Christian Nationalists in US Government Push Attacks on Iran as Holy War
Hegseth’s prayer services at the Pentagon are a sign the guard rails are shrinking. On March 25, he prayed for “overwhelming violence” using carefully selected passages from the Bible to justify an unjust war. Head bowed, Hegseth intoned: “Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind…. Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation…. Let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse so that evil may be driven back.”
Christian nationalists conveniently ignore the passages where Jesus commands his followers to serve the poor and love thy neighbor.
With Pete Hegseth leading the Department of Defense, the line separating church and state is increasingly blurred.
By Sara Gabler , Truthout, April 2, 2026
How Christian clergy talk about Jesus this Easter Sunday will tell you a lot about their politics. While parishioners in the U.S. are likely to be greeted by the traditional refrain, “He is risen,” at their April 5 Easter service, they’re just as likely to be met with the phrase, “Christ is King.” This rhetoric replaces the traditional understanding of Easter as a celebration of Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection with a more aggressive vision of a warrior Jesus that resonates strongly with Donald Trump-aligned white Christian nationalists.
The phrase “Christ is King” isn’t new — it’s sometimes used by Christians to refer to the belief that Jesus’s divine rule goes beyond that of earthly leaders. But the phrase has recently become “a kind of rallying cry for Christian supremacy,” historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez, author of Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, told Truthout.
Over the last few years, the slogan has spread from far right provocateurs like Nick Fuentes to Trump’s cabinet and the military. In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth used the phrase at a convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, galvanizing Christian nationalists’ thirst for authoritarian rulers whose Jesus is defined by militant masculinity — more like a crusader or cowboy than the peace-loving, “sacrificial lamb” celebrated on Easter, who was executed for challenging the hierarchies of empire.
Along the way, the phrase has become a dog whistle for antisemitism, and it’s often combined with other Christian nationalist “holy war” rhetoric that has been spiking since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.
Popular Christian Zionist preachers like John Hagee came out of the gate praising Operation Epic Fury in a sermon from March 10. On March 23, Rep. Andy Ogles posted an AI-generated video of himself, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio dressed as crusaders with the caption: “This is a battle of good vs evil. We must reaffirm that our nation was built on Christian principles.” Their language and iconography distract from the fact that the U.S. and Israel’s attacks on Iran were launched without congressional approval, are unpopular, and have killed more than 1,500 people.
Saddle Up Your Horses
Christian nationalists like Hegseth, Hagee, and Ogles have fashioned a messiah to look like the kind of earthly leader they desire, one who will uphold what Du Mez calls their ideology of “militant masculinity.” It’s a paradigm that “enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power, at home and abroad,” she writes in Jesus and John Wayne.
Du Mez says: “Christian nationalists tend not to talk about Jesus very much. They’ll talk about biblical law, righteousness, or social issues. But if you really start talking about Jesus in the Bible, then you get into things that arguably undercut many of their core values.”
Christian nationalists conveniently ignore the passages where Jesus commands his followers to serve the poor and love thy neighbor. Instead, figures like the disgraced evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll promote militant masculinity through podcasts streams like “Built for War” and an Instagram account full of bull-wrestling cowboys.
The frontiersman protector of faith and “family values” hailed by Driscoll’s podcast saturates white evangelical culture. Even in the ’90s, this was theprimary message about masculinity………………………………………………………………………………………………
With Hegseth leading the Department of Defense, the line separating church and state is increasingly blurred. In February, he invited Christian nationalist pastor Doug Wilson to a prayer service at the Pentagon and has been holding these monthly prayer services since last May. The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed a lawsuit over the meetings to “determine whether the departments are upholding their obligation to remain neutral about religious matters and respect the religious freedom of federal workers.”
Alessandro Terenzoni is the vice president of public policy at AU. He told Truthout that the Trump administration is “playing this long game” to “Christianize the federal workforce,” including the military, through measures like the executive order on “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias” and the Religious Liberty Commission.
The December meeting of the Religious Liberty Commission that focused on the military was led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick with a roster of members and speakers that Terenzoni says looked “like a commercial for the organizations who are pushing this sort of Christian nationalist agenda: the Heritage Foundation, First Liberty Institute, the Alliance Defending Freedom who represent Christian nationalist plaintiffs in all these lawsuits.” Terenzoni says the meeting contradicted the mandate that the government not “single out one faith to privilege above others or turn the military into a mission field.”
White Christian nationalist messaging isn’t coming from Hegseth alone. In March, Trump appointed Turning Point USA’s Erika Kirk to an advisory role for the Air Force Academy. She replaces her late husband, Charlie Kirk, who, in the one board meeting he attended in August 2025, insisted the academy finish repairing an on-site chapel because its closure has had a “depressing effect on the psyche of the cadets.”……………………………………………
Terenzoni warns that the leaders of the Religious Liberty Commission are promoting a persecution narrative in order to legitimize their work. ……………………………………………………………..
Du Mez also warns that Christians’ sense of embattlement is what’s behind their support of “preemptive” war. “With somebody like Hegseth, who in his own books, talks about setting aside the rules of warfare because that’s only for weak men. This kind of preemptive attack, aggression is always justified, because they’re going to come for you, so you need to get out in front of that,” says Du Mez. In their worldview, they’re the victims, not the civilians in Iran whom the U.S. and Israel are bombing, or the Palestinians whose genocide is funded by the U.S. government.
Wounded Masculinity
Generations of Christian nationalist men were raised on militant masculinity and its faux nostalgia, glorification of rugged individualism, and delusions of persecution. That’s part of what made Trump’s “Make America Great Again” vision so appealing to them — Black and Brown men are conspicuously left out. “Masculine power is dangerous if it isn’t in the hands of white Christian men,” says Du Mez. “In the run-up to the 2024 election, Trump campaigned on the threat of immigrants. That was really their bread and butter.”
The MAGA movement has also been swift at marshaling militant masculinity to pass anti-LGBTQ policies. “This administration is really fixated on gender. We knew during the campaign that the vilification of transgender Americans was a big piece of what they were doing,” says Terenzoni.
“One of the things that’s different now is that there seem to be very few guardrails anymore,” says Du Mez. “In many ways, the rhetoric doesn’t actually feel all that different. But their access to power is. The fact that now our Secretary of Defense has been steeped in this militant evangelicalism and has wholly embraced these ideas of militant Christian manhood and has absolutely thumbed his nose at the rules of warfare and, one might argue, human decency.”
Hegseth’s prayer services at the Pentagon are a sign the guard rails are shrinking. On March 25, he prayed for “overwhelming violence” using carefully selected passages from the Bible to justify an unjust war. Head bowed, Hegseth intoned: “Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind…. Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation…. Let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse so that evil may be driven back.”
The prayer prompted a rebuttal from Pope Leo XIV, who wrote on social media that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.” But such a rebuke is not likely to satisfy the warmongers in the U.S. government, making AU’s lawsuit over these Christian nationalist services even more urgent.
Golden Dome as a Leaky Golden Shower: Trump’s $4 Trillion Missile Defense System Ridiculed in DC
“This is not defense, it’s deception—an illusion of safety. The Pentagon has spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last several decades proving that this freaking thing doesn’t work.”
Jon Queally, Apr 02, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-golden-dome-golden-shower
Critics of the ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense shield program championed by US President Donald Trump gathered on the National Mall in Washington, DC on Wednesday to ridicule and condemn the wasteful military program, which experts warn will never work as promised but will plow billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the weapons industry.
Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and found of the anti-war group Up In Arms, led the event which included the unveiling of an art installation—complete with a statue of Trump holding a golden umbrella filled with holes, urinating missiles, and running water—to represent the “unworkable space shield” known as the Golden Dome, a space-based missile defense shield that varying studies estimate could cost from $540 billion to a mind-blowing $6 trillion over 20 years to operate.
With the DC event taking place on April 1, Cohen told those gathered that the problem with the Golden Dome is that “it’s not a prank,” but rather a real program that Trump is trying pursue despite its deep and obvious flaws.
“Sure, you know, an invisible shield that protects you from any possible threat, is a nice idea,” said Cohen, “but it’s full of holes.”
“This is not defense, it’s deception—an illusion of safety,” Cohen continued. “The Pentagon has spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last several decades proving that this freaking thing doesn’t work, but it’s just such an attractive fantasy that it’s being pulled out of the trash bins of history to soak the taxpayer once again.”
“It’s another one of the harebrained ideas that pops out of our president’s head every now and then, but the Hole-in-Dome [statue] demonstrates that he’s all wet on this one,” said Cohen. “The other thing the Hole-in-Dome demonstrates is that our country is under water—we are drowning in debt. And wasting another $4 trillion on a holey dome ain’t gonna help, especially when we need that money for Social Security, affordable housing, and healthcare.”
The overall message, he said, was that “if we don’t stop this boondoggle, we’re sunk.”
Dr. Igor Moric, a research physicist at the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security, also spoke at the event, explaining how the Golden Dome system—despite Trump’s unfounded claims that it will be able to shield the American people from future ballistic missile attacks—runs up against fundamental scientific limits.
“The United States has been building ballistic missile defense, a magical shield against nuclear weapons for over 80 years,” Moric said. “The reality is ballistic missile defense does not work, it cannot work, and it will not work. Space-based missile defense, as envisioned by the Golden Dome, cannot work because of known physical and technological realities limiting what it can do.”
According to the Up In Arms website, “Golden Dome would be an enormously expensive system that would not provide an effective defense. It would instead fuel an arms race that would reduce US and international security, and increase the risk of nuclear war.”
Dr. Ira Helfand, co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Back from the Brink campaign, noted that even “optimistic scenarios” of success by a Golden Dome system would not prevent catastrophic consequences, warning that even if the system could intercept 80% of incoming weapons, tens of millions of Americans could still be killed in a large-scale nuclear attack.
“This system does not protect the American people,” he says. “The attempt to build this system will fuel the arms race and torpedo efforts to actually get rid of [nuclear] weapons.”
Other speakers focused on the need to use precious tax dollars not for unrealistic and unworkable weapons like Golden Dome, but rather to invest in social programs—including education, Social Security, healthcare, and affordable housing—that the nation desperately needs.
“The Golden Dome is not golden for the people of the United States or the world,” said former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, who also spoke at the event.
People in Cleveland and other US cities, Turner said, would “much rather have the money that is being wasted on a pipe dream and a fantasy invested in lifting them and their children out of poverty.”
“There is a connection between this foolishness and folly and the reason we can’t have nice things in the United States of America,” added Turner. “They tell us they can’t afford universal healthcare, but they can afford this!”
‘The rope is for Arabs only’: Israel’s new death penalty law for Palestinians recycles a colonial playbook
For years, Israeli forces already operated under rules that permitted the shooting and killing of unarmed persons, so long as they could nominally be deemed a threat. But Israel’s current war has expanded this category to the point that nearly everyone can now be made into a target.
The execution law is largely a shield designed to protect soldiers from even the limited threat of accountability, and to formalize what the field has already made routine.
The passing of the recent Israeli death penalty law legalizes an already existing policy of executions within a set schedule. The same colonial logic governs how Israel launches its wars: first Gaza, then Lebanon, now Iran. Resistance in this region is refusing Israel’s timetable of death.
By Abdaljawad Omar, Mondoweiss, April 2, 2026
The picture of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir jubilantly trying to open a champagne bottle on the Knesset floor over the passing of a death penalty law for Palestinians will be anchored in history as one of those photographs that needs no caption.
It’s the image of a country that has never truly left the colonial moment into which it was born. It didn’t simply inherit British practices, but kept them alive for over 70 years. It now reaches back to retrieve one of the darkest of these practices.
Israel’s new death penalty law, which exclusively targets Palestinians, did not come out of nowhere. It was passed down from a scaffold the British had already built on the same land, testing it on the same people under the same sky. In his study of Britain’s “pacification” of Palestine, Matthew Hughes, a military historian at Brunel University, shows how the military courts established by the British Mandate in November 1937 were built for speed above all else — a terror performed so quickly that no one had time to appeal or look away. Shaykh Farhan al-Sa’di, an elderly Qassamite revolutionary leader and one of the principal field commanders of the 1936 uprising, was captured on a Monday, tried on a Wednesday, and hanged on a Saturday. It’s the same law Israel reintroduced today.
What those courts also reveal is that British execution policy was, from the beginning, applied differently depending on who stood before the judge. Palestinians were hanged for carrying four bullets; Jews received prison sentences for firing weapons. The courts were equal on paper and unequal in practice, and everyone living under them knew it.
Bahjat Abu Gharbiyya, a Palestinian nationalist and resistance fighter who lived through the British Mandate and left some of the most detailed firsthand accounts of that period, documented this disparity plainly: in his account, the capital sentence fell on Arabs, while Jews charged with the same or graver offenses walked away with prison sentences. The rope, in practice, was for Arabs only.
The new Israeli law carries this same racism forward, entering a prison system where Palestinians make up the vast majority of political prisoners, and where the definition of who is dangerous has been stretched until it fits almost anyone who refuses to disappear quietly. The rope, as it always has been in Palestine, is for Arabs only.
There is something else that legalizing execution does, something beneath the law’s stated purpose that may be its more consequential effect. Hughes shows that in Mandate Palestine, official policy and unofficial violence never operated separately. As British courts hanged men with increasing speed and confidence, the threshold for what soldiers felt permitted to do in the field quietly fell. At Miska, a Palestinian village in the coastal area, British police tortured four captured Palestinian rebels in May 1938, killing them once interrogation was complete — not in a courtroom, but in the open.
Law and lawlessness were not opposites in that system: they fed each other. The widened application of capital punishment in the courts gave license to soldiers in the field. What we are watching in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank today follows the same pattern, pushing the boundaries of permissible conduct.
For years, Israeli forces already operated under rules that permitted the shooting and killing of unarmed persons, so long as they could nominally be deemed a threat. But Israel’s current war has expanded this category to the point that nearly everyone can now be made into a target.
A codification of existing practice
In this sense, Israel is not doing something new with this law. It is catching up with itself. The execution law is largely a shield designed to protect soldiers from even the limited threat of accountability, and to formalize what the field has already made routine. According to Israeli rights group Yesh Din, of the 1,260 complaints filed against soldiers for harming Palestinians between 2017 and 2021, soldiers were prosecuted in less than 1% of cases — 0.87%, to be precise. The law does not create impunity, but guarantees it. Once enshrined, it pushes the violence further, each legal expansion making extrajudicial killing easier to justify, and each unjustified killing creating pressure for new legal cover. They drive each other.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://mondoweiss.net/2026/04/the-rope-is-for-arabs-only-israels-new-death-penalty-law-for-palestinians-recycles-a-colonial-playbook/
Trump weighs highly-complex military plan to fly special ops forces into Iran’s nuclear facility and seize enriched uranium
JAMES GORDON, US NEWS REPORTER , Daily Mail, 30 March 2026
President Donald Trump is weighing a highly complex and potentially explosive military operation to send US special operations forces deep inside Iran to seize its stockpile of enriched uranium.
The move could drag American troops into hostile territory for days – or even a week – and risk a dramatic escalation of the war. It was reportedly one of many being proposed by the Pentagon.
US officials say the stealth plan would target nearly 1,000 pounds of uranium at either one or two nuclear sites in Natanz and Isfahan.
The objective would be to remove the radioactive substance entirely from Iranian control, eliminating any pathway to a nuclear weapon.
The proposal remains under review, and Trump has not signed off on it. But officials told The Wall Street Journal he is seriously considering the option, even as advisers warn of the dangers to American forces and the possibility of a broader conflict.
Military experts say the operation would be among the most difficult missions the US could undertake.
American forces would likely need to fly into heavily defended territory, potentially under fire from Iranian air defenses and drones, before securing the nuclear sites believed to house the material.
Once on the ground, combat troops would be tasked with locking down the perimeter while specialist teams locate, secure and prepare the uranium for transport.
‘This is not a quick in and out kind of deal,’ retired Gen. Joseph Votel, a former commander of U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command, told the Journal about the potential mission.
Officials say the uranium is believed to be stored in multiple hardened locations, including underground facilities such as those at Isfahan and Natanz – sites that have already been targeted in previous strikes.
The military buildup already underway underscores how seriously the option is being considered.
Several hundred US special operations troops – including Army Rangers and Navy SEALs – have arrived in the region, according to The New York Times, joining thousands of Marines and Army paratroopers.
The commandos have not yet been assigned specific missions, officials said, but could be deployed across multiple flashpoints: safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz, assisting in a potential operation to seize Kharg Island, or taking part in a mission targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Roughly 2,500 Marines and 2,500 sailors have recently arrived in the region, while about 2,000 troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division have also been ordered in.
Altogether, more than 50,000 US troops are now positioned across the Middle East – about 10,000 more than usual – spread across bases and ships in countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.
Despite the buildup, military analysts caution that even this expanded force would face enormous challenges if ordered into Iran.
Experts note that while special operations forces could conduct targeted missions, any sustained ground campaign in a country as large and heavily armed as Iran would require vastly larger troop numbers.
Behind the scenes, Trump has also instructed advisers to press Iran to hand over the material voluntarily as part of any negotiated end to the war.
According to a person familiar with his thinking, the president has made clear that Iran ‘can’t keep’ the uranium – and has discussed taking it by force if diplomacy fails.
During a recent speech, Trump underscored how central the material is to his strategy, calling it ‘the nuclear dust.’
At the same time, the White House has sought to emphasize that no final decision has been made.
……………………………………………………………….As Trump weighs his options, the Pentagon is rapidly positioning forces across the region.
Additional ground forces could be sent to further bolster capabilities, with officials saying up to 10,000 troops are under consideration for deployment………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………..I think we’ll make a deal with them, but it’s possible that we won’t,’ Trump continued. ‘I do see a deal in Iran. It could be soon.’
When asked by Libby Alon of Channel 14 Israel whether the US could take control of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump replied: ‘Yes, of course, it’s already happening.’………………………………
The strategically vital waterway, which serves as a conduit for roughly one-fifth of global oil supply, has been partially closed by Iran. The result has sent oil prices skyrocketing.
Trump also referred to the essential waterway as the ‘Strait of Trump,’ something he made a pointed joke about during a speech on Friday.
……………………………………..In a separate interview with the Financial Times, Trump went even further – openly discussing seizing Iran’s oil infrastructure.
‘To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the US say: “Why are you doing that?”, But they’re stupid people,’ he said.
Trump specifically pointed to Kharg Island, through which most of Iran’s oil exports flow, as a potential target.
‘Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options,’ he said. ‘It would also mean we had to be there [on Kharg Island] for a while.’
Asked about Iranian defenses on the oil-rich island, Trump added: ‘I don’t think they have any defense. We could take it very easily.’
…………………………He has set an April 6 deadline for Tehran to accept a deal – or face strikes on its energy sector.
‘We’ve got about 3,000 targets left – we’ve bombed 13,000 targets – and another couple of thousand targets to go,’ Trump said. ‘A deal could be made fairly quickly.’…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15690253/Trump-special-ops-Iran-nuclear-uranium.html
So much winning
318 million people were already at crisis-level hunger before February 28. That figure has been earmarked for aggressive growth,
Please make it stop, Mr. President
Gold and Geoppolitics, , Apr 02, 2026
In 2002, the Pentagon spent $250 million on the largest wargame in US military history called ‘Millennium Challenge’. 13,500 participants, 2 years of planning, the works. The idea was pretty straightforward: simulate an invasion of a Middle Eastern country in the Persian Gulf. Suspiciously resembling Iran. The purpose was to demonstrate that America’s technological dominance could steamroll anything in its path.
They picked a retired 3-star Marine named Paul Van Riper to play the enemy.
Van Riper, who spent 41 years in uniform from Vietnam to Desert Storm, took one look at the scenario and did what any self-respecting adversary would do. He ignored it completely. Instead of radios, he used motorcycle couriers. Attack orders were hidden in the daily call to prayer. Swarms of explosive-laden speedboats were sent through the Strait of Hormuz.
And in less than 10 minutes, he sank 16 US warships. An aircraft carrier, 10 cruisers, and 5 amphibious ships. Over 20,000 simulated American casualties. The equivalent of Pearl Harbor, executed with small boats and cruise missiles by a retired Marine with a phone and a bad attitude.
So the Pentagon did what any self-respecting institution does when reality disagreed with the plan.
The ships were un-sank. Van Riper’s forces had to turn on their anti-aircraft radar so it could be easily targeted and destroyed. They even told him he wasn’t allowed to shoot down the incoming 82nd Airborne. The whole rest of the exercise was scripted to guarantee an American victory.
Van Riper walked out in disgust. His parting words: “Nothing was learned from this. A culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future”.
That was 24 years ago. The conditions Van Riper exploited haven’t changed. They’ve only gotten worse.
And now we’re one month into this shooting war with Iran. “Operation Epic Fury”.
Let’s have a look at what we’ve achieved, shall we?
The Strait of Hormuz has been successfully transitioned from a free international waterway into a revenue-generating toll infrastructure, administered by the IRGC with a published fee schedule, a vetting corridor near Larak Island, and legislation pending to make it permanent. Ships currently pay $2 to $3.5 million per transit, settling in yuan through CIPS, which bypasses SWIFT entirely and represents a significant upgrade in settlement efficiency.
India has adopted the yuan. Japan has adopted the renminbi. Pakistan negotiated preferential rates at 2 tankers per day. Thailand secured bilateral access. Only COSCO, China’s state shipping line, moves freely, which streamlines the user experience considerably if you happen to be Chinese. The dollar’s share of global reserves has reached its lowest level in a century, which suggests the new framework is being broadly embraced.
This is the petrodollar in transition. The mechanism that has underwritten American empire since 1974 – Gulf oil priced in dollars, revenues recycled through US Treasuries, quietly funding a $39 trillion debt – is being replaced in real time by a yuan-denominated corridor that didn’t exist 5 weeks ago. And unlike a military defeat, which can be spun and repackaged for a news cycle to consumers with the attention span of a goldfish, a reserve currency transition is a one-way door.
The Navy has achieved a significant risk management milestone by declining to escort tankers through the Strait, citing conditions that were “too high” – a prudent assessment that prioritises fleet preservation over the stated objective of the war. 3,000 ships and 20,000 seafarers remain in the Gulf, representing the largest involuntary maritime community since the Age of Sail. Maersk has 10 container ships holding position, crews resourcefully extending provisions without fresh food. 470,000 TEUs of container capacity – 10% of the global fleet – is effectively in long-term storage, reducing wear on hulls. The insurance industry has contributed independently: 7 P&I clubs filing cancellation notices achieved what the entire US Fifth Fleet could not, surging war-risk premiums from 0.2% to 10% of hull value. Even after a ceasefire, insurers require 30 to 60 days of incident-free stability before reinstating cover. The Houthis’ Red Sea precedent: 26 months and still no policy written.
Flexibility in goal-setting is a hallmark of mature organisations, and the administration demonstrated this by quietly reclassifying the reopening of Hormuz from “strategic imperative” to “optional”. The waterway that carries a fifth of the world’s oil, that the war was partly launched to secure, is no longer required for the war’s conclusion. This frees up considerable strategic bandwidth to focus on objectives that are also not being achieved, but in less publicly measurable ways.
The war has successfully disrupted seven global commodity flows simultaneously, achieving a level of supply chain diversification that would be difficult to replicate intentionally.
The agricultural sector has been comprehensively de-risked from overreliance on Gulf-sourced inputs. Hormuz transit collapsed 97%, slashing maritime CO2 emissions in the Strait to levels not seen since the Age of Sail. An environmental triumph, really. It also took with it 80% of global sulfur production along with nitrogen capacity that was rendered uneconomic by gas prices. Russia contributed by halting ammonium nitrate exports. China pitched in by banning phosphate exports through August.
All those key macronutrients were successfully eliminated from global supply chains simultaneously, and during planting season no less. Urea at the Port of New Orleans hit $690 a tonne, a 45% gain in three weeks that commodity traders would kill for under normal circumstances. The nitrogen shortage has automatically opted one in four US farmers out of spring production.
318 million people were already at crisis-level hunger before February 28. That figure has been earmarked for aggressive growth, and with the planting window about to shut, the revised projections are locked in.
The plastics and pharmaceutical supply chains have undergone similar rationalisation. Three supply chains for polyethylene were streamlined in one stroke: Indonesia, South Korea, and Singapore. In a single week!
India, producer of 40% of US generic drugs, sources 87.7% of its methanol through the same 21 miles we just helped close, putting paracetamol, ibuprofen, and metformin for 537 million diabetics on an accelerated depreciation schedule…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The war has generated strong returns for stakeholders on all sides except the one funding it. Iran is producing 1.5 million barrels per day, up from 1.1 million pre-war, selling at $110 a barrel where it used to accept $47. That’s a win. Just not for us.
…………………………….. The war has attracted significant third-party investment. Russia contributed the strike plan, 500 MANPADS launchers, and satellite intelligence. China contributed BeiDou navigation, base imagery, and fabrication tools. In return, both are collecting above-market premiums on every commodity the war has disrupted, while committing zero personnel and accepting zero risk. Iran has been capitalised just well enough to sustain the engagement without resolving it.
And this brings us to the most exciting deliverable on the roadmap. The air campaign has successfully exhausted 15,000 precision strikes, fully deployed the cruise missile inventory, and generated a $200 billion supplemental funding request – yet Iran continues to launch, export, administer the Strait, and issue demands. The enriched uranium remains 100 metres under granite that no ordnance in the US arsenal can reach, which creates a compelling case for boots-on-the-ground engagement. Polymarket agrees: 66-68% probability of US ground entry by April 30.
………………………………………………………………..One month. 88 waves. 40 destroyed energy assets across 9 countries. Seven supply chains severed. A yuan toll booth where the petrodollar used to be. A famine building in the planting data. A carrier in Crete. An AWACS burning in the Saudi desert. Cruise missiles spent. Bond markets screaming. Allies shutting bases. $12 trillion gone. And the only option left on the table is the one that turns all of this into a footnote.
We’re going to win so much.
You may even get tired of winning. https://no01.substack.com/p/so-much-winning?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4094764&post_id=192834077&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=wuef2&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Ukrainian Economy ‘Collapsing’
The only real solution to the Ukrainian problem is to accept the Russian peace terms.
By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, Global Research, March 29, 2026, https://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-economy-collapsing/5920470
Even Ukrainian authorities are beginning to admit the serious crisis affecting the country.
Recently, the head of the Kiev regime’s finance sector confirmed that the country is going through a catastrophic situation, showing deep concerns about the regime’s future.
This clearly shows how the nationalist junta in Kiev is rapidly destroying the country – something that could be avoided if the authorities agreed to make peace with Russia.
During a speech to the Ukrainian parliament on March 26, Daniil Getmantsev, chairman of the Finance, Tax and Customs Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, said that Ukraine is indebted and unable to pay all the expenses accumulated since the beginning of the conflict. He expressed concerns about the future of the Ukrainian economy and “sovereignty,” considering the country’s growing debts with major global financial institutions.
Getmantsev primarily denounced the country’s debts to the EU, the IMF, and the World Bank. He emphasized that Ukraine is already indebted to these organizations and does not appear to be in a position to repay this debt anytime soon. Therefore, the tendency is for the country to continue contracting more loans and becoming increasingly indebted.
The official explained some of the numbers behind the crisis. Ukraine failed to pay the installments of the loan from the EU’s “Ukraine Facility” program. Thus, the country missed out on part of the expected funding, as it failed to fulfill its part of the agreement.
He drew attention to the situation and warned Ukrainian parliamentarians about the current dangers. According to Getmantsev, it is possible that Ukrainians are close to “losing” the country because of this crisis. Therefore, he urges local politicians to act quickly to prevent the worst-case scenario. He believes immediate reforms are necessary, as well as greater integration with the EU, an audit of public spending, and a reform of the Ukrainian social security system.
“In 2025, we failed to meet 14 indicators of the Ukraine Facility. And because of this, we did not receive 3.9 billion euros (…) Moreover, 300 million of that amount is being lost completely in the first quarter [as] we have already failed to meet 5 out of 5 indicators (…) We can lose the country like this (…( Today is not the time to hide from responsibility, not the time for populism, not the time to look for popular decisions (…) It is the time for systematic work, European integration, deregulation, pension reform, an audit of state expenditures, and bringing the economy out of the shadows” he said.
This makes it clear that not even the regime’s own officials can hide the Ukrainian reality anymore. The country’s crisis has reached such a critical point that all sides are gradually admitting that it is impossible to maintain the current situation in the long term. With the decrease in international aid and constant losses on the battlefield, Ukraine has entered a critical phase in the conflict – being extremely vulnerable and close to collapse on several levels, mainly militarily and economically.
The previous attitude of Ukrainian and Western propaganda was to deny the crisis and claim that Ukraine had the economic and military situation under control. These lies helped keep the Ukrainian war machine active for a long time, but Ukraine’s losses caused European public opinion to change its attitude on the subject – which generated popular pressure in the West against continued aid programs.
Furthermore, Europe itself has reduced its capacity for aid. With the energy and economic crisis resulting from anti-Russian sanctions, added to constant international instability, Europe is entering a phase of social insecurity, making it more prudent to control spending than to continue systematically sending money to Ukraine. Although this money is often delivered in the form of loans, it seems certain that Ukraine will not be able to repay it. And even loans secured by the delivery of rare earth minerals and natural resources are unsafe, since exploration will be hampered during hostilities.
In fact, the pro-war lobby in the EU is still strong, which is why aid continues, but the material circumstances have forced the bloc to significantly reduce assistance – which has further worsened the crisis for Ukrainians. Now, there is no longer any way to disguise reality. Ukraine is trapped in a crisis from which it cannot easily emerge. No matter how much local authorities speak of “urgent measures” or “necessary reforms,” the country will certainly not be able to overcome its current difficulties while the conflict with Russia continues.
In this sense, the correct course of action for Kiev would be simply to accept the Russian peace terms and establish an agreement to end hostilities. Any other “measure” would be a mistake, incapable of saving the country from absolute collapse.
Trump Willing to End War on Iran without opening Hormuz Strait?
Iran never had a nuclear weapons program and the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump destroyed, had guaranteed that Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program could not be turned to military purposes. None of the rationales for the war ever made sense, and now the goal seems to be to return to the status quo ante, to get back to February 27, 2026. But you can’t.
Juan Cole, 03/31/2026
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Trump has reportedly told aides that he wants to end the Iran War within four to six weeks and that he has realized that attempting forcibly to reopen it would take far longer.
Having degraded Iran’s military capabilities, Trump hopes that future diplomacy will help reopen the Strait and that other countries will take the lead on those negotiations (!)
If wishes were fishes we’d all have barrels full.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview to Al Jazeera in which he said,
It isn’t clear that Rubio is in the loop on Trump’s war aims, and Trump himself appears to say things so as to move the stock market and enable insider trading for himself and his cronies, so it is hard to know what emphasis to place on these bipolar pronouncements. On Sunday Trump was blustering about invading Iran with ground troops or destroying all its power and desalinization plants. Now on Monday evening he want to cease bombing in a few weeks and walk away.
Rubio’s three goals are silly. Iran has never had much of an air force or navy. And while its ballistic missile launchers have been reduced in number, the country still seems to have large numbers of Shahed drones that can be launched from the back of a Toyota truck or from underground emplacements, and Iran still seems to have lots of these drones. It even still has lots of missiles, and hit an Israeli oil refinery at Haifa with one on Monday. The likelihood is that with Chinese and Russian help Iran will be able swiftly to replace those launchers, and it probably is manufacturing hundreds of new drones a week even as the war drags on.
Iran never had a nuclear weapons program and the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump destroyed, had guaranteed that Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program could not be turned to military purposes. None of the rationales for the war ever made sense, and now the goal seems to be to return to the status quo ante, to get back to February 27, 2026. But you can’t.
The political problem for Trump is that Iran’s strategy of taking the world’s oil and gas hostage has worked. Those fuels are characterized by inelastic demand — people who drive gasoline cars to work need gasoline, whether it costs $2.70 a gallon or $4 a gallon or $7 a gallon. They cannot easily switch to another fuel. I mean, over time they could buy an electric car or move closer to their work, but we’re talking this month and next month. Not only is demand inelastic but supply is, as well.
You’ll hear commentators talking about how America has its own petroleum. This is not true. The US consumes a little over 20 million barrels a day of petroleum and other liquid fuels. It produces 13.6 million barrels a day.
We make up the nearly 7 million barrel a day difference with imports, above all from Canada but also from Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Iraq and Colombia.
So although the US may produce more petroleum than any other country, it uses it all itself, and then some. It is not a swing producer. Saudi Arabia is a swing producer because it can produce a lot of oil that it does not use and so can export a lot or a little, having an outsized impact on prices. The US cannot do that. And Saudi Arabia’s exports have been much reduced by Iran’s blockade. What elasticity exists in the oil supply comes from swing producers and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait cannot play that role right now. Supply is therefore inelastic over the short to medium term.
So American’s gasoline and diesel goes up when everybody else’s does, since the producers have a choice of markets to sell into and they will sell to the highest bidder. Americans, contrary to the lies Big Oil tells, are not self-sufficient in gasoline, and their pocketbooks are going to take a big hit on energy prices if this war goes on.
The war has not only taken oil off the market (we won’t be getting any from Iraq since its fields are closed now) but Israeli and US strikes on Iran, and Iranian strikes on the Gulf Arab states, have damaged oil and gas facilities. The French estimate that a third of Gulf refining capacity has been taken off the board because of damage to facilities. Let me fill you in on something: crude petroleum is worthless. It only acquires a value when it is refined into products like gasoline or diesel that can power vehicles or fuel power plants.
That refining capacity is not going to miraculously recover when Trump finally ends this pointless war. Rebuilding will take time. Depending on how long the hot war continues, you could see petroleum stay above $100 a barrel for the foreseeable future, which will take between 0.3% and 0.4% off GDP growth. The US was already anemic at a projected 0.7% GDP growth rate this year, which high petroleum and gas prices could whittle down to nothing. Or we could even go into a recession.
Moreover, the potential is there for more damage to oil rigs, refineries and terminals, and the risk increases with every day the war continues.
Americans haven’t felt the full pain yet because the markets have imperfect information or are paying too much attention to Trump’s jawboning. But industry insiders are worried about $200 a barrel petroleum (it was about $70 before the war), and are worried that elevated prices can be foreseen into the future.
So all of a sudden, as Trump begins to get heat from his MAGA base about gasoline prices and about a costly foreign war and now the prospect of boots on the ground — all of a sudden Trump wants to walk away within a month and let Iran have the Strait of Hormuz until such time as some other countries can talk Tehran out of it!!
Filed Under: Donald Trump, Featured, Iran, Natural Gas, Petroleum, War
About the Author
Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Distinguished University Professor in the History Department at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook
Israel is making sure Trump can’t find an off-ramp in Iran
The main problem for Trump, the US narcissist-in-chief, is that he is no longer in charge of events – beyond a series of soundbites, alternating between aggression and accommodation, that appear only to have enriched his family and friends as oil markets rise and fall on his every utterance.
Trump’s words are worthless. He could agree to terms tomorrow, but how could Tehran ever be sure that it would not face another round of strikes six months later?
Netanyahu pitched the war as a repeat of Israel’s apparent ‘audacious feat’ of smashing Hezbollah. The US president should have noted instead Israel’s moral and strategic defeat in Gaza
Jonathan Cook, Mar 30, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must have persuaded Donald Trump that a war on Iran would unfold much like the pager attack in Lebanon 18 months ago.
The two militaries would jointly decapitate the leadership in Tehran, and it would crumble just as Hezbollah had collapsed – or so it then seemed – after Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese group’s spiritual leader and military strategist.
If so, Trump bought deeply into this ruse. He assumed that he would be the US president to “remake the Middle East” – a mission his predecessors had baulked at since George W Bush’s dismal failure to achieve the same goal, alongside Israel, more than 20 years earlier.
Netanyahu directed Trump’s gaze to Israel’s supposed “audacious feat” in Lebanon. The US president should have been looking elsewhere: to Israel’s colossal moral and strategic failure in Gaza.
There, Israel spent two years pummelling the tiny coastal enclave into dust, starving the population, and destroying all civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals.
Netanyahu publicly declared that Israel was “eradicating Hamas”, Gaza’s civilian government and its armed resistance movement that had refused for two decades to submit to Israel’s illegal occupation and blockade of the territory.
In truth, as pretty much every legal and human rights expert long ago concluded, what Israel was actually doing was committing genocide – and, in the process, tearing up the rules of war that had governed the period following the Second World War.
But two and a half years into Israel’s destruction of Gaza, Hamas is not only still standing, it is in charge of the ruins.
Israel may have shrunk by some 60 per cent the size of the concentration camp the people of Gaza are locked into, but Hamas is far from vanquished.
Rather, Israel is the one that has retreated to a safe zone, from which it is resuming a war of attrition on Gaza’s survivors.
Surprises in store
When considering whether to launch an illegal war on Iran, Trump should have noted Israel’s complete failure to destroy Hamas after pounding this small territory – the size of the US city of Detroit – from the air for two years.
That failure was all the starker given that Washington had provided Israel with an endless supply of munitions.
Even sending in Israeli ground forces failed to quell Hamas’ resistance. These were the strategic lessons the Trump administration should have learnt.
If Israel could not overwhelm Gaza militarily, why would Washington imagine the task of doing so in Iran would prove any easier?
After all, Iran is 4,500 times larger than Gaza. It has a population, and military, 40 times bigger. And it has a fearsome arsenal of missiles, not Hamas’ homemade rockets.
But more important still, as Trump is now apparently learning to his cost, Iran – unlike Hamas in isolated Gaza – has strategic levers to pull with globe-shattering consequences.
Tehran is matching Washington’s climb up the escalation ladder rung by rung: from hitting US military infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf states, and critical civilian infrastructure such as energy grids and desalination plants, to closing the Strait of Hormuz, the passage through which much of the world’s oil and energy supplies are transported.
Tehran is now sanctioning the world, depriving it of the fuel needed to turn the wheels of the global economy, in much the same way that the West sanctioned Iran for decades, depriving it of the essentials needed to sustain its domestic economy.
Unlike Hamas, which had to fight from a network of tunnels under the flat, sandy lands of Gaza, Iran has a terrain massively to its military advantage.
Granite cliffs and narrow coves along the Strait of Hormuz provide endless protected sites from which to launch surprise attacks. Vast mountain ranges in the interior offer innumerable hiding places – for the enriched uranium the US and Israel demand Iran hand over, for soldiers, for drone and missile launch sites, and for weapons production plants.
The US and Israel are smashing Iran’s visible military-related infrastructure, but – just as Israel discovered when it invaded Gaza – they have almost no idea what lies out of sight.
They can be sure of one thing, however: Iran, which has been readying for this fight for decades, has plenty of surprises in store should they dare to invade.
No trust in Trump
The main problem for Trump, the US narcissist-in-chief, is that he is no longer in charge of events – beyond a series of soundbites, alternating between aggression and accommodation, that appear only to have enriched his family and friends as oil markets rise and fall on his every utterance.
Trump lost control of the military fight the moment he fell for Netanyahu’s pitch.
He may be commander-in-chief of the strongest military in the world, but he has now found himself unexpectedly in the role of piggy in the middle.
He is largely powerless to bring to an end an illegal war he started. Others now dictate events. Israel, his chief ally in the war, and Iran, his official enemy, hold all the important cards. Trump, despite his bravado, is being dragged along in their tailwind.
He can declare victory, as he has repeatedly sounded close to doing. But, having released the genie from the bottle, there is little he can actually do to bring the fighting to a close.
Unlike the US, Israel and Iran have an investment in keeping the war going for as long as either can endure the pain. Each regime believes – for different reasons – that the struggle between them is existential.
Israel, with its zero-sum worldview, is afraid that, were the military playing field in the Middle East to be levelled by Iran matching Israel’s nuclear-power status, Tel Aviv would no longer exclusively have Washington’s ear.
It would no longer be able, at will, to spread terror across the region. And it would have to reach a settlement with the Palestinians, rather than its preferred plan to commit genocide and ethnically cleanse them.
Similarly, Iran has concluded – based on recent experience – that the US, and especially Trump, can no more be trusted than Israel.
In 2018, in his first term, the US president tore up the nuclear deal signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Last summer Trump launched strikes on Iran in the midst of talks. And then late last month he unleashed this war, just as renewed talks were on the brink of success, according to mediators.
Trump’s words are worthless. He could agree to terms tomorrow, but how could Tehran ever be sure that it would not face another round of strikes six months later?
…………………………………………………………………………. Stoking the flames
As becomes clearer by the day, US and Israeli interests over Iran are now in opposition.
Trump needs to bring calm back to the markets as soon as possible to avoid a global depression and, with it, the collapse of his domestic support. He must find a way to reimpose stability.
With air strikes failing to dislodge either the ayatollahs or the Revolutionary Guard, he has one of two courses of action open to him: either climb down and engage in humiliating negotiations with Iran, or try to topple the regime through a ground invasion and impose a leader of his choosing.
But given the fact that Iran is not done wreaking damage on the US, and has zero reason to trust Trump’s good faith, Washington is being driven inexorably towards the second path.
Israel, on the other hand, bitterly opposes the first option, negotiations, which would take it back to square one. And it suspects the second option is unachievable.
The primary lesson from Gaza is that Iran’s vast terrain is likely to make invading troops sitting ducks for attack from an unseen enemy.
And there is far too much support for the leadership among Iranians – even if westerners never hear of it – for Israel and the US to foist on the populace the pretender to the throne, Reza Pahlavi, who has been cheering on the bombing of his own people safely from the sidelines.
Israel initiated this war with an entirely different agenda. It seeks chaos in Iran, not stability. That is what it has been trying to engineer in Gaza and Lebanon – and there is every sign it is seeking the same outcome in Iran.
This should have long been understood in Washington.
This week, Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden’s former national security adviser, cited recent comments by Danny Citrinowicz, a former veteran Israeli military intelligence lead on Iran, that Netanyahu’s aim is to “just break Iran, cause chaos”. Why? “Because,” says Sullivan, “as far as they’re concerned, a broken Iran is less of a threat to Israel.”
………………………………………………………………………………………….. Confusing messages
In typical fashion, Trump is sending confusing messages. He is seeking to negotiate – though with whom is unclear – while amassing troops for a ground invasion.
It is hard to analyse the US president’s intentions because his utterances make precisely no strategic sense.
This is not the logic of a superpower looking to shore up its own authority, and restore order to the region. It is the logic of a cornered crime boss, hoping that a last desperate roll of the dice may disrupt his rivals’ plans sufficiently to turn the tables on them.
That roll of the dice looks likely to be a plan to send US special forces to occupy Kharg Island, the main hub for Iran’s oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump appears to think that he can hold the island as ransom, demanding Tehran reopen the Strait or lose its access to its own oil.
According to diplomats, Iran is not only refusing to concede control over the Strait but threatening to carpet-bomb the island – and US forces on it – rather than give Trump leverage. Tehran is also warning that it will start targeting shipping in the Red Sea, a second waterway vital to the transport of oil supplies from the region.
It still has cards to play.
This is a game of chicken Trump will struggle to win. All of which leaves the Israeli leadership sitting pretty.
If Trump ups the stakes, Iran will do so too. If Trump declares victory, Iran will keep firing to underscore that it decides when things come to a halt. And in the unlikely event that the US makes major concessions to Tehran, Israel has manifold ways to stoke the flames again.
In fact, though barely reported by the western media, it is actively fuelling those fires already.
It is destroying south Lebanon, using the levelling of Gaza as the template, and preparing to annex lands south of the Litani River in accordance with its imperial Greater Israel agenda.
It is still killing Palestinians in Gaza, still shrinking the size of their concentration camp, and still blockading aid, food and fuel.
And Israel is stepping up its settler-militia pogroms against Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank, in preparation for the ethnic cleansing of what was once assumed to be the backbone of a Palestinian state.
Sullivan, Biden’s senior adviser, noted that Israel’s vision of a “broken Iran” was not in America’s interests. It risked prolonged insecurity in the Strait of Hormuz, the collapse of the global economy, and a mass exodus of refugees from the region towards Europe.
That would further deepen a European economic crisis already blamed on immigrants. It would strengthen nativist sentiment that far-right parties are already riding in the polls. It would intensify the legitimacy crisis already faced by European liberal elites, and justify growing authoritarianism.
In other words, it would foment across Europe a political climate even more conducive to Israel’s supremacist, might-is-right agenda.
Trump’s off-ramp is elusive. And Israel will do its level best to make sure it stays that way. https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/israel-is-making-sure-trump-cant?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=476450&post_id=192603646&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=17yeb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The “Nuclear Energy Paradox”- Investigating nuclear imaginaries in energy projections
Science Direct,
Energy Research & Social Science
Volume 135, May 2026, 104676
Fanny Böse ab, Alexander Wimmers bc, Björn Steigerwald bc, Christian von Hirschhausen bc
Highlights
- •Decades of high-growth projections for nuclear power from (inter-)national agencies and from academia can be observed
- •Actual development shows divergence between projections and reality
- •A recurring pattern of overestimation can be identified, which we call the “nuclear energy paradox”
- •The paradox is rooted in nuclear imaginaries like the plutonium economy and/or hopes of mass production of, e.g., SMRs
- •Recent energy scenarios are still driven by narratives that are based on certain nuclear imaginaries
Abstract
Current energy projections often envision an expansion of nuclear capacities to decarbonize future energy systems. However, this contrasts with the historic and current status of the nuclear industry, marked by techno-economic challenges for both light-water and non-light-water reactor technologies.
Regardless, projections of strong nuclear growth have persisted since the 1970s. This paper investigates the “nuclear energy paradox” which shows the recurring divergence between historical projections and actual developments.
A data compilation of long-term energy projections from international organizations such as the IAEA and the IEA as well as energy system models like GCAM and MESSAGE, as used in the IPCC, reveal a recurring pattern of high-growth projections for nuclear power. Such projections often rest on techno-economic assumptions such as substantial cost reductions.
We propose the concept of nuclear imaginaries to show that these assumptions are embedded into techno-economic visions of nuclear power development, which shape model assumptions and narratives. The historic perspective helps to show that nuclear imaginaries may never materialize and remain in a hypothetical state for decades. Our findings support decision-makers in making more informed decisions and urge for caution when interpreting energy scenarios and projections, especially for nuclear power.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6. Conclusion
Our analysis reveals that the “nuclear energy paradox” exists, meaning that throughout history, strong nuclear growth projections and accompanying imaginaries of nuclear futures have been published across different international bodies (e.g., IAEA, IEA, and IIASA), seemingly disconnected from socio-technical realities.
………………………………………..originate from authors who had assumed technological progress in favor of nuclear and were skeptical regarding the cost development of renewables, thereby implicitly supporting a vision of a plutonium economy with a vast expansion of fast reactors ………………..
Overall, the historic analysis of energy projections and scenarios shows that envisioned nuclear futures may never materialize. The nuclear energy paradox illustrates how technological expectations remain unmet, even on a recurring pattern, across several organizations. Recent scenarios with high-nuclear futures are still created, although historical development and actual trends strongly contrast them. Also, national agencies, in particular the US DOE, promote nuclear expansion similarly to the 1970s to advocate for the tripling of nuclear capacity. However, the nuclear energy paradox shows the hypothetical state of nuclear power in energy projections…………………………
negotiations about energy futures can be observed, in which nuclear is promoted by certain actors, and energy scenarios are used for scientific justification. The paradox shows that nuclear imaginaries have not materialized for decades and thus should be treated with caution. ……………………….https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629626001477
Who Else, Besides Pete Hegseth, is Trying to Use the War in Iran to Get Rich?
31 March 2026 by Larry C. Johnson , https://sonar21.com/who-else-besides-pete-hegseth-is-trying-to-use-the-war-in-iran-to-get-rich/
Looks like Pete Hegseth tried to make a financial killing off of the war of aggression the US launched against Iran on 28 February 2026. According to the Financial Times:
Pete Hegseth’s broker at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock in February to make a multimillion-dollar investment in a defense-focused Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) called IDEF.
This $3.2 billion fund is built around companies that benefit from increased military spending, including RTX, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Palantir — all major Pentagon contractors.
The request came just weeks before the U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran, a campaign Hegseth helped shape and strongly supported within the Trump administration.
BlackRock flagged the inquiry internally because of Hegseth’s high-profile role. The investment didn’t go through, but only because the ETF wasn’t yet available on Morgan Stanley’s platform.
BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, and the Pentagon declined to comment.
If you do the analysis on the weapons expended so far in the month-long war with Iran, the opportunity for war profiteering is quite clear. The US/Israeli Ramadan War has drained the US inventory of its two ballistic missile defense systems. Both US PAC-3 (Patriot) and THAAD interceptor inventories are significantly depleted or nearing critical levels as of late March 2026, after accounting for prior conflicts (Ukraine support, June 2025 12-day Israel-Iran war) and the ongoing 2026 Iran war (Operation Epic Fury). The high expenditure rates, combined with historically low peacetime production, have created a serious “race of attrition” that cannot be quickly reversed. Both the PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability-3, specifically the MSE variant) and the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptors are primarily manufactured by Lockheed Martin.
Combined Estimate of Remaining US Inventories (Rough Synthesis)
Exact classified figures are not public, so these are reasoned ranges drawn from consistent reporting (CSIS, Payne Institute, RUSI, JINSA, DoD budget data, and conflict usage estimates). Numbers reflect US-owned/controlled operational stocks (not including allies’ separate purchases).
PAC-3 MSE (Patriot terminal-phase interceptors):
Pre-2026 baseline: Roughly 1,600–2,000 modern PAC-3 MSE (out of a broader Patriot family inventory sometimes cited around 2,000 total, with older variants mixed in). As I have mentioned in previojous posts, cumulative production upper bound of ~4,620 through 2025 (with ~620 delivered in 2025) is reasonable as a global total, but the US retained share is smaller after Foreign Military Sales.- Major draws: Hundreds fired by US forces in the first 16 days of the 2026 war (estimates of ~402 in early reports, with some higher figures in intense periods); prior usage in Ukraine (hundreds total over years) and the June 2025 war; plus Gulf partner support.
- Current remaining (late March 2026): There are few, if any, PAC 3 missiles left in the US inventory in Israel and the Persian Gulf. There are an estimate 1,400 PAC 3s remaining in INDOPACOM’s pre-war planning stock. Stocks available for sustained Middle East operations outside pre-positioned or diverted units are, under the most optimistic assumptions, critically low. The two-missile (or more) salvo doctrine multiplies consumption per threat. Yet, I have seen videos where at least four PAC 3s are fired at one target… which means the consumption rate is even worse than estimated.
THAAD (high-altitude ballistic missile interceptors):
- Pre-2026 baseline: Around ~534–632 (MDA procurement/delivered figures; some estimates reference higher cumulative including pipeline or foreign orders). Production has been extremely low (~96 or fewer per year historically).
- Major draws: Significant usage in June 2025 (~92–150 interceptors, often cited as ~25% or up to 30% of inventory); additional heavy expenditure in the 2026 war (estimates of ~198 in the first 16 days, or ~40% of pre-conflict on-hand inventory in some analyses). Gulf/Middle East operations have consumed a large share.
- Current remaining (late March 2026): Reports indicate fewer than 400 ready/reserve interceptors in some estimates, with others warning of depletion risk within weeks (e.g., by mid-April) if current tempo continues. Some analyses describe ~30–40%+ of the stockpile already expended in the current conflict alone on top of prior usage.
US stocks of these two high-end ballistic missile defense interceptors are effectively strained to the point of operational risk for prolonged high-intensity defense. THAAD is in a more acute near-term crisis due to tiny production rates, while PAC-3 has a somewhat better (but still insufficient) ramp underway. If the war continues at saturation-attack levels, further constraints (or changes in tactics/priorities) become likely. Exact numbers remain opaque for operational security reasons, but the trend is clear: both systems are depleted or nearing depletion. Which means that Lockheed Martin can expect a major influx of cash to boost production and try to replenish exhausted missile air defense inventories.
I wonder who else in the Trump administration and the US Congress are making money off of this bloody war?
Judge Napolitano and I discussed the insanity of US plans to deploy ground forces to Iran:
VIDEOS on original – Judging Freedom Podcast – Full Escalation etc
Implications of a Possible US Ground Invasion of Iran
Abbas Hashemite, March 30, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/03/30/implications-of-a-possible-us-ground-invasion-of-iran/
Following Iran’s strong retaliation, the United States is mulling a ground invasion of the country. However, it would have significant implications for the US.
Escalation Amidst Diplomacy
Despite ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel attacked Iran, violating international rules and norms. Most of Iran’s top-level military and civilian leadership was assassinated in the US and Israeli attack on February 28, 2026. In retaliation, Iran targeted Israeli cities and its nuclear and energy infrastructure, along with key US military facilities in the region. Iran also closed the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global maritime oil trade, which increased global inflation as energy and oil prices surged worldwide.
Since February 28, Iran has been continuously targeting Israeli and US interests in the Middle East. Iran’s strong retaliation against the United States and Israel and its closure of the Strait of Hormuz have exasperated US President Trump. Surging global inflation due to his unnecessary “war of choice,” as Americans call it, has made him desperate to secure a deal over the issue of closure of the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump’s frustration is evident from his simultaneous statement about continuing the war and ending it through diplomatic negotiations.
Contradictions in Strategy and Leadership
Due to increasing contradictions between Trump’s rhetoric and actions, people around the world are curious about the future of this war. Following President Trump’s statement regarding talks with Iran, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli attacks on Iran would continue. On March 25, the Zionist Prime Minister even ordered the Israeli military to speed up its air campaign for the next 48 hours against Iran to destroy as much of its arms industry as possible. Similarly, the US Central Command, on the night when Trump talked about negotiations, reported that air strikes against Iran were carried out extensively.
The cost of the US-Israel and Iran war has already spiraled out of control. The Gulf countries are still unable to recover from the shock of this unexpected war. Amongst all this, a ground invasion of Iran would prove catastrophic for the world, and it would push the war into an ‘irreversible’ phase. Once the United States starts the ground invasion of Iran, it would become nearly impossible to stop the war, and the detrimental impacts of this war would increase manifold. For such an invasion, a clear objective and aim of the war need to be defined first. However, the US and Israeli leadership have failed to define a clear objective of this war.
Shifting Goals and the Risks of Ground War
Initially, the US and Israel stated that their goal was to remove the Islamic regime and end the country’s nuclear and missile program. However, after their failure to spark a native uprising against the Ayatollah regime and Iran’s strong retaliation, President Trump’s objective has apparently shifted towards opening the Strait of Hormuz. Pakistan’s Minister of Defense, Khawaja Asif, also mocked the US by stating, “The goal of the war seems to have shifted to opening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war.” This shifting objective of the war indicates that the US policymakers are unable to define a clear aim of the war they started at the behest of Israel.
The absence of a clear objective has resulted in a military posture that no longer aligns with the initially stated goals of the war, disrupting US military planning. The ground invasion of Iran would not be possible with a few divisions, but it would require a complete military ecosystem. Iran has already mobilized one million soldiers to counter a possible US ground invasion of the country. Therefore, deploying insufficient military forces in Iran would create an imbalance, resulting only in casualties of the US soldiers. With the increasing number of military casualties, Trump’s political stature will also diminish, as the argument that “the US troops are sacrificing their lives for Israel” will strengthen.
If the United States seeks to control the Strait of Hormuz and nearby islands, it would compel Iran to respond with full military might, as it is ready to sacrifice its own energy infrastructure, which has already been significantly damaged by Israeli and US attacks. Similarly, a ground invasion of Iran through the Kurdish region is also impossible for the US, as it would result in a protracted war between the two sides. A prolonged war between the two sides would further increase the economic cost of this war.
Therefore, a ground invasion of Iran, especially under the current circumstances, is impossible. President Trump’s popularity in the US has already declined to a record low after his involvement in this Israeli war. A ground invasion of Iran would further increase political hardships for Donald Trump. However, if he continues to pursue a conflicting policy stance regarding the Iran war, it would be impossible to halt the war diplomatically and further increase mistrust between the two sides.
Trump’s “New” Mideast: False Promises of Peace Through War
Daniel Martin Varisco, Informed Comment March 30, 2026 , https://www.juancole.com/2026/03/mideast-promises-through.html
On March 27 President Trump spoke in Miami to a Saudi investment conference and touted the “rise of the Middle East,” echoing what he said last October to the Israeli Knesset about the “historic dawn of a new Middle East.”
Imperial wars falsely advertised as a means to peace and stability are not, however, “new” in this region of the globe, nor in any other. Since the early uncivilized behavior of rulers in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt it has been the same old story: war for the glory of whoever was the local god or goddess. Sargon of Akkad, served by the wind god Enlil, went with his army from southern Iraq all the way to the Mediterranean over four millennia ago, destroying cities, slaughtering enemies and enslaving those who survived. Three and a half millennia ago the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III took control of Canaan at the Battle of Megiddo, the same location in what is now Israel that apocalyptic-minded Evangelical Christians think will take place between a returned Christ and the Devil’s last gasp at Armageddon.
The advent of the three major monotheisms did not prevent war in this region from being a constant. The Israelites, after wandering for forty years without a map in Sinai, were told by their Abrahamic God to drive out the Canaanites, in some cases slaughtering every man, woman and child (Joshua 8:24-25). The Babylonians and the Assyrians made life miserable for the descendants of Kings David and Solomon. It was Solomon who reminds us that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
In the year 70 CE the Romans destroyed the Jewish Second Temple in Jerusalem. Almost six centuries later Arab armies under the banner of the new religion of Islam conquered Jerusalem from Christian Byzantine control and guaranteed religious protection for the Jews and Christians there.
At the end of the 11th century Medieval Christian crusaders conquered Jerusalem, slaughtering the Jews and Muslims there in the name of their Abrahamic God. Less than a century later the Ayyubid leader Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, allowing the Christian Crusaders there to leave in peace.
The Buddhist Mongols came close to capturing Jerusalem in the 13th century, but were defeated by the Egyptian Mamluks, who were in turn overcome by the Ottoman Turks in the early 16th century.
At the end of 18th century Napoleon led a massive French force that took over Egypt but failed to conquer Ottoman Palestine, thanks to the British. A century later the British assumed control of Egypt and its important Suez Canal.
The 20th century in the region was regularly punctuated by warfare. The first World War ended the Ottoman Empire and created a new map of what was transitioning from the Near East to the Middle East. The lines drawn by Europeans may have been new, but the problems created by the imposed borders brought up all kinds of old problems. The French denied Syria to the Hashemite Prince Faisal who helped Lawrence of Arabia defeat the Ottomans.
The British created space for two Hashemites hailing from Mecca to become kings in Jordan and Iraq. The French carved Lebanon out of Syria to create a Christian-majority country that Paris hoped would support their colonialism (in the 1940s the Christian Lebanese demanded independence along with everyone else in the country). The pre-oil Gulf States remained British Trucial States for the most part, and mostly desert Arabia was given to King Saud with his fanatical Wahhabi backers.
And, to top it all off, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 set policy for the British Mandate in Palestine, once it was conquered by British troops and awarded by the San Remo conference to London. The British commitment to flooding the Mandate with European Jews led to mounting violence within and outside Palestine. Then in 1948 the modern state of Israel was created, followed by major local wars the rest of that year and again in 1956, 1967 and 1973, along with almost constant tension and violence through the present. Today there is what many call genocide being committed by Israel’s right-wing government in Gaza, daily Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, the recent invasion of southern Lebanon and the now four-week old Iran war that is or is not being called a war.
There may indeed be a “newer” Middle East, certainly considering the state of the region a mere century ago, but both the present and future are clouded by non-stop war, revenge and imperial interference that are as old as recorded time itself. Poor patriarch Abraham, who spiritually fathered the three religious rivals in the land where he shepherded his sheep, must be rolling over in his grave. One of the most quoted parables of Jesus in the Gospels, those New Testament books that talk a lot about peace and not about war, is about putting new wine into old bottles. It is worth quoting from the old English King James Version so beloved by those who insist Jesus is yet again about to come down to earth:
The rhetoric clothing war-talk as a prelude to peace can never cover the naked truth of the ongoing suffering of victims on all sides in the ongoing conflicts.
Yet another new wine justifying the horrors of war in a region that has known too much conflict only leads to more spilled blood.
Daniel Martin Varisco is an anthropologist and historian who specializes on Yemen’s agricultural heritage. He blogs at Tabsir.net.
DONALD TRUMP: THE GREAT ILLUMINATOR
Jonathon Porritt April 2, 2026, https://jonathonporritt.com/trump-the-great-illuminator/
I know readers of my blog do not expect absolute consistency, blog by blog, but you may be somewhat surprised to see Donald Trump excoriated one week as the “Destroyer of Hope” and the next as “The Great Illuminator”! But here’s the thing: he’s inadvertently becoming the Great Illuminator (as in shedding light on the suicidal workings of the global economy today) precisely by virtue of applying himself so ruthlessly to destroying people’s hope for a better world.
Let’s start with the easy bit: day by crazy day, Trump’s war with Iran strips bare the true cost of our continuing addiction to fossil fuels: oil at $100 – $150 a barrel; chokepoints and straitened dependencies; multi-billion dollar fossil fuel investments brought low by a few home-grown drones; increasingly costly energy security; a rolling cost of living crisis, and, depending on what happens over the next couple of weeks, the very real possibility of a global recession.
That’s the downside. And it could be utterly horrendous.
The upside? Why would any single country on Earth (apart from the USA, Russia and the dozen or so petrostates that make up today’s fossil fuel incumbency) hesitate for a single second in expediting a transition strategy out of fossil fuels? If some have failed to understand the imperative rationale for this (and we all know why that’s the case!), there’s now not one residual doubt available to them.
The geopolitics of this is extraordinary. Conjure up for a moment the near-permanent beam on XI Jinping’s face as he gratefully accepts the free pass that Trump has given him to dominate the ‘post-fossil fuel energy economy’ as ruthlessly as the USA has dominated the fossil fuel energy economy.
(This may be a bit geeky, but check out what’s happening — as a direct consequence of the war in Iran — in the battle between the Petrodollar and the Petroyuan!).
Most people don’t appreciate this, but the renewables revolution is all but done, in large part because of China. It’s just a question of how long it takes. The batteries/storage revolution is in full swing, massively fast-tracking the renewables revolution in the process. And the wider ‘electrify everything revolution’ is gearing up nicely. In five years time, we’ll be wondering what took us so long!
Shine on, Donald!
Beyond that, five weeks into the war, The Great Illuminator’s spotlight is now moving on to reveal the reality of the suicidal food and agricultural system on which the world depends — every aspect of which is itself dependent on historically cheap fossil fuels.
Courtesy of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee we now have some cracking scenarios to show us how this ‘food insecurity crisis’ goes: the cost of essential inputs into today’s intensive agriculture (primarily fertilisers, pesticides and fuel, all of which depend on production in the Gulf — including about 35% of the world’s supply of fertilisers) continues to rise. And then rise again. Even if the war ends soon, costs stay high as producers struggle to repair the massive damage to infrastructure and supply chains that the war has already done.
Many experts believe that ‘an unprecedented global food crisis is now inevitable’. Equally inevitably, it will be the poor of the world who suffer most. The World Food Programme talks of “shock waves across the globe”, anticipating that the number of people who will experience acute food insecurity could soon exceed 350 million.
What the World Food Programme has not pointed out is the very meaty elephant in the room: prices for these inputs will now stay high for a long time, primarily because demand will stay high, primarily to maintain high yields of those commodity crops to feed the billions of animals that our meat-obsessed food economy depends on.
A bridge too far, perhaps? To suggest that today’s addicted beef-eaters are as threatened a species as addicted petrolheads? That per capita meat consumption will need to decline at least as rapidly as per capita dependence on fossil fuels?
Probably – but before we move on, have a look at one of the most eloquent summaries I’ve ever seen of why our dependence on animal-based protein is the principal cause of ecosystem collapse (https://www.plantist.org/briefing/)
Back to The Great Illuminator! And here you need to give your imagination full rein.
Have you spotted the emerging transition from TACO (Trump Always Cops Out) to TISOP (Trump Increasingly Shits on Our Parade)? An endorsement from Donald Trump these days is already something of a mixed blessing, but what if it soon becomes an out-and-out poison pill?
Many believe that Mark Carney only won the Canadian general election in 2025 because Trump so enthusiastically endorsed his neoliberal opponent (Pierre Poilievre), who was otherwise on track to do to the Canadian economy what Trump continues to do to the US economy.
In Italy, one imagines that Georgia Maloney will be a lot less lovey-dovey next time Trump is looming over her, having lost the recent ‘Trump inspired’ referendum in Italy to weaken the independence of the Italian judiciary.
And have you noticed, here in the UK, how Farage is rapidly transitioning from Arselicker-in-Chief to ‘Donald Who?’.
The most important test of this poison pill hypothesis takes place in 10 days time. Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister, has been Trump’s thuggish Mini Me ever since Trump was first elected president back in 2016. It’s touch and go whether Orban’s adulation for Trump exceeds even his adulation for Putin.
If his opponent, Peter Magyar, wins on April 12th, this will be recognised around the world as a massive ‘up yours, Orban’, and, at one degree removed, ‘up yours, Putin’, and (please God!) ‘up yours, Trump’. (These days, I spend quite a lot of time transmitting positive vibes to Peter Magyar).
Shine on, Donald!
There’s one final speculative reason to be a bit more hopeful about the future than might be warranted by the horrors of the world today. Not least those going on in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Lebanon, courtesy of Trump and Netanyahu’s genocidal endeavours.
It’s this: what if Trump were to become THE poster child for the entire Billionaire Class dominating the world today?
I think most of us already have some seriously strong antipathy to the likes of Elon Musk, Jim Ratcliffe, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, Bill Gates, etc., etc. But what if Donald J Trump Jnr (a rather lowly and inadequate billionaire, as it happens, if it’s sheer size that you’re looking for) were to become THE poster child for the entire Billionaire Class? In all his maximally corrupt, lethally psychopathic and irredeemably narcissistic glory?
Shine on, Donald, shine on!
Atlanta robot security dogs now giving commands to Americans
Steve Watson, Modernity, Wed, 01 Apr 2026
Slippery slope to automated enforcement as machines take over city patrols amid rising crime
In the latest escalation of tech-driven “security” in American cities, Atlanta has unleashed robot security dogs that are actively issuing verbal commands to citizens on the streets.
A new video exposes how these mechanical enforcers operate with zero discretion: one woman greets the device warmly, complies instantly, and still gets reported to police.
These four-legged units, deployed by companies such as Undaunted Robotics across Atlanta apartment complexes, parking lots, and construction sites, patrol 24/7 with cameras, lights, sirens, and speakers.
Remote human operators monitor live feeds and speak through the robots to issue warnings or alert authorities.
Proponents claim they deter theft and break-ins where traditional guards fall short, with the founder noting they provide a cheaper alternative to on-site security while feeding real-time video to responders.
Yet the viral clip reveals the cold reality on the ground. A compliant citizen offering a friendly greeting triggers the same automated response as a suspected threat.
No nuance. No human judgment in the moment. Just a machine escalating straight to law enforcement.
This rollout comes as private security firms position the robots as partners for local police departments in Atlanta and DeKalb County, with plans to expand statewide.
Early deployments in areas like Castleberry Hill have drawn praise from some residents tired of unchecked property crime, but the hands-off approach raises red flags about accountability when silicon decides who gets flagged…………………………… ……………………….https://modernity.news/2026/04/01/watch-atlanta-robot-security-dogs-now-giving-commands-to-americans/
Will the New Brunswick Power Review finally shake up New Brunswick Power?
The report’s considerable emphasis on NB Power’s nuclear operations is justified: the plant’s poor performance is the main reason that the utility cannot lower its debt to asset ratio and loses money almost every year. As the report notes: “The benefits of nuclear are only achieved when the asset performs at a high-capacity factor…. A structure and organization that is focused on excellent nuclear performance is needed and it is not clear to us that this is possible under the existing corporate structure.”
Unfortunately, the main recommendation for the nuclear plant will simply kick the white elephant down the road. ………………… The report also noted that the utility’s debt related to nuclear power was $3.6 billion and suggested that an appropriate amount of debt be assigned to the new entity, presumably with the remaining debt picked up by taxpayers.
If there is any silver lining, it’s that the report barely mentions small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), and at the media event, the panel stated clearly that New Brunswick should not go down that road.
by Susan O’Donnell, March 31, 2026, https://nbmediacoop.org/2026/03/31/will-the-nb-power-review-finally-shake-up-nb-power/
NB Power desperately needs a very big shake up. The NB Power Review report published on Monday rattled the utility but not nearly hard enough.
The NB Power Review was meant to chart a path to a better future for the public utility. Launched last April, the three-person review panel was tasked with reviewing the utility to address: “rising electricity rates, system reliability, and financial challenges, including a high debt-to-equity ratio.”
The shake-up needs to happen at the top. The report is rightly highly critical of NB Power’s organizational culture that lacks not only “operational excellence” but also basic project management procedures and practices. NB Power, the report clearly states, does not have the capacity and skills to manage all the projects planned, including “large hydro refurbishment, complex plant conversions, large software replacement, and transmission and distribution expansions.”
NB Power’s grid is a mess. The big power generators are liabilities more than assets. The Mactaquac dam needs repairs that will cost more than $9 billion. The Belledune coal-fired plant is federally mandated to close by 2030. The Point Lepreau nuclear plant performs so badly that the utility is losing millions, with millions more for costly repairs on the horizon. NB Power’s big fossil fuel generators – oil-fired Coleson Cove and gas-fired Bayside – need to wind down for the same reason Belledune will need to stop burning coal: the climate emergency.
Yet, the Review report does not mention the word “climate,” or “weather” or “storms” or give any indication that “Fit for the Future” (the title of the report) must include resilience and mitigation strategies for climate change.
As reported last April when the Review was announced, the panel’s mandate did not include consideration of climate action, which is evident in the report. For example, after pointing out that many homes in the province rely on baseboard heating, the report recommends “increased deployment of natural gas for heating purposes” suggesting that these homes should install gas furnaces. Heat pumps, the obvious and more cost-conscious and environmentally-responsible option, are barely mentioned and not included in the report’s 50 recommendations.
The report also misses an important opportunity to highlight the potential of wind energy and external financing for wind projects with Indigenous communities. A table in the report appendix lists NB Power’s power purchase agreements, including from three wind farms co-owned by Indigenous communities: Nuweg (25 MW capacity) Wisokolamson Energy (18 MW) and Wocawson Energy (20 MW) – without mentioning that these are Indigenous-partnered projects.
New Brunswick has tremendous wind resources, and First Nations in the province and their partners are building wind farms at a rapid pace, also not mentioned in the report. In fact, the most exciting energy infrastructure developments currently ongoing in New Brunswick are wind projects with Indigenous communities co-financed with the federal government.
In 2024, the federal government announced up to $1 billion in funding for new Indigenous-partnered wind projects in New Brunswick and currently five new Indigenous-partnered wind projects are in development. The Review panel should have mentioned this and recommended that NB Power actively explore with Indigenous and government partners how more of these wind projects could be developed and added to New Brunswick’s electric grid.
Where the report stands out is its lengthy discussion of nuclear power and NB Power’s capacity to operate a nuclear plant. The report includes only several paragraphs covering the challenges at the Mactaquac hydroelectricity plant and Belledune coal plant, but nuclear power gets five pages, plus an excellent four-page appendix with the history of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station detailing the operational problems.
The report’s considerable emphasis on NB Power’s nuclear operations is justified: the plant’s poor performance is the main reason that the utility cannot lower its debt to asset ratio and loses money almost every year. As the report notes: “The benefits of nuclear are only achieved when the asset performs at a high-capacity factor…. A structure and organization that is focused on excellent nuclear performance is needed and it is not clear to us that this is possible under the existing corporate structure.”
The panel acknowledges that NB Power does not have the capacity to operate the nuclear plant with New Brunswick talent. Currently the nuclear plant is managed under a contract with Laurentis Energy Partners, a business venture of Ontario Power Generation, a contract the review panel suggests will not alone achieve the needed improvement in the plant’s performance.
Unfortunately, the main recommendation for the nuclear plant will simply kick the white elephant down the road. The review panel recommends that the Point Lepreau plant be operationally separated from the rest of the utility’s power generators and that a new entity, Point Lepreau Nuclear, be set up with its own governance team of nuclear experts focused on the performance of the plant. The report also noted that the utility’s debt related to nuclear power was $3.6 billion and suggested that an appropriate amount of debt be assigned to the new entity, presumably with the remaining debt picked up by taxpayers.
It was almost amusing to read the review panel’s statement that hiving off the utility’s nuclear operations into a separate entity will “reduce stress and accountability” for the NB Power management and board. For sure, saying “it’s not my problem” is a good way to reduce stress but it doesn’t make the problem go away.
What about the stress experienced every month by New Brunswick ratepayers who can’t afford their utility bills? The panel, in its report and media event, acknowledged that electricity rates will continue to rise, energy poverty is real, and that “government needs to step in and provide financial support for those New Brunswickers who are considered vulnerable or for those targeted customers” but does not recommend developing such a program as one of its 50 recommendations. In any case, using general revenues to subsidize the costs of the nuclear operations is not a long-term solution.
As the panel clearly identified, the Point Lepreau nuclear plant is a big, central, problem for NB Power. If, as the report states, the contract with Laurentis Energy Partners is not enough, what will be enough? The existing contract with Laurentis is $88.4 million over three years (the value is not mentioned in the Review report). What will be the cost of hiring outside experts to set up and run the proposed Point Lepreau Nuclear entity? Does anyone believe that another group of outside experts will be able to magically bewitch the Lepreau plant so that it will make money, rather than lose it? “Silk purse” and “sow’s ear” come to mind.
If there is any silver lining, it’s that the report barely mentions small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), and at the media event, the panel stated clearly that New Brunswick should not go down that road. As reported earlier by the NB Media Co-op, the NB Power review “could be the last nail in the coffin for the controversial technology in New Brunswick.”
However a further recommendation in the report is that the government consider “initiating the planning assessment phase for an additional large scale, proven technology nuclear plant to be sited alongside the Point Lepreau facility.” At the media event for the report launch, the review panel stressed they were not recommending a second reactor but rather that the utility take the time to conduct a thorough review about the future of nuclear in New Brunswick.
Another “big” reactor? Currently in Canada, only two firms are competing to build proposed big nuclear projects, in Ontario and Alberta. AtkinsRéalis (formerly known as SNC Lavalin) is proposing a CANDU design and Westinghouse its AP1000 design. The CANDU design has not made cost estimates public but two AP1000 reactors were recently completed in the U.S., at a cost of about $24 billion each in Canadian dollars.
This NB Power Review should have been the thorough review required to put NB Power’s future nuclear ambitions to rest. After its detailed discussion of NB Power’s debt problem and failure to operate the Point Lepreau nuclear plant successfully, it defies belief that the panel would recommend considering another nuclear reactor, one that would cost tens of billions of dollars. This is the very definition of nuclear hopium, not the big reality shake that the government and NB Power so badly need.
Susan O’Donnell, a member of the NB Media Co-op board, is the lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University and co-author of a recent report on SMRs in Canada
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (34)
- 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 