THE US HAS NO ROUTE TO VICTORY IN IRAN WHICH WILL LIKELY EMERGE STRONGER
THIS ADVENTURE MAY DO TO AMERICAN COLONIALISM WHAT SUEZ DID TO THE BRITISH AND THE FRENCH
Ian Proud, Apr 19, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/the-us-has-no-route-to-victory-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=194637482&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I was pleased to meet Laith Marouf, a War Correspondent and Executive Director of Free Palestine TV for the first time.
As Laith is based in Lebanon, we discussed the recently announced 10 day ceasefire with Israel, and whether it might endure. This ceasefire had clearly been imposed on Netanyahu by Trump, but what was the prevent Israel from returning to position normal after any putative peace deal over Iran? Laith laid out the historical and religious reasons why Iran would never abandon Lebanon purely to obtain a peace deal with the USA. Other people I have spoken to talk about the muti-confessional nature of Lebanon but that, come what may, Hezbollah remains a powerful force in politics, that won’t be eradicated by air strikes.
So, Israeli conquest of Lebanon will likely never be possible for as long as Iran remains a powerful force in the region.
We therefore discussed the US and Israel’s inability to inflict a defeat on Iran. There is no evidence that the US has the capability or the political capital at home to endure an extended military engagement with a country, thousands of miles from the US, geographically and by population size far bigger than any adversary confronted in the twenty first century, and with the support of the two big regional military and economic powers, Russia and China.
The only way that the US can impose a defeat on Iran is to precipitate regime change and despite Trump’s ramblings about regime change equating to a change of leader (sic!) the proposition that a modern-day Shah can be returned to the throne in Tehran have never looked possible or remotely likely.
That leaves the US militarily stuck in a conflict that is causing global economic shocks that are mobilising both the developing world and parts of the western world against American hegemony. Iran may be to US colonialism what Suez was to the British and French.
Laith situated this latest war in the context of what he describes as the 100 years of humiliation for the Muslim world.
Iran differs from the Arab world in having civilisational integrity and history that will endure this latest attempt at subjugation by western powers. War in the other hand is putting significant pressure on the smaller more fragmented governments across the Arab world which are reliant for survival on the umbrella of US hegemony which is collapsing.
We briefly considered the risk of nuclear escalation in Iran and the likelihood that this, ultimately, would backfire spectacularly on the west with a potentially enormous flood of refugees heading west, not to mention the intense ecological damage and the impact that would have on the global economy. Lots of people pontificate about Israel using tactical nukes, which, while I consider Netanyahu desperate to cling to power, I consider unlikely if only because it would likely sever the hitherto ironclad relationship with the US and lead to more immediate and existential risks to the functioning and integrity of Israel as a state.
We discussed Israel’s nuclear capability and how it can coexist in a more peaceable way with other countries in the region. Laith drew on the example of Apartheid South Africa which was also nuclear armed but which gave up its nuclear programme and completely shifted its model of governance to abandon the rule of white supremacists.
In the completely hypothetical scenario of Israel doing the same – which looks wholly unlikely anytime soon – I asked about the position of Jewish people in Israel under theoretical Palestinian rule. We considered the outlier role of the Jewish community in Iran which is the only major subset of Judaism that isn’t hardwired into the ecosystem of Zionism as a potential model.
In the final analysis, whenever the war against Iran ends, however it ends, Iran appears likely to emerge in a stronger position as a regional superpower than it held before the war started, indeed, before Donald Trump abandoned the JCPOA deal. US power and influence, on the other hand, continues to shatter, ushering in a multipolar world with greater clarity.
A genuinely thought-provoking discussion which I’d encourage you to watch via the link above. I had a microphone problem so my audio is terrible, though still audible.
Iran aside, don’t ignore Trump’s war crimes in the Caribbean, Venezuela and Somalia

19 April 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow , https://theaimn.net/iran-aside-dont-ignore-trumps-war-crimes-in-the-caribbean-venezuela-and-somalia/
As Trump was cooling his massive, murderous bombing of Iran, he was ramping up his murderous bombing of small civilian boats in the Caribbean. In the last 5 days he obliterated 5 little boats Trump imagined were operated by narco terrorists. Since these dastardly attacks began last October, Trump has wiped out 48 little boats, killing 163 (as of March 2026). Those are war crimes.
On January 3 Trump invaded Venezuela, kidnapped its president Nicholas Maduro, murdering 83 in the process. More war crimes.
Most heinous but most ignored by the media
is Trump’s endless war crimes in Somalia. Last year His African Command bombed pitifully poor, remote Somalia 124 times, likely killing thousands of imagined bad guys. Just last week Trump bombed Somalia 4 times in 2 days, raising the 2026 total to 49 attacks. He’s on track for a record year of war crimes in Somalia.
Why aren’t the media and the American people focused on Trump’s war crimes in the Caribbean, Venezuela and Somalia? Could be simply that these Trump war crimes have not raised a gallon of gas north of 4 bucks and threaten a global recession that will also engulf the Homeland. To put it more bluntly, “Hey, Mr. Trump, as long as your war crimes don’t affect me personally, go for it.”
First new planned US nuclear reactors likely to get government loans, energy chief says
The first five or 10 new planned U.S. nuclear reactors
will “almost certainly” receive loans from the U.S. Energy Department’s
lending office, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told lawmakers in a
hearing on Thursday. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last
year calling for 10 new large nuclear reactors to be under construction
by 2030 and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to speed reactor
approvals.
Reuters 16th April 2026, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/first-new-planned-us-nuclear-reactors-likely-get-government-loans-energy-chief-2026-04-16/
Popes have spoken out on politics before. But with Trump and Pope Leo it’s different

April 15, 20263:, Ava Berger, https://www.npr.org/2026/04/15/nx-s1-5779690/pope-leo-donald-trump-war-iran-vance-history
The ongoing war of words between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV is unparalleled in modern history. It’s not new for popes to speak out on political issues, historians of religion say, but Trump’s insults toward the pope are without precedent.
The direct nature of Pope Leo’s responses as well as him being the first American pope are also playing a role in how the exchange is being interpreted by the public.
The recent back and forth started with Leo’s calling for peace in response to the war in Iran, and continued with him warning of the “delusion of omnipotence” and writing that “God does not bless any conflict.”
The ongoing war of words between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV is unparalleled in modern history. It’s not new for popes to speak out on political issues, historians of religion say, but Trump’s insults toward the pope are without precedent.
The direct nature of Pope Leo’s responses as well as him being the first American pope are also playing a role in how the exchange is being interpreted by the public.
The recent back and forth started with Leo’s calling for peace in response to the war in Iran, and continued with him warning of the “delusion of omnipotence” and writing that “God does not bless any conflict.”
Vice President Vance, who is Catholic, also weighed in on the controversy on Tuesday night, saying the pope should “be careful when he talks about matters of theology.”
“What we saw … is an unprecedented, unhinged attack by the president of the United States on the pope,” said Christopher White, associate director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University. “It was clearly meant to intimidate the pope,” but, he added, “the pope’s response shows he is undeterred by the president’s broadside and won’t be distracted from his efforts to push for peace.”
The charged nature of the exchange is new, but many popes have been known for their political critiques. Here’s a brief overview of times when modern popes spoke out on politics, and how Pope Leo is different.
Popes have had political opinions before, but the response was diplomatic
Modern popes have never shied away from voicing political opinions, sometimes running contrary to world leaders.
“When the pope speaks, it’s not that he’s taking sides. He’s really pointing out the objective moral law,” said Michele Dillon, a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire whose research focuses on the Catholic Church.
But prior interactions were much more diplomatic.
In 1965, Pope Paul VI was the first pope to speak before the United Nations, urging an end to the Vietnam War and famously saying, “No more war, war never again.” Paul VI pushed President Lyndon Johnson to “increase even more your noble effort” to negotiate for peace in Vietnam in 1967. Later that year, Johnson released a cordial statement after meeting the pope, saying “I deeply appreciate the full and free manner” of the pope’s opinions.
In 1979, Pope John Paul II spoke before the United Nations, focusing on human rights and peace. He advocated an end to conflicts in the Middle East, with a “just settlement of the Palestinian question” and the “territorial integrity of Lebanon.” John Paul II visited President Jimmy Carter in the White House, where they talked about the Philippines, China, Europe, South Korea, and the Middle East, according to Carter’s notes.
John Paul II, a Polish pope, was also involved in less-public political influence. He supported Polish opposition to the Soviet Union and has been credited with helping to bring down the Berlin Wall in 1989. Later, in 2003, he spoke against the U.S. invasion of Iraq and also sent representatives to Washington and Baghdad to make appeals to avoid the war. Those appeals were ignored, but he correctly predicted decades of unrest in the Middle East, according to White.
John Paul II also voiced opinions on social issues with presidents — disagreeing with Bill Clinton on abortion and pushing George W. Bush to reject stem cell research — but neither president escalated the situation and both remained respectful.
TRUMP SAYS “ENOUGH”—BUT ISRAEL PUSHES ON IN LEBANON WAR LATEST
April 17, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/17/trump-says-enough-but-israel-pushes-on-in-lebanon-war-latest/
A fragile pause in the widening Middle East war is colliding with escalating rhetoric, conflicting claims, and continued violence on the ground.
In a flurry of social media posts, President Donald Trump declared that the United States had directly intervened to halt further Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
“Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer,” Trump wrote.
“They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you!”The statement, issued amid a rapidly evolving ceasefire framework, suggests a level of U.S. leverage over Israeli military operations that officials and analysts have long debated—but rarely seen asserted so bluntly.
Yet even as Trump claimed de-escalation, events on the ground told a more complicated story.
Reports out of southern Lebanon indicated continued violence, including a drone strike that killed at least one person despite the announced ceasefire. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled no intention of ending the broader campaign.
“Israel is “not done yet” with Hezbollah, Netanyahu said, describing a strategy of pursuing both military pressure and political negotiation simultaneously.”
Hormuz Reopens—But Under Pressure
At the same time, Iran announced that the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical oil chokepoints—would be reopened to commercial shipping during the ceasefire period.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated:
“Passage for all commercial vessels through [the] Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire.”
Trump quickly echoed the announcement, declaring the strait: “COMPLETELY OPEN AND READY FOR BUSINESS AND FULL PASSAGE.”
But the reopening came with contradictions. While signaling relief for global markets—oil prices reportedly dropped sharply following the news—the U.S. simultaneously maintained its military pressure.
“The naval blockade will remain in full force and effect … until such time as our transaction with Iran is 100% complete,” Trump said.
In other words: open waters, closed fists.
Conflicting Claims, No Clear Deal
Despite Trump’s sweeping declarations—including that Iran had agreed to “never close the Strait of Hormuz again”—there was no immediate confirmation from Iranian officials.
On the ground and in diplomatic channels, uncertainty remains the defining feature of this moment.
Negotiations are reportedly ongoing, with proposals for a temporary framework lasting several weeks. But key issues—including sanctions relief, uranium enrichment, and regional military activity—remain unresolved.
Even Trump appeared to acknowledge the disconnect, insisting:
“This deal is not tied, in any way, to Lebanon.”
That separation may be more rhetorical than real.
Ceasefire or Illusion?
The current 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon has already shown signs of strain. While some displaced civilians have begun returning home, analysts warn that the underlying dynamics of the conflict remain unchanged.
“Hezbollah will keep its ‘finger on the trigger’” if violations continue, one warning noted, underscoring how quickly the situation could unravel.
And with more than a million people displaced and thousands killed in recent weeks, the pause—however real or temporary—offers only limited relief.
A War Paused, Not Ended
What emerges from the past 24 hours is not clarity, but contradiction.
A ceasefire declared—and violated.
A waterway reopened—under blockade.
A bombing campaign “prohibited”—while leaders vow to continue fighting.The language of peace is here. The reality of war has not left.
And as global powers posture over oil routes, naval blockades, and regional leverage, the question is no longer whether the conflict can pause—
—but whether anyone is actually in control of it.
As the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran spills across the region, a sudden ceasefire in Lebanon is being framed as a breakthrough—but the reality is far more unstable. Iran’s influence appears to have forced a pause on one front, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and easing global economic panic, while Israel signals it has no intention of ending its campaign against Hezbollah. At the center of it all is Donald Trump, claiming control over both escalation and restraint—yet presiding over a situation where bombs still fall and tensions continue to rise.
In this live discussion from Breakthrough News, analysts break down what’s really driving the ceasefire, how battlefield dynamics forced political shifts, and whether Washington is actually capable—or willing—to restrain Israel. Is this the beginning of de-escalation, or just a temporary pause before a wider war?
US-Iran-Israel War Latest News: What is Project Maven? Here’s how Pentagon is using AI to reshape modern warfare amid Iran war, its main purpose is to…

The initiative shows how AI can help militaries process huge amounts of battlefield information and make faster decisions during conflicts.
By : Shivam Verma, Apr 7, 2026
S-Iran-Israel War Latest News: Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a powerful tool in modern warfare. One of the most talked-about examples is Project Maven, a program launched by the United States Department of Defense. The initiative shows how AI can help militaries process huge amounts of battlefield information and make faster decisions during conflicts.
Originally introduced as a technology experiment, Project Maven has now become one of the most influential defence AI systems used by the US military. Its main purpose is to analyse large volumes of surveillance data and help intelligence analysts identify possible threats much more quickly than traditional methods.
Data overload from modern surveillance
The Pentagon started Project Maven in 2017 to deal with a major problem in modern warfare: the overwhelming amount of data generated by drones and surveillance systems. Military drones and aircraft collect hours of video footage and thousands of images every day…………….
Project Maven uses machine learning and computer vision technology to automatically scan these videos and images. The system identifies objects and patterns that may indicate military targets……………
Tech industry’s role in military AI
Project Maven also shows how closely the defence sector and the technology industry are now connected. In the early stages, major tech companies helped develop the system by providing expertise in machine learning and data analysis.
However, the project also sparked debate within the tech industry. Some employees at large technology companies raised ethical concerns about using artificial intelligence in military operations. Due to internal protests, a few companies decided to step back from the program. https://news24online.com/world/us-iran-war-news-what-is-project-maven-heres-how-pentagon-is-using-ai-to-reshape-modern-warfare-amid-iran-war-its-main-purpose-is-to/796438/
How Project Maven Put A.I. Into the Kill Chain
A new book charts the creation of a secretive system that automates warfare for the military. The progression from target identification to target destruction is four clicks.
By Gideon Lewis-Kraus,15 April 2026
In February, reports emerged that the operation to capture the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had not been a strictly human affair. The extrajudicial caper had somehow involved Claude, Anthropic’s large language model. The military had recourse to Claude via a drop-down menu in a workflow package, the Maven Smart System, which gathers, synthesizes, and streamlines intelligence.
The government procures M.S.S., as it is called, from Palantir, the sphinxlike defense-tech contractor co-founded by Peter Thiel and an eccentrically jingoistic philosopher named Alex Karp. Claude’s deployment seemed to come as something of a surprise to its parent company, and an Anthropic executive reportedly reached out to a Palantir counterpart to clarify what, exactly, Claude had done in Caracas.
When this inquiry was relayed to the Trump Administration, one Administration official told me last month, it was interpreted as a signal that Anthropic, which was then renegotiating its own contract with the federal government, was perhaps a faithless partner. (Anthropic disputed that characterization of events.) This suspicion was confirmed when Anthropic, citing fears of domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry, refused to allow the Pentagon “all lawful uses” of its products. This dispute culminated in the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s designation, by outraged tweet, of Anthropic as a supply-chain risk—a standing peril to national security.
This ban, however, was not effective immediately. The Pentagon apparently needed Claude for one last job. Twelve hours later, the White House began to bomb Iran. Among the casualties of Operation Epic Fury’s first day were more than a hundred and seventy-five people, most of them little girls, at the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school, in the southern city of Minab. Claude’s potential culpability in this and other potential war crimes was a subject of widespread speculation, not only in the media but in Washington.
Congressional Democrats sent a letter to Hegseth demanding a detailed account of how A.I. was being used in the Iran campaign. In an essay for his Substack that was republished, in slightly different form, by the Guardian, the technology scholar Kevin Baker wrote that almost none of the attendant coverage (including mine) “had any relationship to reality.” Maven had only recently added L.L.M.-based functionality, but the program had been around for a decade. Claude, in Baker’s view, was a MacGuffin. It only served to draw attention away from the centrality of Maven as an automated targeting system. He continued, “The real question, the question almost nobody was asking, is not about Claude or any language model. It is a bureaucratic question about what happened to the kill chain, and the answer is Palantir.”……………………………………………………………………………. (Subscribers only)
“I Felt Like a Monster”: Israeli Soldiers Break Silence on Gaza—and the System Behind It

And what lingers in these testimonies is not just what was done, but what it did to those who carried it out. Soldiers speak of shame, of dissociation, of an inability to reconcile their actions with any moral framework. The military calls it PTSD. But the soldiers—and some experts—call it something else: moral injury. Not fear of what happened to them, but horror at what they themselves became.
April 18, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/18/i-felt-like-a-monster-israeli-soldiers-break-silence-on-gaza-and-the-system-behind-it/
The official narrative isn’t just cracking—it’s being dismantled by the very people who carried it out.
In a devastating investigation, Israeli soldiers are now speaking in their own words about what they did, what they witnessed, and what their commanders allowed in Gaza. These are not secondhand accusations or political attacks. They are confessions—raw, detailed, and impossible to dismiss.
“I Felt Like a Monster”: Israeli Soldiers Expose ‘Moral Injury’—and a System Built on Silence
They describe opening fire on unarmed civilians identified only as “targets” on a drone feed. They describe prisoners humiliated, abused, and discarded. They describe executions—men surrendering with hands raised, only to be shot and later labeled “terrorists.” And they describe something just as revealing as the violence itself: a system where none of this leads to accountability.
What emerges is not chaos. It is structure.
This is not the “fog of war.” It is policy by practice—kill first, justify later, investigate never.
As we have seen in this country, the destructive effects of the “fog of war”—the brutal killings, the unjustified pushes toward empire—do not end on the battlefield. The damage lives on in the soldiers who are sent to carry it out. And too often, it feels as if those in power simply do not care. But we can choose something different. We can listen. We can create space for those who were there to speak honestly about what they saw and did. And in doing so, we can begin to confront the truth—not from the top down, but from the ground up—where real accountability, and the possibility of change, actually begins.
And what lingers in these testimonies is not just what was done, but what it did to those who carried it out. Soldiers speak of shame, of dissociation, of an inability to reconcile their actions with any moral framework. The military calls it PTSD. But the soldiers—and some experts—call it something else: moral injury. Not fear of what happened to them, but horror at what they themselves became.
Because moral injury doesn’t just indict individuals—it indicts systems.
This is not a new phenomenon in Israel. The concept of “moral injury” has been studied for years, but what Israeli researchers and clinicians are now documenting gives it renewed urgency—and clarity. It names what many soldiers themselves are struggling to articulate: a rupture between what they did, or were ordered to do, and the values they believed they held. Unlike PTSD, which is rooted in fear, moral injury is rooted in recognition—the realization that lines were crossed, often knowingly, in the heat of revenge, chaos, and command pressure. Psychologists working directly with troops describe a pattern: soldiers firing on people later found to be uninvolved, approving strikes with known civilian casualties, or participating in actions they justified in the moment but cannot live with afterward. The consequences are severe—depression, shame, substance abuse, even suicidal thoughts—but the deeper implication is structural. This is not just about individual breakdowns. It reflects a system that places soldiers in situations where moral collapse becomes not an exception, but an expectation.
It exposes a military culture that normalizes dehumanization, a political structure that shields it, and an international order that enables it. It reveals a reality that cannot be dismissed as isolated misconduct or “a few bad actors,” but instead points to a pattern—repeated, reinforced, and quietly accepted.
And of course it may take years for the damage the understanding to take hold with Y Net Global reporting “One of the complexities of moral injury is that it does not always appear at the moment of action,” Levi-Belz said. “Sometimes it emerges weeks later, after you take off the uniform. Sometimes years later.”
“There is no doubt that among IDF soldiers and reservists there has been an increase in moral injury compared to routine operations,” he said. Based on clinical experience and preliminary samples, he estimates that 40 percent to 50 percent of soldiers, particularly reservists, encountered morally injurious events during the war.
And that is where the story turns outward.
Because none of this unfolds in a vacuum. The bombs, the cover, the diplomatic protection—all of it flows, in part, from Washington. The United States continues to fund, arm, and politically defend the very system these soldiers are now describing from within.
The facts are no longer hidden. The voices are no longer external critics. They are coming from inside the system itself.
So the question is no longer whether the world knows.
The question is whether it is willing to act—or whether it will choose, again, to look away.
Because when even the perpetrators are telling the truth, silence is no longer ignorance.
It is complicity.
The collapse of multilateral law and the confusion of the battlefields

Thierry Meyssan, Voltairenet.org, Tue, 14 Apr 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/505787-The-collapse-of-multilateral-law-and-the-confusion-of-the-battlefields
The United States behaved like barbarians during the Israeli war against Iran. Its president, Donald Trump, claimed responsibility for attacking civilians, even though just a month earlier he had asserted his desire to liberate them. He went so far as to threaten to eradicate Iranian civilization, despite his ambition to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
By acting in this way, Washington not only violated the UN Charter, but also forced some of its allies to discover that it was not their protector, but rather, that it was dragging them into a war they had not chosen.
The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, initially stated that “the total destruction of areas and the certain death of groups of people which, until now, had not been considered as possible targets” were being “seriously considered” (S/2026/141). He then publicly and explicitly threatened to annihilate Iranian civilization on April 7, 2026 [ 1 ] , in violation of Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
In doing so, the President of the United States has placed himself outside of civilization. If there is one basic principle of international law, since the Hague Conference of 1899, it is that signatory states must not behave like barbarians.
He did not carry out his threat, but with unprecedented violence, deliberately destroyed civilian targets:
He began by participating in the assassination of the spiritual leader of millions of Shiites, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (S/2026/109). Then, he destroyed the Azadi and Besat sports complexes, the Azadegan water park, the Shahidan Esmaeili Stadium, and the Shahid Eskandarloo Sports Hall in Tehran (UN S/2026/130).
Next, he attacked the Minab Primary School. He then went on to attack Red Crescent buildings, the Gandi, Motahari, and Khatam hospitals in Tehran, and the Abouzar Hospital in Ahvaz (S/2026/111). It bombed several fuel storage facilities in Tehran, releasing large quantities of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, including sulfur and nitrogen oxides, causing acid rain, the deaths of many survivors of the Iran-Iraq War gas attacks, and massive fires (S/2026/149).
It bombed cultural sites, such as the Qajar dynasty palace, the Golestan (S/2026/180). And, probably due to confusion, it bombed UNESCO and WHO offices (S/2026/269) and even the Pasteur Institute of Iran (S/2026/279).
His violence knew no bounds, and while claiming to be fighting against an atomic threat — we have explained at length that there has been no Iranian military atomic program since 1988 — he bombed the Bushehr civilian nuclear power plant four times, risking the destruction of the cooling system and the spread of radiation throughout the region’s waters.
People in the Middle East no longer believe that the United Nations protects them and that the United States can bring them peace [ 2 ] .
The people of the Gulf, who had accepted US military bases on their soil for their protection, learned the hard way that they had been deceived. Their American hosts used their land to wage war against Persian civilization, turning them into targets for Iran’s legitimate resistance.
The confusion that has developed over the past five weeks has shown that multilateralism can conflict with international law. To protect themselves, the Gulf States have issued numerous multilateral declarations: to the Gulf Cooperation Council [ 3 ] , the Arab League [ 4 ] , and the International Maritime Organization [ 5 ] . They have finally discovered that international law is against them: they are jointly responsible for the US aggression perpetrated from their territory.
This confusion reached its peak with the adoption, with two abstentions, of Security Council Resolution 2817, which, on March 11, 2026, disregarded General Assembly Resolution 3314, adopted unanimously and without a vote on December 14, 1974.
It is clear that the UN, as we know it, will have to be profoundly reformed or dissolved [ 6 ] .
The confusion now centers on the Strait of Hormuz. Let’s leave aside the period of the war during which Iran barred ships from the strait to those of the powers aggressing against it (Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom), as well as to those of the countries that allowed them to use their territory to carry out their aggression (Germany and Italy, Jordan, and the Gulf States).
In the West, there is a consensus that no one can dictate their law in the strait during peacetime.However, this is not so simple:the waters of the Strait of Hormuz are Omani and Iranian territorial waters,not international waters. Given the depth of the strait, passage is generally more common on the Omani side than on the Iranian side.
The two countries can legitimately consult with each other and request a toll, as is the case in the Suez and Panama Canals, even though this is a natural strait [ 7 ] . However, they cannot prevent global traffic from passing, “innocently,” through their waters, especially since they control access to the Persian Gulf. Except that oil tankers represent a real danger with their highly polluting cargoes in the event of a shipwreck.
The Suez Canal is a significant example: in 1956, the British and French empires, militarily supported by the colonial state of Israel, attempted to seize control of the Suez Canal, which Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had just nationalized. This operation was a fiasco. It marked the end of both colonial empires and revealed the Franco-British alliance with Israel — an alliance that would be broken by Charles de Gaulle during the Six-Day War.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis could, in turn, mark the end of American ambitions in the “rest of the world.”
Another question arises: if Oman and Iran are allowed to collect a toll, how can we ensure that its amount will not be prohibitive and in what currency will it be paid? On this subject, Iran has considered that it be payable in yuan, while the United States, attached to the supremacy of the dollar, would like it to be in dollars or, failing that, in Trump coin ($Trump), the cryptocurrency of the US presidential family and the Emirati royal family, Al-Zayed [ 8 ] .
If the price were not set in dollars, oil companies would prepare to abandon that currency. However, the US dollar is no longer based on the US economy, but on its role in the global hydrocarbon market. This shift would therefore represent a continuation of the war against the “Great Satan.”
On April 12, President Trump posted a message on X:
“From this moment forward, the United States Navy, the finest in the world, will begin the process of BLOCKING all vessels attempting to enter or exit the Strait of Hormuz. At some point, we will achieve this principle of ‘ALL SHALL BE ALLOWED IN WHEN ALL SHALL BE ALLOWED OUT,’ but Iran has not allowed this to happen by simply saying, ‘There may be a mine somewhere,’ which no one but them knows about. This is GLOBAL RACKETEERING, and the leaders of countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted. I have also directed our Navy to search, in international waters, and prohibit all vessels that have paid a toll to Iran. None of those who have paid an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.” [ 9 ]
Not knowing what to do, Donald Trump himself blocked the Strait of Hormuz, even though the Anglo-Saxons have been enshrining freedom of movement and trade since 1837 — so much for the dogma of “free trade”! But it’s true that the Jacksonians aren’t globalists. No matter: Donald Trump already betrayed his voters by launching this war a month and a half ago. Today, he’s betraying his predecessors. We are witnessing the suicide of the United States.
References:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
America’s pro-Israel J Street says Israel should pay out-of-pocket if it wants US weapons
The pro-Israel advocacy group likely changed its tune after widespread popular opposition to taxpayer-funded weapons
By MEE staff, 13 April 2026 , https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/j-street-says-israel-should-pay-out-pocket-if-it-wants-us-weapons
The pro-Israel advocacy group J Street is now calling for an end to “direct” US military support to Israel, per a new policy document published on Monday.
The group had previously backed Washington’s continued provision of defensive weapons systems, such as the replenishment of Israel’s Iron Dome, at no cost to Israelis.
Now, it says the US “should continue to sell” short-range air and ballistic missile defence capabilities to Israel, but Israel should use its own money to pay for them.
“Israel faces real security challenges that require a significant defense investment. With a per capita GDP comparable to leading US allies such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan, as well as an annual defense budget of over $45 billion, it has the financial means to address these challenges,” J Street said.
“It does not require almost $4 billion per year in US financial subsidies to purchase weapons,” it added.
“Continuing this assistance is both unnecessary and politically counterproductive, creating avoidable tensions in US domestic politics and in the bilateral relationship.”
The way the current military aid package operates is that the US provides Israel with American taxpayer funds, and those funds are put into US weapons companies to acquire equipment.
On its website, J Street says that it “organizes pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans to promote US policies that embody our deeply held Jewish and democratic values and that help secure the State of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people”.
Political tide turns
J Street’s shift follows a distinct change in attitudes towards Israel among the American public after the genocide in Gaza, where over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel’s war on the enclave broke out in October 2023.
But perhaps more importantly for the group, whose support base is made up of Democrats, the party’s future is changing course.
Progressive New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is widely believed to be seeking higher office, announced earlier this month that she would no longer vote for any US military support to Israel, despite having previously backed the provision of defensive weapons, much to the disappointment of many of her supporters.
It is notable, however, that her statement followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s surprise declaration earlier this year that Israel will not seek to renew its military aid package with the US in 2028.
“I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” all the way down to zero, Netanyahu told The Economist in January.
J Street’s new position demands that any future US arms sales that Israel pays for out-of-pocket “be fully consistent with American law”, which echoed Ocasio-Cortez’s statement.
US law prohibits security assistance to any country whose government engages in a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations or blocks or restricts the transport or delivery of US-backed humanitarian aid.
“US arms sales to Israel should be further conditioned to incentivize alignment with American interests and laws – as has been the case with other allies and partners – when their behavior is inconsistent with US interests,” J Street said.
At the same time, the group acknowledges that Washington and Israel generally share the same interests anyway.
“The US also benefits meaningfully from the relationship. Intelligence sharing has been critical in campaigns such as the fight against ISIS, while joint operations such as Israel’s 2006 strike on Syria’s secret nuclear facility have advanced shared security goals.”
It added that because “approximately 500,000 American citizens live in Israel”, selling it weapons should continue to be a US national security priority.
Israel Destroys a Synagogue; US Media Yawn
“Iranian Jews are viewed by Iranians as indigenous,” he said. “They’re the original Bundists,” a nod to the Jewish political movement that “stood not just for socialism, but for do’ikayt—Yiddish for ‘hereness,’” the concept that a Jew’s homeland was in whatever nation they resided in (New York Times, 4/6/26).
Ari Paul, April 16, 2026 https://fair.org/home/israel-destroys-a-synagogue-us-media-yawn/
An Israeli missile attack destroyed a Tehran synagogue during the Jewish Passover holiday (Religion News Service, 4/9/26). The Israeli military “expressed regret over what it called ‘collateral damage’ to a synagogue in Tehran caused by an overnight strike,” which was “targeting a senior Iranian commander,” said the Middle East Eye (4/7/26).
Photos of the wreckage at the Rafi-Nia Synagogue have accompanied many of these pieces. The Council on American-Islamic relations condemned the attack in a statement (4/7/26):
We strongly condemn the Israeli regime’s bombing of a synagogue in Tehran, which was the predictable end result of the indiscriminate US/Israel bombing campaign against mosques, hospitals, schools, apartments and other civilian sites across Iran.
The group challenged “various Israel advocacy groups and politicians that support this war in the name of protecting Israel to condemn Israel’s synagogue attack.”
Buried at best
The story of the attack on the Tehran synagogue was, at best, buried in the US corporate media. CNN posted a brief video (4/7/26) about the bombing but had no online article about it. The New York Times (4/7/26, 4/7/26) mentioned the attack, but as background in broader stories about the US/Israel war on Iran.
A search for “Rafi-Nia” on the Washington Post website yields no results. Ditto for the AP, although the news service did post a video to YouTube (4/7/26). Al Jazeera’s coverage (4/7/26) of the attack was a mélange of AP and AFP copy. CBS News (4/7/26) also used a few paragraphs of AFP copy to report on the attack, although it was buried in the middle of a general timeline about the war.
The Wall Street Journal (4/7/26) had the story, but led with Israel’s contrition over the destruction; that’s not a journalistic construction we see in US news coverage when it comes to the Israeli bombings of other civilian structures in Iran, Gaza or Lebanon. When Israel destroys a hospital, apartment building, encampment, etc., the stories don’t lead with official regret, but rather include Israeli claims that the civilian facilities were actually legitimate military targets. The Journal’s lead provided the government with public relations cover over the sensitive issue of destroying a Jewish house of worship.
Newsweek (4/8/26), once a bigger player in the US media landscape, led with condemnation of the attack from Jewish Iranian leaders, who declared “their unwavering solidarity with Iran in defending the homeland.”
Jewish presence in Iran
Underplaying the story obscures not only the wantonness of Israel’s aggression, but the actual nature of Iranian society, which is portrayed as obsessed with wiping Jews off the map (ADL, 6/25/25). “Iranian foreign policy freely mixes anti-Israel furies with anti-Jewish ones,” wrote New York Times columnist Bret Stephens (1/13/26), a pro-war cheerleader (2/22/26, 3/24/26).
In fact, while Israel is obviously the center of Mideastern Jewish life, the Iranian Jewish population dwarfs those elsewhere in the Middle East. “Estimates range from 9,000 to 20,000 Jews currently living in Iran,” according to the Forward (6/18/25).
Wrote the Palestine Chronicle (3/6/26): “The Jewish presence in Iran is among the oldest continuous Jewish communities in the world, with roots that historians trace back more than two millennia.”
Yes, Iran is a theocracy; the government is no model for an open society. But there is a Jewish member of Iran’s parliament, who even went on record this year openly criticizing Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s handling of popular unrest (i24, 1/29/26).
‘Well-protected second-class citizens’
US media have covered the Jews of Iran before. USA Today (8/29/18) did a story in 2018, reporting from Tehran. Former Forward reporter Larry Cohler-Esses (8/12/15, 8/12/15, 8/18/15, 8/27/15) reported extensively and critically on Iranian Jews, indicating that the country was at least open to letting a reporter for a Jewish publication do their job.
Cohler-Esses told FAIR that Jews in Iran are “well-protected second-class citizens.” In fact, when he read about the attack, he “wondered if it was the synagogue I spent Shabbat in, but it wasn’t,” because there are more than a dozen active synagogues in Tehran—a reflection of the size of the Jewish community there.
Recalling his 2015 reporting trip, Cohler-Esses said that on Shabbat, Jews would spill out of their synagogues and mingle in the street after services, a sight he didn’t often see in many places in Europe. In one instance, after he left a synagogue service, one of the congregants ran after him through a street teeming with people, wearing a kippah and a tallit (traditional religious attire), and “no one batted an eye.”
The Jews of Iran do suffer discrimination, because Muslims are favored in the legal code over all non-Muslims, Cohler-Esses said. He noted that the Jewish population of Iran has shrunk significantly since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
“Iranian Jews are viewed by Iranians as indigenous,” he said. “They’re the original Bundists,” a nod to the Jewish political movement that “stood not just for socialism, but for do’ikayt—Yiddish for ‘hereness,’” the concept that a Jew’s homeland was in whatever nation they resided in (New York Times, 4/6/26).
Cohler-Esses was hopeful that coverage of the synagogue’s destruction in the Jewish and Israeli press (JTA, 4/7/26; Jerusalem Post, 4/7/26) had the “potential to make Jewish readers of Jewish media outlets go, ‘Oh, they have synagogues there.’” But with the underplaying of the story in US media, it’s a missed teachable moment for news consumers generally.
More robust press coverage of the attack could have taught Americans that the Jews of Iran do have something to fear: Israel.
THE NEW NUCLEAR POWER PUSH INTENSIFIES PART 1
Enviro Close-Up #712, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZxgwmJi-ew
The push for nuclear power has intensified. It’s as if the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power disasters never occurred —and the growing and widespread use of safe, clean, green energy, led by solar and wind, is not happening.
In this Enviro Close-Up, three experts on nuclear issues, each for many decades, analyze what’s going on. Kevin Kamps, executive director of the organization Don’t Waste Michigan, says the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has “from the beginning…not been about nuclear safety and nuclear security, the environment, public health, the list goes on…but it’s never been worse than it is now.”
Nuclear regulations are in freefall. It’s the “nuclear push on steroids,” says Kamps. Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and former nuclear industry vice president who broke from the industry and for decades has been a leading nuclear whistleblower, says: “I’ve always said the NRC is a lapdog, but under Trump the lapdog has had its vocal cords cut and its teeth ground down.”
Attorney Terry Lodge, who has been in court battle after court battle in challenges to nuclear power, describes it as “the most dangerous, inherently technologically difficult way of boiling water…and it continues to be that.” Further, the NRC and the agency it replaced, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, have been “the absolute epitome, textbook examples of captive regulatory agencies….owned and dominated politically by the industry that they supposedly regulate.” Also, it’s “the most expensive” energy technology, and in financing it “we’re siphoning off money” from energy forms that are to create “faster…and cheaper, to feed a nuclear industry.” And the intensified nuclear push in the U.S. is going on elsewhere in the world.
With 38,000+ Dead, Women and Girls Make Up Over Half of Those Killed in Israel’s US-Backed War on Gaza: UN
“Not a single combatant among them,” said one human rights activist. “Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians.”
Brad Reed for Common Dreams, Apr 17, 2026 https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-war-women
Israel’s yearslong assault on Gaza has killed more than 38,000 women and girls, according to a report released Friday by the United Nations.
In total, the UN found that at least 22,000 women and 16,000 girls have been killed in the conflict, an average of nearly 50 women and girls per day.
Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action at UN Women, said the report shows how Israel’s war on Gaza “has affected every aspect of life, with its most horrific toll seen in the scale of death.”
“Women and girls accounted for a proportion of deaths far higher than those observed in previous conflicts in Gaza,” Calltorp emphasized. “Those killed were mothers, they were daughters, sisters, and friends—deeply loved by those around them. They were individuals with lives and with dreams.”
More than 72,000 people in total have been killed since Israel launched its attack on Gaza in October 2023, after Hamas invaded Israeli territory and killed approximately 1,200 Israelis. Experts warn that the current known death toll is likely an undercount.
While Palestinian women and girls represent more than half of those who have been killed, according to the report, Israeli and US officials have persisted in claiming the US-backed assault has targeted Hamas fighters.
“Not a single combatant among them,” said Ramy Abdul, chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. “Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians.”
Although a ceasefire has been in place since October 2025, the report notes that an estimated 730 Gaza residents have been killed over the last six months. Additionally, the report says the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire.
“Nearly one million women and girls have been displaced, repeatedly,” said Calltorp. “Access to water and food have been severely limited, with nearly 790,000 women and girls experiencing crisis-level or catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Extensive damage to infrastructure has made it almost impossible for women and girls in Gaza to access their basic needs, like healthcare.”
Calltorp demanded that the ceasefire deal “be fully implemented,” and that “respect for international law must be upheld” to ease the suffering in Gaza.
“Humanitarian assistance must reach those in need—at scale and without obstruction,” Calltorp said. “And women and girls must be placed at the center of response and recovery efforts.”
In addition to causing a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, Israel in recent weeks has also been waging an aerial bombing and ground invasion in Lebanon that has killed thousands of people and displaced more than 1 million. US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that Israel and Lebanon came to a ceasefire agreement that is set to last for 10 days.
At the same time, Israeli settlers have been waging a campaign of increased violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank, and veteran Israeli war correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai on Thursday declared that the actions of the settlers look like “ethnic cleansing.”
Zaporizhzhia NPP loses external power for the second time in a week, IAEA investigates

Kyiv • UNN, April 17 2026,
The Zaporizhzhia NPP has temporarily lost all external power for the fourteenth time
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant temporarily lost all external power supply, which was subsequently restored. This was reported by the IAEA, which is currently studying the situation and investigating the incident, writes UNN.
Details
According to the agency, the incident occurred in the evening. External power was restored approximately 40 minutes later.
The cause of the outage is currently unknown and is being investigated by specialists on site.ime since the start of the war. The IAEA is conducting an investigation due to critical nuclear safety risks.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated that this is the second such incident in less than a week and the 14th since the beginning of the full-scale war.
The loss of external power supply underscores the ongoing critical nuclear safety situation– he noted.
The IAEA team at the plant continues to monitor and investigate the circumstances of the incident. The agency emphasizes that such failures pose a serious risk to nuclear safety. https://unn.ua/en/news/zaporizhzhia-npp-loses-external-power-for-the-second-time-in-a-week-iaea-investigates
US Mining Plan Will Sacrifice Mexico’s Environment for Weapons and Tech
A new mining agreement provides no benefits for Mexico and fails to address health and environmental impacts.
By Tamara Pearson , Truthout, April 18, 2026
The U.S. and Mexico have established a mining agreement which has Indigenous and other residents of the Sierra Norte mountains, as well as activists around Mexico, worried.
Announced on February 4, the U.S.-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals aims to guarantee the U.S.’s supply of minerals for its arms industry, technology like data centers and smartphones, and the so-called energy transition. It sets out price floors, identification of mining projects, geological mapping coordination, and mineral location identification for the U.S., but provides no benefits for Mexico and fails to address health and environmental impacts.
“They want us to show these gringo companies where the minerals are and then go and hand over everything, all without a fuss,” said Miguel Sánchez Olvera, a Totonac man from the Sierra Norte region who has been at the forefront of struggles that have expelled mines from the area. “That’s concerning, because where does it leave us, as Mexicans? Basically, they are going to keep stealing from us.”
The beautiful Sierra Norte — teeming with rivers and sprawling forests, and where a majority of people speak Indigenous languages — has massive amounts of minerals that the U.S. has identified as “critical,” such as manganese, gold, silver, and copper.
According to NATO, manganese is one of 12 minerals critical for the weapons industry; it is used in submarines, fighter aircraft, tanks, and torpedoes. For Mexico, however, manganese is a source of distress before it is even processed. In the lush Sierra Norte cordillera, stark black mountains of manganese ore and slag piles are set off by smoking chimneys from a plant run by Autlán, a major Mexican mining company. Homes nearby are drenched in black stains. Residents describe mornings of black clouds along the ground and black dust covering their windows.
Autlán operates four electric furnaces in its Teziutlán plant to smelt manganese ore, producing ferroalloys. Manganese is also on the U.S.’s critical minerals list and aside from weapons, it is vital to batteries and other steel applications.
Mexico as a whole is the top silver-producing country, and among the top producers of copper, lead, and zinc — all on the U.S.’s list. Silver is vital for new weapon systems, hypersonic missiles, bombs, fighter jets, satellites, torpedoes, radar systems, AI data centers, electric vehicles, 5G infrastructure, and smartphones. Demand for copper for munitions is skyrocketing as the U.S. restocks its arsenal, and it is essential for armor and electronics. Copper supply problems can cause significant weapon production delays, and supply chain vulnerabilities for weapons manufacturers.
The U.S. is home to 6 of the top 10 global arms companies and 13 of the top 15 global tech companies. The White House’s 2027 budget includes over 18 billion U.S dollars for the Department of Defense to stockpile minerals that are critical to the military industry. That figure is up from the current 2 billion U.S. dollars.
A few days before the U.S.-Mexico plan was signed, the White House had also announced Project Vault, which will establish a public-private partnership to stockpile critical minerals for U.S. businesses. These moves “imply hyper-extractivism — or basically, renewed extractivism,” César Enrique Pineda, a researcher and professor of geopolitical and capitalist intersections with the environment at the José María Luis Mora Research Institute, told Truthout……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Nobody Benefits From Weapons Except Weapons Companies
But while the mining industry is being heard, the mines bring no economic benefits to the country or to nearby communities.
“I very much doubt that Mexico would benefit economically from this plan because it has never been that way with mining projects. Extraction only contributes 0.9 percent to the GDP, for example,” said Olivera. “Mining represents just 0.66 percent of formal employment, and in terms of taxes, they contribute very little.” There are 22,247 active mining concessions in Mexico, with a total surface area of 10.2 million hectares, or 5.2 percent of Mexico’s territory………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mining’s Legacy of Environmental Disaster
The U.S.-Mexico action plan “benefits investors, but it doesn’t benefit us at all,” said Urbano Córdova Guerraas, a local resident and also a member of Servicios Ambientales Amelatzin Hualactoc as we chatted in a small eatery near the Autlán plant. To extract copious amounts of manganese, Autlán has destroyed whole mountain tops in nearby Hidalgo state, buying off local politicians in order to do so. In Zoquitlán, Autlán chopped down 77 hectares of forest for a hydroelectric plant…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Imposing Destruction
In order to operate without disruption, mining companies in Mexico are often involved in the disappearance of activists and with organized crime. The top minerals that attract organized crime groups are the same critical minerals that Mexico plans to supply to the U.S…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Over the years, thousands of organized communities have declared themselves “mining-free territory” to legally prohibit mining in their territory.
Stopping mines after the fact is much harder, but many communities are willing to wage the legal and organizational battle. Even after victory, the struggle continues.
“We want to clean our rivers, so that the Sierra Norte de Puebla can be a paradise again,” said Sánchez. https://truthout.org/articles/us-mining-plan-will-sacrifice-mexicos-environment-for-weapons-and-tech/
-
Archives
- April 2026 (264)
- 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


