended on the belief that US power could secure the energy arteries while underwriting the financial order that prices global risk. But every threat to Hormuz chips at that belief. Every disruption reminds the world that this system is not floating on neutrality. It is anchored in force. And once force has to be constantly displayed, the myth of effortless supremacy begins to crack along every seam.
This is also why Hormuz looks, feels and even sounds like the end of an era. Not a stagey, Hollywood end of empire, but something slower and more repugnant: the fish rotting from the head, the end of imperial pretension publicly betrayed by the geography it claimed to master. The old style assumed that military reach could substitute for political legitimacy, that sanctions could replace diplomacy, that client regimes could be managed indefinitely, and that publics could be disciplined through spectacle and fear. Hormuz answers all of that with one simple fact: you can command the skies and the seas and still be strategically cornered. You can own the ocean narrative and still depend on a narrow strait you do not fully control.
The Scene Itself
Picture the actual scene, because power loves to use abstraction uses to hide from accountability.
Tankers move slow and dark under a white-hot sky. Naval escorts shadow them like anxious bodyguards. Insurance underwriters in distant offices recalculate exposure in real time. Traders watching screens flicker red. Refineries in South Korea, Japan, and India scramble to secure alternative supply. And in the waters themselves, and on the shores, and in the cities behind those shores, the people who have no choice but to live in the world that distant men are gambling with.That is Hormuz. Not a metaphor first, but a machine for making the abstract painfully concrete. It is thirty-three kilometres of water through which the pretensions of three nuclear-adjacent powers, and the complicities of a dozen client states including our own, are being tested against the oldest and most indifferent judge available: physical reality.
The old imperial language can still speak loudly, but it cannot hide the fact that the world runs through exposed conduits. It can still threaten, but it cannot guarantee outcome. It can still destroy, but it cannot stabilise what it has broken. That is the end-of-era feeling: not the end of power, but the end of the illusion that power can be made clean, automatic, and permanent.
The Narrowness of the Waterway, the Narrowness of Official Thinking
Hormuz is where the lie breaks down. It is where the empire finds the edge of its own reach. It is where the petrodollar shows its dependence, where military supremacy meets strategic vulnerability, and where thirty-three kilometres of salt water becomes a lesson in the catastrophic narrowness of the thinking that brought three powers to this point.
The old order still speaks in the voice of inevitability. Hormuz answers with a counter-argument that has been making the same point since the first trading dhow passed through it: no empire, no doctrine, no naval task force gets to abolish geography.
The market knows it. The insurance actuaries know it. The tanker captains threading those two-mile lanes know it. The fishermen on the Iranian shore know it.
The men ordering the strikes are the last to learn it. They always are.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES
Papal authority, now featuring Donald J. Trump
13 April 2026 Roswell AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/papal-authority-now-featuring-donald-j-trump/
The Vatican has long maintained that the selection of a new Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, a sacred process steeped in centuries of ritual, prayer, and secrecy.
This week, however, that understanding was dramatically revised.
According to Donald J. Trump, the election of Pope Leo had very little to do with God, and almost everything to do with himself.
In a characteristically humble statement, Trump revealed that the College of Cardinals – presumably after lighting incense and checking the latest polling – decided that the best way to navigate the modern world was not through theology, diplomacy, or moral leadership, but by selecting “an American” who could somehow manage the President of the United States.
“If I wasn’t in the White House,” Trump pontificated, with the quiet restraint we’ve come to expect, “Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.”
There it is – laid bare with the subtlety of a wrecking ball. Not just a claim of influence, but of gravitational dominance. Vatican City, reduced to a satellite orbiting the ego of a single man.
Historians are now scrambling to update their records. The Sistine Chapel ceiling, once admired for Michelangelo’s depiction of divine creation, may soon be reinterpreted as an early campaign mural.
The smoke that rises from the Vatican chimney – black for no decision, white for a new pope – has also taken on new meaning. Sources close to Trump suggest a third, previously undocumented colour was briefly considered: gold, to properly reflect the true architect of papal destiny.
Meanwhile, theologians are grappling with the implications. If the Holy Spirit has indeed been replaced by a former real estate developer with a social media account, centuries of doctrine may require revision. The concept of papal infallibility, for instance, could soon be expanded to include Truth Social posts.
At press time, Trump was reportedly preparing a follow-up statement clarifying that he would have made an excellent pope himself – “tremendous pope, maybe the best” – but declined out of respect for the separation of church and state, a principle he has always, of course, held very dearly.
Nuclear costs of the Iran War
To create a nuclear disaster, it’s not necessary to directly hit the containment building. Damaging on-site and off-site power necessary for cooling can also have severe repercussions.
even reactors in stand-by modes pose radioactive risks in a war zone.
In spite of all this, Director General of the IAEA Grossi promotes rules of the road to help nuclear energy continue operating in warzones. It is a stark reminder that the IAEA’s major mission is to promote nuclear energy, despite the emerging lessons from two “nuclearized” wars.
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/04/11/nuclear-costs-of-the-iran-war/
Trump’s recent threats to end civilization in Iran gave many a nuclear weapons expert the jitters, writes Sharon Squassoni
President Donald J. Trump’s recent threats to end civilization in Iran gave many a nuclear weapons expert the jitters. For them, existential threats mean only one thing: use of nuclear weapons. Thankfully, Trump’s April 7, 2026 threats were empty and possibly just a ruse to create a dramatic background for the temporary ceasefire in Iran.
To be clear, the use of nuclear weapons in combat would serve no earthly strategic or tactical purpose, but threats to use them can be potent: even a latent capability in the hands of Iran was regarded as too threatening for the United States to tolerate any longer, which reportedly drove the U.S. and Israeli military actions.
It’s hard to tell who’s winning or losing in this conflict, but already it’s clear that disruption of energy sources (Iran’s blocking the Straits of Hormuz and the U.S. and Israel striking Iran’s oil infrastructure) focuses attention like no other infrastructure attack. A sudden cutoff that shrinks supplies and distorts prices echoes in economies across the globe.
This is one reason the world was hesitant to impose sanctions on Iran’s oil some twenty years ago when Iran’s clandestine nuclear program was first unveiled. Today, the Iran war has underscored just how dependent the world continues to be on foreign sources of oil.
Would nuclear energy be any different?
Since 2022, there has been a push in Europe and elsewhere to deploy nuclear reactors to reduce dependencies on Russian oil and gas, triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But such a response is almost laughable to anyone paying attention to what has transpired in Ukraine in the last four years.
Russia hesitated not at all to hold the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants hostage, in addition to firing upon them. The only thing that has saved Ukraine from a major nuclear meltdown is the fact that Russia wants to save Ukraine for itself, rather than destroy it utterly.
For those who still believe in international laws, there are rules to prevent attacks on nuclear plants — specifically the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, a key document in international humanitarian law adopted in 1979 — that 175 countries follow.
Unfortunately, Russia withdrew in 2019 and the US has never ratified Protocol I (along with Israel, India, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran). The Protocol protects “works and installations containing dangerous forces,” prohibiting attacks on nuclear power plants that generate civilian electricity, among other things. It concedes that some nuclear power plants that regularly support military purposes may be attacked.
For those paying attention to nuclear development trends, this should be worrisome because both China and the United States have programs to develop nuclear reactors for specific military uses. Not content to learn from past experience, the United States plans to deploy a military microreactor by July 4th of this year. Leaving aside questions of cost, safety and peacetime security, such deployments will widen the base of deadly targets in war. Civilians won’t care whether international law deems these “legitimate” targets of attack.
Attacks on nuclear facilities themselves are not new. The United States, Russia, Israel, Iran and Iraq have all, at times, targeted nuclear research and power reactors under various stages of construction and operation in the past. Sometimes these attacks tried to slow nuclear weapons proliferation programs and sometimes, as in the Iran-Iraq war, they were targeted for less specific purposes.
After the June 2025 attacks on uranium enrichment-related facilities by the United States, touted as “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi warned that a strike on the Bushehr power plant could cause a regional catastrophe.
Recently, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has claimed that the Bushehr plant, which generates close to 1000 Megawatts of electricity, has been struck four times since February this year. The closest hit has been 75 meters from the plant on April 4, killing a security guard and damaging a building. Russia, which has 128 Rosatom personnel at the plant, is considering further evacuations, which sounds eerily similar to what happened to the Zaporizhzhia plant in March 2022.
To create a nuclear disaster, it’s not necessary to directly hit the containment building. Damaging on-site and off-site power necessary for cooling can also have severe repercussions. In the case of Zaporizhzhia, operators shut down reactors to minimize some of the risks. But even reactors in stand-by modes pose radioactive risks in a war zone.
The Bushehr power plant is still operating and has spent nuclear fuel on-site in spent fuel pools. Who can forget the video footage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011 when crews attempted to spray seawater from helicopters on spent fuel pools damaged by the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan? More than a decade later, the site is still undergoing remediation.
In spite of all this, Director General of the IAEA Grossi promotes rules of the road to help nuclear energy continue operating in warzones. It is a stark reminder that the IAEA’s major mission is to promote nuclear energy, despite the emerging lessons from two “nuclearized” wars.
In fact, learning the wrong lessons from this conflict could carry the seeds of unimaginable future disruption. A world that fears reliance on foreign energy could rely even more on nuclear energy for not just electricity, but transportation and data processing, the new currency of power. The greater the reliance, the keener officials will be to keep it up and running. More and more widely distributed nuclear targets will not be protected by Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, or by the International Atomic Energy Agency. There is no International Nuclear Red Cross or Emergency Management Agency.
Many Americans find it hard to contemplate attacks on U.S. soil, with good reason. This is why the 9/11 attacks affected the population so deeply. Those attacks sparked significant improvements in security at nuclear power plants that are now being unraveled by a push to deploy nuclear reactors in the United States as quickly as possible.
In fact, learning the wrong lessons from this conflict could carry the seeds of unimaginable future disruption. A world that fears reliance on foreign energy could rely even more on nuclear energy for not just electricity, but transportation and data processing, the new currency of power. The greater the reliance, the keener officials will be to keep it up and running. More and more widely distributed nuclear targets will not be protected by Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, or by the International Atomic Energy Agency. There is no International Nuclear Red Cross or Emergency Management Agency.
Many Americans find it hard to contemplate attacks on U.S. soil, with good reason. This is why the 9/11 attacks affected the population so deeply. Those attacks sparked significant improvements in security at nuclear power plants that are now being unraveled by a push to deploy nuclear reactors in the United States as quickly as possible.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently voted to discontinue force-on-force commando drills designed to reveal weaknesses in site vulnerabilities. A victim of the DOGE process, the NRC has been stripped of its independence and will now overhaul the entire licensing process, even as the Trump administration seeks to end-run the NRC by deploying new reactors on government sites owned by the Departments of Energy and Defense.
If anything, the Iran war demonstrates Gulliver’s dilemma. Both Ukraine and Iran have used drones successfully to compensate for conventional force inferiority. Are we truly prepared to counter cheaper and more plentiful attacks that are more difficult to detect and defend against?
Iran’s nuclear program was feared for its potential to provide the basis for nuclear weapons. Now it is generating fear for its potential to provoke a more imminent regional catastrophe, whether intended or accidental. These security risks, perhaps not widely appreciated now, will only grow in a more nuclearized future.
Jeffrey Sachs: Ending Israel’s War on Peace
To make lasting peace in the Middle East, the US must end its blank check to Israel’s perpetual wars and join with the rest of the world to force Israel to live within its internationally recognized borders of June 4, 1967.
Jeffrey D. SachsSybil Fares, Apr 09, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/israel-war-on-peace
A two-week ceasefire has partially halted the Israel-US war on Iran. The war accomplished precisely nothing that a competent diplomat could not have achieved in an afternoon. The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war and it is open again now, but with more Iranian control.
Meanwhile, the chaos continues. Israel is intent on blowing up the ceasefire, as this was Israel’s war from the start. Israel dazzled Trump with the prospect of a one-day decapitation strike that would put Trump in charge of Iran’s oil. Israel, in turn, was out for bigger prey: to bring down the Iranian regime and thereby become the regional hegemon of Western Asia.
The foundation of the ceasefire is Iran’s 10-point plan, which Trump (perhaps unwittingly) called a “workable basis on which to negotiate.” The plan makes sense, but it is a major climbdown for the US, and probably a redline for Israel. Among other points, the plan calls for an end to the wars raging in the Middle East, almost all of which have Israel at their root cause. The plan would also resolve the nuclear issue, essentially by going back to the JCPOA that Trump ripped up in 2018.
The Iran War, and the other wars raging across the Middle East, trace back to one core Israeli idea, that Israel will permanently and steadfastly oppose a sovereign Palestinian state and will topple any government in the Middle East that supports armed struggle for national sovereignty. It is crucial to note that the UN General Assembly has passed multiple resolutions, such as Resolution 37/43 (1982), affirming that political self-determination is so vital, that armed struggle in the quest for self-determination is legitimate. The UN was born, in part, out of the determination to end the centuries of European imperial domination over Africa and Asia. Of course, there would be no cause for armed struggle if Israel would accept a political solution, notably the two-state solution that has overwhelming support throughout the world.
The peace is within reach, if the US grasps it.
Netanyahu’s core goal may be summarized as Greater Israel. This means no Palestinian sovereignty, and no clear boundaries for Israel even beyond the boundary of historical Palestine under British rule after WWI. Zionist extremists like Netanyahu’s political allies, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich favor Israeli control over parts of Lebanon and Syria, as well as permanent control over all of what was British Palestine. America’s Christian Zionists, exemplified by the US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, and a strong voter base of Trump, speak of God’s promise to Israel of the lands between the Nile and the Euphrates. Crazy stuff, but these are real beliefs, nonetheless, and they are conveyed in the White House.
Israel’s strategy is therefore regime change in every country that resists Greater Israel, a plan already foreshadowed in the famous political document “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” written by US Zionist neocons as a platform for Netanyahu’s new government in 1996. We’ve had constant wars in the Middle East since then to implement the Clean Break vision. This has included the war in Libya to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi, the wars in Lebanon, the war to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, the war to overthrow Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, and now the war to topple the Iranian regime.
This is not to say that the US lacks its own grandiose ideas. Israel wants regional hegemony, this is not a secret. Netanyahu confirmed these ambitions in his recent remarks about Israel becoming “a regional power, and in certain fields a global power.” On the other hand, American officials dream of global hegemony. And Trump dreams of money. He craves the Iranian oil and repeatedly said so.
In any event, it’s clear that this war was Netanyahu’s creation. He and the Mossad chief came to Washington to sell Trump a bill of goods. It’s not hard. Trump was suckered, while everybody else had their doubts about Netanyahu’s claims of an easy one-day decapitation strike—essentially a replay of the US operation in Venezuela.
It’s pathetic to “listen in” on the White House discussion, as revealed by the New York Times. Netanyahu, a con man, presented rosy scenarios of regime change that US intelligence contradicted, yet Trump foolishly accepted. Trump and Netanyahu were cheered on by Christian Zionists (Hegseth), Jewish Zionists and real-estate developers (Kushner and Witkoff), a faith healer (Franklin Graham), and high-level sycophants (Rubio and Ratcliffe).
While Trump was telling the world that Iran was begging for a ceasefire, it was Trump himself who was begging for a ceasefire.
Until Tuesday evening, it looked like Trump might lead the world blindly to World War III. The vulgarity and brutality of his public rhetoric was unmatched in US presidential history. Now we know that he was desperately seeking an off-ramp and using Pakistan for that purpose. While Trump was telling the world that Iran was begging for a ceasefire, it was Trump himself who was begging for a ceasefire. The Pakistani leader delivered it.
The ceasefire is good, and the 10-point plan is good, even if perhaps Trump didn’t know what was in it when he said that it was a good basis for negotiation. Israel will, in any event, work overtime to break it, and has already started to do so, with carpet bombing of Beirut that is killing hundreds of civilians, and with other strikes. A permanent US-Iran agreement is the last thing that Netanyahu wants. That would end his dream of Greater Israel.
Yet there is a way to peace and that is for the US to face reality. Israel is the real “terror state,” waging perpetual war throughout the Middle East for a wholly indefensible reason—to have unchecked freedom to terrorize and rule over the Palestinian people and to expand its borders as Israel’s zealots see fit. To make lasting peace in the Middle East, the US must end its blank check to Israel’s perpetual wars and join with the rest of the world to force Israel to live within its internationally recognized borders of June 4, 1967. Iran’s 10-point plan can be the basis of a comprehensive regional peace—if the US accepts the reality of a state of Palestine. In that case, Iran would likely agree to stop funding non-state belligerents, and Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and the entire region could live in mutual security and peace. That outcome should be the basis of a negotiated agreement of the US and Iran in the next two weeks.
Israel is the real “terror state,” waging perpetual war throughout the Middle East for a wholly indefensible reason…
The American people have made their views clear. A 2025 Pew survey finds most Jewish Americans lack confidence in Netanyahu and back the two-state solution. Most Americans now view Israel unfavorably, the highest unfavourability in history. Sympathy for Israel has hit a 25-year low. Now the political class must catch up with the public.
The peace is within reach, if the US grasps it. Iran’s proposal is serious and the ceasefire is a fragile opening for a comprehensive settlement. The question is whether the US will, once again, allow Israel to destroy the peace, or rather this time stand up for America’s interests and the world’s interests in a lasting peace.
Goiânia Survivors Challenge Netflix: ‘A Crime Against the Truth’
09.04.26 – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Pressenza New York, https://www.pressenza.com/2026/04/goiania-survivors-challenge-netflix-a-crime-against-the-truth/
In 2017, Odesson Alves Ferreira, a survivor of the 1987 Goiânia nuclear disaster in central Brazil, received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the International Uranium Film Festival. Odesson himself was severely contaminated by the highly radioactive cesium-137 and lives with the consequences. For over 30 years, he has campaigned for the recognition and fair compensation of the hundreds of cesium victims and for ensuring that this radioactive disaster in Goiânia is never forgotten and never repeated. Now he is strongly criticizing the new Netflix miniseries “Radioactive Emergency”.
By Norbert Suchanek
Netflix series “Radioactive Emergency” distorts facts
In September 1987, the worst nuclear disaster in Latin American history occurred in the central Brazilian city of Goiânia. A scrap metal dealer unknowingly released highly radioactive cesium-137 from an abandoned cancer treatment device, contaminating parts of the city and hundreds of people. Now, in March Netflix has released the miniseries “Radioactive Emergency,” based on this nuclear disaster and claiming to be inspired by true events. However, cesium-137-survivors dispute this. They argue that the Netflix series distorts the facts and ignores the victims.
“The distortion of historical facts is not only a narrative error, but in my view, also a profound disrespect to the memory of the victims and to us survivors,” criticizes Odesson Alves Ferreira, brother of scrap metal dealer Devair Alves Ferreira, who in 1987 bought the lead-encased radioactive head from two young waste pickers without even suspecting that it contained radioactive material.
In his statement to the Brazilian news portal Metrópoles regarding “Radioactive Emergency,” Odesson says: “By distorting the tragic historical facts for the sake of expediency, to make the plot more scientific and commercial, Netflix committed a crime against the truth. The true story we experienced doesn’t need sensational embellishments; it was tragic enough in itself.”
According to the 71-year-old, the streaming service “turns the victims of an irresponsible system into perpetrators and trivializes the tragedy. The memory of Brazil’s worst radioactive tragedy must be protected. We will not simply accept history being rewritten for convenience, because those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.” The former president of the Association of Cesium Victims (AVCésio) also criticizes that the Netflix film crew did not consult those actually affected beforehand.
According to the association, which represents more than 1,000 victims of the Goiânia radioactive disaster, its members were neither consulted on the script nor asked to share their experiences.
“We were not consulted during the production of the series based on our story. Filming didn’t even take place in Goiânia, but in São Paulo. How can you make a series about this story and not let those who experienced it firsthand have their say?” Metropóles quotes the association’s current president, Marcelo Santos Neves. He says, the film crew only contacted the former president, Suely Lina Moraes Silva, once. She reports that she accompanied a small group from the production team on a visit to the contaminated areas in Goiânia. After that, however, there were no further discussions with the team.
Although the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) described the “Cesium-137 disaster” in Goiânia as an “accident,” it was, in the opinion of the victims and others, a crime. However, the villains are not the two young waste pickers, as the Netflix production suggests. “One of the most dangerous nuclear disasters in the world started with a stolen medical device,” the streaming service emphasizes on its website.
In fact, the two youngsters didn’t steal the device; they found it in a partially demolished building, where it had been left behind like trash. And collecting discarded waste for recycling isn’t a crime.
The real culprits are the owners of the partially demolished former cancer treatment center “Instituto Goiano de Radiologia”, who left the dangerous radiotherapy machine there unattended and unsecured like garbage, while at the same time the Brazilian Atomic Energy Commission (CNEN) failed to fulfill its supervisory responsibility for radioactive materials.
Therefore, years later, in the 1990s, the Brazilian judiciary sentenced CNEN to a fine of one million reais (about 200,000 US dollars) and the owners of the Instituto Goiano de Radioterapia to three years in prison.
In its statement to Metrópoles regarding criticism of “Radioactive Emergency,” Netflix affirmed that historical accuracy was a priority in the production of the miniseries. And according to its website, the responsible film team consulted experts from various fields, including doctors and physicists, during the development of the screenplay.
Brasiliens Tschernobyl
Exposição “Mãos de Césio”
When Flotillas Fight for Life, Not Empire
April 10, 2026 , Olivia DiNucci for Codepink, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/10/when-flotillas-fight-for-life-not-empire/
Flotillas have historically been fleets of military vessels—tools of empire designed for swift offensive or defensive operations at sea. The images they evoke are ones of imperial power and looming violence. Just look at the massive US naval buildup that surrounded Iran as part of the recent US attacks.
But peace activists have also developed a new kind of flotilla.
Instead of instruments of war, flotillas have become symbols of peace—acts of humanitarian direct action, civil resistance, and cross-border solidarity. Take the flotillas that have tried to reach Gaza, like the Global Sumud Flotilla. Even though they have been illegally intercepted by the Israeli military, they have educated millions of people worldwide about Israel’s atrocities, activated entire cities to shut down, and offered a beacon of hope to the beleaguered people of Gaza.
As U.S. policy continues to sanction and blockade Cuba—causing immense hardship for the Cuban people—I, along with many others, felt compelled to escalate our own tactics of solidarity by joining the recent flotilla to Cuba as part of the Nuestra América Convoy. Our boat carried 15 tons of aid, part of the more than 40 tons delivered by the convoy.
The United States is currently imposing some of the harshest sanctions on Cuba in recent history, compounding a 67-year blockade that has restricted access to medicine, fuel, and food. But in recent months, the US added another dimension: a naval blockade to severely limit fuel imports, leading to a humanitarian crisis.
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need fossil fuels—we would already have made a just transition to renewable energy. And while Cuba is working at lightning speed to expand solar power, the current reality is stark: people still need fuel to cook, to transport food, to operate ambulances, to power hospitals, and to keep ventilators running.
The international community has responded to this escalation in U.S. economic warfare with intensified solidarity. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have been mobilizing to send aid and condemn the US blockade. In March, Progressive International, CODEPINK, and The People’s Forum launched the Nuestra América Convoy, bringing together over 600 people from 33 countries. We came with millions of dollars’ worth of aid—from urgently needed medical supplies to longer-term solutions like solar panels.
While many of my friends boarded planes to Havana, packing every inch of their luggage with medicine, hygiene products, vitamins, and art supplies, I traveled to Mexico to meet the flotilla crew. We spent four days at sea together—activists, journalists, organizers. Some had helped organize the Gaza Sumud Flotilla; others had taken part in mass protests in solidarity with Palestine.
Our goal was to deliver much-needed aid to the people of Cuba. But just as important was challenging the dominant narrative—that Cuba’s suffering is the result of its own government, rather than decades of U.S. cruel policy.
Even though the boat was full of journalists documenting the trip, their cameras could not fully capture the sense of community among strangers united by a shared mission. I remember being nervous about the cold and the possibility of seasickness, but within minutes, people were offering ginger chews, acupressure bracelets, and rain gear.
Our departure was delayed due to weather, boat repairs, and the logistics of loading the aid. In the meantime, we stayed with supporters in Mexico who couldn’t join the voyage but found other ways to contribute. We shared a send-off dinner at an Egyptian restaurant whose owner had followed the Gaza flotillas. He told us how proud he was to see a flotilla to Cuba leaving from his small town.
On the boat, we shared cooking, dishwashing, and night watch shifts—standard practice in occupations, encampments, and direct actions where resources are limited but creativity and collaboration are abundant. At sea, a simple breakfast of rice, beans, eggs, guacamole, and toast tastes like a feast. We slept under galaxies of stars, woke to sunrises on the horizon, and at sunset made music with whatever we had—a guitar, a bucket drum, water bottles filled with dry beans.
Meanwhile, I stayed connected to those traveling by plane, watching group chats fill with photos of carefully packed bags and urgent questions: Who can fit more supplies? How many solar batteries can we carry on? The coordination was constant, collective, and inspiring.
The blockade severely limits what goods can reach Cuba. While US citizens can still travel there under certain categories, they face restrictions and often risk questioning upon return. But solidarity is not tourism. It is not about swooping in, taking photos, and leaving. It is about building relationships, listening, and committing to ongoing struggle from our home countries.
We had a beautiful reception from the Cuban people when we landed, and then had the opportunity to speak directly with community groups about current conditions.I learned how they overcome so much by placing value in community over the individual.
The US empire is indeed dying, and it is up to us to not just reimagine the better world we need and want, but to actually put that world into practice. Reflecting on my experience, I started thinking — if we can turn flotillas from a force of evil into vessels of hope and solidarity, then what else can we change? What if we built schools around the world instead of sending bombs? What if, like the Cubans, we funded healthcare over warfare and sent doctors to cure people instead of soldiers to kill them?
You don’t have to board a boat with humanitarian supplies to show solidarity. Flotillas are one tactic, but we need a variety and diversity of tactics right now, and always. You can move forward by showing solidarity to your neighbors at home, as well as to our neighbors 90 miles off our shores. Because what we build together, in community—whether through a peace flotilla or local mutual aid—is stronger than anything built through force.
Olivia CODEPINK’s DC Coordinator, who seeks to build and bridge connections from issues to people. She came to this work after living and working abroad as an experiential learning facilitator with college students. She is active in arts and creative communities, direct action, and building out more local to global solidarity in DC through deepening and weaving relationships.
US’s Erosion of the Right to Cartoon Is No Laughing Matter
Hank Kennedy, April 9, 2026 https://fair.org/home/uss-erosion-of-the-right-to-cartoon-is-no-laughing-matter/
During World War II, cartoonist Bill Mauldin was summoned to a meeting with Gen. George S. Patton. Mauldin’s Stars and Stripes cartoons drew Patton’s ire over his matter-of-fact depictions of war and American GIs.
To Mauldin, war was no fun adventure. In Up Front, his Willie and Joe were war-weary and disheveled soldiers, not heroes ready for movie stardom. They expressed a darkly comic view of the life of an infantryman. In an exemplary cartoon, one of the duo says to a medic attempting to hand out a medal: “Just gimme th’ aspirin, I already got a Purple Heart.”
Mauldin avoided punishment when Gen. Dwight Eisenhower circulated a letter instructing all officers “not to interfere” with “such things as Mauldin’s cartoons” (Oklahoman, 4/16/82). Mauldin won the Pulitzer twice for his editorial cartooning, once during the war and once afterwards.
Perhaps Donald Trump’s Pentagon saw itself as acting in the Patton tradition when it eliminated comics from Stars and Stripes. As FAIR (3/20/26) previously documented, Pete Hegseth has taken steps to crack down on the independence of the Pentagon’s own newspaper. Among the new guidelines to promote “good order and discipline” is a ban on syndicated material, including comics (Stars and Stripes, 3/13/26). US servicemembers have now been saved from the woke, subversive influences of Doonesbury, Pearls Before Swine and, perhaps worst of all, Beetle Bailey.
A global trend
Hegseth’s anti-comics viewpoint is part of a global trend. Cartooning for Peace, Cartoonists Rights, Reporters Without Borders and several others have teamed up to produce Under Pressure; the March 2 report surveys the status of caricaturists around the world.
Under Pressure collects the stories of some of the most grave casualties in the global war on satire. Egyptian Ashraf Omar has been imprisoned for over a year, awaiting trial under specious charges of terrorism (Committee to Protect Journalists, 3/2/26). Saudi Cartoonist Mohammed Al Ghamdi (pen name Al Hazza) faces a 23-year sentence for “sympathizing with Qatar” (Reporters Without Borders, 7/23/25)—reflecting a since-resolved quarrel between the two governments—and because he allegedly “insulted the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” . In 2024, Palestinian cartoonist Mahasen al-Khateeb was killed in Gaza by Israeli bombardment (Middle East Eye, 10/20/24).
When the survey turns to the United States, things remain ominous. Kak, the president of Cartoonists for Peace whose work appears in L’Opinion, found the “same tactics” that appear in authoritarian regimes, or those headed in a dictatorial direction, “are being used” in the US. He continued that “the ‘Land of the Free’ is now flashing bright red on our threat map,” putting the US in the same crowd as Iran, India, Turkey and Russia.
It’s quite a shift from the 2023 report Cartoonists on the Line, which had no section dedicated to the United States. Much has changed for the worse in three years.
Trump has long mused about using official pressure to suppress satirical responses to his government. In 2018, he threatened to sue Saturday Night Live over their mockery of his administration (Mother Jones, 12/16/18). His FCC chair, Brendan Carr, argued that it was in the “public interest” to threaten Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night ABC show over the host’s comedy (Variety, 12/17/25). These words and deeds have created a climate of fear in the United States, one that political cartoonists are feeling.
‘Long overdue for a housecleaning’
The report cites a few US examples that paint a dark portrait of freedom of expression under the second Trump administration. Some of them have previously been covered by FAIR, including the resignation of Ann Telnaes from the Washington Post (FAIR.org, 1/7/25), the firing of Palm Beach Post editorial page editor Tony Doris (FAIR.org, 3/27/25) and Bob Whitmore’s firing and belated reinstatement to Creative Loafing (FAIR.org, 9/30/25).
There are other examples, however, that deserve more examination.
In 1999, Felipe Galindo (Pen name Feggo) drew “4th of July From the South Border,” an endlessly reproduced and reprinted piece criticizing the militarization of the border with Mexico. Starting in 2022, Feggo’s work hung in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History as part of the ¡Presente! A Latino History of the United States exhibit. Feggo’s illustration was taken down after the Trump White House (8/21/25) attacked it as part of an “anti-American exhibition” that showed the US’s legacy of “colonization” and the history of Latino “victimhood and exploitation.” A crowing editorial in the Washington Examiner (8/24/25) asserted “the Smithsonian is long overdue for a housecleaning” over its “fashionable, culturally Marxist ideas.” The New York Times (3/28/25) described Trump’s interference with the Smithsonian as seeking “a more positive view of American history.” More positive for whom, is a question left unasked. Artist Rigoberto Gonzalez, whose “Refugees Crossing the Border Wall Into South Texas” was likewise removed, compared the administration’s censorship to the Nazi campaign against “degenerate art” (NPR, 8/24/25).
Julie Trébault of Artists at Risk Connection, who wrote Under Pressure‘s section on the United States, said it was a “rare and significant move” for the executive branch to single out “a specific work for removal from a federal museum.”
‘Direct threats’
The report cited another Pulitzer winner, Adam Zyglis, in its section on the United States. His July cartoon for the Buffalo News (7/7/25) on flooding in Texas showed a MAGA hat-sporting Texan being swept away while proclaiming, “Gov’t is the problem not the solution!”
The New York Post (7/10/25) reran a Fox News piece (7/9/25) that slammed the cartoon as “vile.” The Post’s conscience is an interesting development, considering that the paper ran a cartoon in 2009 comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee (Guardian, 2/18/09), echoing a well-known racist trope.
The slings and arrows of press criticism were nothing compared to what was to come. In response to this cartoon, Zyglis was subject to numerous death threats. An appearance at Buffalo Museum was canceled over public safety concerns (Politico, 7/11/25). The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists all released statements condemning the threats and supporting Zyglis (Daily Cartoonist, 7/17/25).
Trébault notes this as a sinister development. To criticize “the government’s actions or positions,” she wrote, “now exposes artists to direct threats.”
Heads in the sand
Unfortunately, Under Pressure has received little coverage in the United States, excepting the Daily Cartoonist (3/4/26). This contrasts with the coverage in New African Magazine (3/2/26), which gave the incidents the report highlights on that continent wider publicity.
The lack of attention media outlets gave to Under Pressure comes at a dangerous time for press freedom. The Inter American Press Association, a hemispheric media watchdog, recently classified the United States as a nation with “‘restrictions’ on freedom of speech” and of the press (AP, 3/10/26). By not giving reports like Under Pressure attention, media outlets are placing their heads in the sand.
Beyond open political censorship, there are also economic pressures on political cartoonists. Many newspapers do not employ their own cartoonists. Instead they choose material from syndicates, which reduces the amount of total cartoonists employed. It’s simple math. Why hire a dedicated cartoonist when syndicated material can be purchased for a fraction of the price?
The venues for cartoonists are also shrinking and sometimes disappearing. Since 2005, around 3,500 newspapers have shut down (Poynter, 10/20/25). Publications like the Atlantic Journal-Constitution, the Newark Star-Ledger and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are either ending their print editions or shutting down entirely. Cartoonist Walt Handelman (Editor & Publisher, 2/18/26), recently retired from the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Advocate, said he was “optimistic about satire…. The real question is, how do you make a professional living doing it.”
Are there still political cartoonists out there worth looking for? Of course. In These Times has a vibrant comics section with witty and insightful commentary from the likes of Mattie Lubchansky, Jen Sorenson, Tom Tomorrow and others. The annual collection World War 3 Illustrated provides a perspective not likely to be found in other outlets, as exemplified by last year’s issue dedicated to Palestinian cartoonists. In between winning awards for Insectopolis, his comic study of creepy crawlies, Peter Kuper’s work enlivens The Nation. Cartoonists may be “under pressure,” but the best of them are capable of rising to the challenge.
Chernobyl’s 40-year legacy: haunting photographs from the radiation zone
The Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 was the beginning of the end of
the Soviet Union. The photographer Gerd Ludwig, who has visited the site 12
times, explores its legacy with Mark Galeotti.
As the German-American
photographer Gerd Ludwig’s extraordinary photographs on these pages show,
however, Chernobyl is neither gone nor forgotten. Ludwig first visited the
site in 1993 and returned 11 times over the decades, most recently last
month. The disaster remained a baneful presence through so many
developments: the failure of Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to reform the
USSR, the initially cordial but ultimately bad-tempered divorce of Russia
and Ukraine, and even the conduct of today’s war.
Chernobyl will remain
with us for a long time, not least because there are some distinct
parallels to the present day.
Times 11th April 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/chernobyls-40-year-legacy-haunting-photographs-from-the-radiation-zone-k8bkhh79x
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (189)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 