Nuclear costs of the Iran War

To create a nuclear disaster, it’s not necessary to directly hit the containment building. Damaging on-site and off-site power necessary for cooling can also have severe repercussions.
even reactors in stand-by modes pose radioactive risks in a war zone.

In spite of all this, Director General of the IAEA Grossi promotes rules of the road to help nuclear energy continue operating in warzones. It is a stark reminder that the IAEA’s major mission is to promote nuclear energy, despite the emerging lessons from two “nuclearized” wars.
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/04/11/nuclear-costs-of-the-iran-war/
Trump’s recent threats to end civilization in Iran gave many a nuclear weapons expert the jitters, writes Sharon Squassoni
President Donald J. Trump’s recent threats to end civilization in Iran gave many a nuclear weapons expert the jitters. For them, existential threats mean only one thing: use of nuclear weapons. Thankfully, Trump’s April 7, 2026 threats were empty and possibly just a ruse to create a dramatic background for the temporary ceasefire in Iran.
To be clear, the use of nuclear weapons in combat would serve no earthly strategic or tactical purpose, but threats to use them can be potent: even a latent capability in the hands of Iran was regarded as too threatening for the United States to tolerate any longer, which reportedly drove the U.S. and Israeli military actions.
It’s hard to tell who’s winning or losing in this conflict, but already it’s clear that disruption of energy sources (Iran’s blocking the Straits of Hormuz and the U.S. and Israel striking Iran’s oil infrastructure) focuses attention like no other infrastructure attack. A sudden cutoff that shrinks supplies and distorts prices echoes in economies across the globe.
This is one reason the world was hesitant to impose sanctions on Iran’s oil some twenty years ago when Iran’s clandestine nuclear program was first unveiled. Today, the Iran war has underscored just how dependent the world continues to be on foreign sources of oil.
Would nuclear energy be any different?
Since 2022, there has been a push in Europe and elsewhere to deploy nuclear reactors to reduce dependencies on Russian oil and gas, triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But such a response is almost laughable to anyone paying attention to what has transpired in Ukraine in the last four years.
Russia hesitated not at all to hold the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants hostage, in addition to firing upon them. The only thing that has saved Ukraine from a major nuclear meltdown is the fact that Russia wants to save Ukraine for itself, rather than destroy it utterly.
For those who still believe in international laws, there are rules to prevent attacks on nuclear plants — specifically the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, a key document in international humanitarian law adopted in 1979 — that 175 countries follow.
Unfortunately, Russia withdrew in 2019 and the US has never ratified Protocol I (along with Israel, India, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran). The Protocol protects “works and installations containing dangerous forces,” prohibiting attacks on nuclear power plants that generate civilian electricity, among other things. It concedes that some nuclear power plants that regularly support military purposes may be attacked.
For those paying attention to nuclear development trends, this should be worrisome because both China and the United States have programs to develop nuclear reactors for specific military uses. Not content to learn from past experience, the United States plans to deploy a military microreactor by July 4th of this year. Leaving aside questions of cost, safety and peacetime security, such deployments will widen the base of deadly targets in war. Civilians won’t care whether international law deems these “legitimate” targets of attack.
Attacks on nuclear facilities themselves are not new. The United States, Russia, Israel, Iran and Iraq have all, at times, targeted nuclear research and power reactors under various stages of construction and operation in the past. Sometimes these attacks tried to slow nuclear weapons proliferation programs and sometimes, as in the Iran-Iraq war, they were targeted for less specific purposes.
After the June 2025 attacks on uranium enrichment-related facilities by the United States, touted as “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi warned that a strike on the Bushehr power plant could cause a regional catastrophe.
Recently, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has claimed that the Bushehr plant, which generates close to 1000 Megawatts of electricity, has been struck four times since February this year. The closest hit has been 75 meters from the plant on April 4, killing a security guard and damaging a building. Russia, which has 128 Rosatom personnel at the plant, is considering further evacuations, which sounds eerily similar to what happened to the Zaporizhzhia plant in March 2022.
To create a nuclear disaster, it’s not necessary to directly hit the containment building. Damaging on-site and off-site power necessary for cooling can also have severe repercussions. In the case of Zaporizhzhia, operators shut down reactors to minimize some of the risks. But even reactors in stand-by modes pose radioactive risks in a war zone.
The Bushehr power plant is still operating and has spent nuclear fuel on-site in spent fuel pools. Who can forget the video footage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011 when crews attempted to spray seawater from helicopters on spent fuel pools damaged by the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan? More than a decade later, the site is still undergoing remediation.
In spite of all this, Director General of the IAEA Grossi promotes rules of the road to help nuclear energy continue operating in warzones. It is a stark reminder that the IAEA’s major mission is to promote nuclear energy, despite the emerging lessons from two “nuclearized” wars.
In fact, learning the wrong lessons from this conflict could carry the seeds of unimaginable future disruption. A world that fears reliance on foreign energy could rely even more on nuclear energy for not just electricity, but transportation and data processing, the new currency of power. The greater the reliance, the keener officials will be to keep it up and running. More and more widely distributed nuclear targets will not be protected by Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, or by the International Atomic Energy Agency. There is no International Nuclear Red Cross or Emergency Management Agency.
Many Americans find it hard to contemplate attacks on U.S. soil, with good reason. This is why the 9/11 attacks affected the population so deeply. Those attacks sparked significant improvements in security at nuclear power plants that are now being unraveled by a push to deploy nuclear reactors in the United States as quickly as possible.
In fact, learning the wrong lessons from this conflict could carry the seeds of unimaginable future disruption. A world that fears reliance on foreign energy could rely even more on nuclear energy for not just electricity, but transportation and data processing, the new currency of power. The greater the reliance, the keener officials will be to keep it up and running. More and more widely distributed nuclear targets will not be protected by Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, or by the International Atomic Energy Agency. There is no International Nuclear Red Cross or Emergency Management Agency.
Many Americans find it hard to contemplate attacks on U.S. soil, with good reason. This is why the 9/11 attacks affected the population so deeply. Those attacks sparked significant improvements in security at nuclear power plants that are now being unraveled by a push to deploy nuclear reactors in the United States as quickly as possible.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently voted to discontinue force-on-force commando drills designed to reveal weaknesses in site vulnerabilities. A victim of the DOGE process, the NRC has been stripped of its independence and will now overhaul the entire licensing process, even as the Trump administration seeks to end-run the NRC by deploying new reactors on government sites owned by the Departments of Energy and Defense.
If anything, the Iran war demonstrates Gulliver’s dilemma. Both Ukraine and Iran have used drones successfully to compensate for conventional force inferiority. Are we truly prepared to counter cheaper and more plentiful attacks that are more difficult to detect and defend against?
Iran’s nuclear program was feared for its potential to provide the basis for nuclear weapons. Now it is generating fear for its potential to provoke a more imminent regional catastrophe, whether intended or accidental. These security risks, perhaps not widely appreciated now, will only grow in a more nuclearized future.
Jeffrey Sachs: Ending Israel’s War on Peace
To make lasting peace in the Middle East, the US must end its blank check to Israel’s perpetual wars and join with the rest of the world to force Israel to live within its internationally recognized borders of June 4, 1967.
Jeffrey D. SachsSybil Fares, Apr 09, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/israel-war-on-peace
A two-week ceasefire has partially halted the Israel-US war on Iran. The war accomplished precisely nothing that a competent diplomat could not have achieved in an afternoon. The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war and it is open again now, but with more Iranian control.
Meanwhile, the chaos continues. Israel is intent on blowing up the ceasefire, as this was Israel’s war from the start. Israel dazzled Trump with the prospect of a one-day decapitation strike that would put Trump in charge of Iran’s oil. Israel, in turn, was out for bigger prey: to bring down the Iranian regime and thereby become the regional hegemon of Western Asia.
The foundation of the ceasefire is Iran’s 10-point plan, which Trump (perhaps unwittingly) called a “workable basis on which to negotiate.” The plan makes sense, but it is a major climbdown for the US, and probably a redline for Israel. Among other points, the plan calls for an end to the wars raging in the Middle East, almost all of which have Israel at their root cause. The plan would also resolve the nuclear issue, essentially by going back to the JCPOA that Trump ripped up in 2018.
The Iran War, and the other wars raging across the Middle East, trace back to one core Israeli idea, that Israel will permanently and steadfastly oppose a sovereign Palestinian state and will topple any government in the Middle East that supports armed struggle for national sovereignty. It is crucial to note that the UN General Assembly has passed multiple resolutions, such as Resolution 37/43 (1982), affirming that political self-determination is so vital, that armed struggle in the quest for self-determination is legitimate. The UN was born, in part, out of the determination to end the centuries of European imperial domination over Africa and Asia. Of course, there would be no cause for armed struggle if Israel would accept a political solution, notably the two-state solution that has overwhelming support throughout the world.
The peace is within reach, if the US grasps it.
Netanyahu’s core goal may be summarized as Greater Israel. This means no Palestinian sovereignty, and no clear boundaries for Israel even beyond the boundary of historical Palestine under British rule after WWI. Zionist extremists like Netanyahu’s political allies, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich favor Israeli control over parts of Lebanon and Syria, as well as permanent control over all of what was British Palestine. America’s Christian Zionists, exemplified by the US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, and a strong voter base of Trump, speak of God’s promise to Israel of the lands between the Nile and the Euphrates. Crazy stuff, but these are real beliefs, nonetheless, and they are conveyed in the White House.
Israel’s strategy is therefore regime change in every country that resists Greater Israel, a plan already foreshadowed in the famous political document “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” written by US Zionist neocons as a platform for Netanyahu’s new government in 1996. We’ve had constant wars in the Middle East since then to implement the Clean Break vision. This has included the war in Libya to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi, the wars in Lebanon, the war to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, the war to overthrow Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, and now the war to topple the Iranian regime.
This is not to say that the US lacks its own grandiose ideas. Israel wants regional hegemony, this is not a secret. Netanyahu confirmed these ambitions in his recent remarks about Israel becoming “a regional power, and in certain fields a global power.” On the other hand, American officials dream of global hegemony. And Trump dreams of money. He craves the Iranian oil and repeatedly said so.
In any event, it’s clear that this war was Netanyahu’s creation. He and the Mossad chief came to Washington to sell Trump a bill of goods. It’s not hard. Trump was suckered, while everybody else had their doubts about Netanyahu’s claims of an easy one-day decapitation strike—essentially a replay of the US operation in Venezuela.
It’s pathetic to “listen in” on the White House discussion, as revealed by the New York Times. Netanyahu, a con man, presented rosy scenarios of regime change that US intelligence contradicted, yet Trump foolishly accepted. Trump and Netanyahu were cheered on by Christian Zionists (Hegseth), Jewish Zionists and real-estate developers (Kushner and Witkoff), a faith healer (Franklin Graham), and high-level sycophants (Rubio and Ratcliffe).
While Trump was telling the world that Iran was begging for a ceasefire, it was Trump himself who was begging for a ceasefire.
Until Tuesday evening, it looked like Trump might lead the world blindly to World War III. The vulgarity and brutality of his public rhetoric was unmatched in US presidential history. Now we know that he was desperately seeking an off-ramp and using Pakistan for that purpose. While Trump was telling the world that Iran was begging for a ceasefire, it was Trump himself who was begging for a ceasefire. The Pakistani leader delivered it.
The ceasefire is good, and the 10-point plan is good, even if perhaps Trump didn’t know what was in it when he said that it was a good basis for negotiation. Israel will, in any event, work overtime to break it, and has already started to do so, with carpet bombing of Beirut that is killing hundreds of civilians, and with other strikes. A permanent US-Iran agreement is the last thing that Netanyahu wants. That would end his dream of Greater Israel.
Yet there is a way to peace and that is for the US to face reality. Israel is the real “terror state,” waging perpetual war throughout the Middle East for a wholly indefensible reason—to have unchecked freedom to terrorize and rule over the Palestinian people and to expand its borders as Israel’s zealots see fit. To make lasting peace in the Middle East, the US must end its blank check to Israel’s perpetual wars and join with the rest of the world to force Israel to live within its internationally recognized borders of June 4, 1967. Iran’s 10-point plan can be the basis of a comprehensive regional peace—if the US accepts the reality of a state of Palestine. In that case, Iran would likely agree to stop funding non-state belligerents, and Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and the entire region could live in mutual security and peace. That outcome should be the basis of a negotiated agreement of the US and Iran in the next two weeks.
Israel is the real “terror state,” waging perpetual war throughout the Middle East for a wholly indefensible reason…
The American people have made their views clear. A 2025 Pew survey finds most Jewish Americans lack confidence in Netanyahu and back the two-state solution. Most Americans now view Israel unfavorably, the highest unfavourability in history. Sympathy for Israel has hit a 25-year low. Now the political class must catch up with the public.
The peace is within reach, if the US grasps it. Iran’s proposal is serious and the ceasefire is a fragile opening for a comprehensive settlement. The question is whether the US will, once again, allow Israel to destroy the peace, or rather this time stand up for America’s interests and the world’s interests in a lasting peace.
Goiânia Survivors Challenge Netflix: ‘A Crime Against the Truth’

09.04.26 – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Pressenza New York, https://www.pressenza.com/2026/04/goiania-survivors-challenge-netflix-a-crime-against-the-truth/
In 2017, Odesson Alves Ferreira, a survivor of the 1987 Goiânia nuclear disaster in central Brazil, received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the International Uranium Film Festival. Odesson himself was severely contaminated by the highly radioactive cesium-137 and lives with the consequences. For over 30 years, he has campaigned for the recognition and fair compensation of the hundreds of cesium victims and for ensuring that this radioactive disaster in Goiânia is never forgotten and never repeated. Now he is strongly criticizing the new Netflix miniseries “Radioactive Emergency”.
By Norbert Suchanek
Netflix series “Radioactive Emergency” distorts facts
In September 1987, the worst nuclear disaster in Latin American history occurred in the central Brazilian city of Goiânia. A scrap metal dealer unknowingly released highly radioactive cesium-137 from an abandoned cancer treatment device, contaminating parts of the city and hundreds of people. Now, in March Netflix has released the miniseries “Radioactive Emergency,” based on this nuclear disaster and claiming to be inspired by true events. However, cesium-137-survivors dispute this. They argue that the Netflix series distorts the facts and ignores the victims.
“The distortion of historical facts is not only a narrative error, but in my view, also a profound disrespect to the memory of the victims and to us survivors,” criticizes Odesson Alves Ferreira, brother of scrap metal dealer Devair Alves Ferreira, who in 1987 bought the lead-encased radioactive head from two young waste pickers without even suspecting that it contained radioactive material.
In his statement to the Brazilian news portal Metrópoles regarding “Radioactive Emergency,” Odesson says: “By distorting the tragic historical facts for the sake of expediency, to make the plot more scientific and commercial, Netflix committed a crime against the truth. The true story we experienced doesn’t need sensational embellishments; it was tragic enough in itself.”
According to the 71-year-old, the streaming service “turns the victims of an irresponsible system into perpetrators and trivializes the tragedy. The memory of Brazil’s worst radioactive tragedy must be protected. We will not simply accept history being rewritten for convenience, because those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.” The former president of the Association of Cesium Victims (AVCésio) also criticizes that the Netflix film crew did not consult those actually affected beforehand.
According to the association, which represents more than 1,000 victims of the Goiânia radioactive disaster, its members were neither consulted on the script nor asked to share their experiences.
“We were not consulted during the production of the series based on our story. Filming didn’t even take place in Goiânia, but in São Paulo. How can you make a series about this story and not let those who experienced it firsthand have their say?” Metropóles quotes the association’s current president, Marcelo Santos Neves. He says, the film crew only contacted the former president, Suely Lina Moraes Silva, once. She reports that she accompanied a small group from the production team on a visit to the contaminated areas in Goiânia. After that, however, there were no further discussions with the team.
Although the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) described the “Cesium-137 disaster” in Goiânia as an “accident,” it was, in the opinion of the victims and others, a crime. However, the villains are not the two young waste pickers, as the Netflix production suggests. “One of the most dangerous nuclear disasters in the world started with a stolen medical device,” the streaming service emphasizes on its website.
In fact, the two youngsters didn’t steal the device; they found it in a partially demolished building, where it had been left behind like trash. And collecting discarded waste for recycling isn’t a crime.
The real culprits are the owners of the partially demolished former cancer treatment center “Instituto Goiano de Radiologia”, who left the dangerous radiotherapy machine there unattended and unsecured like garbage, while at the same time the Brazilian Atomic Energy Commission (CNEN) failed to fulfill its supervisory responsibility for radioactive materials.
Therefore, years later, in the 1990s, the Brazilian judiciary sentenced CNEN to a fine of one million reais (about 200,000 US dollars) and the owners of the Instituto Goiano de Radioterapia to three years in prison.
In its statement to Metrópoles regarding criticism of “Radioactive Emergency,” Netflix affirmed that historical accuracy was a priority in the production of the miniseries. And according to its website, the responsible film team consulted experts from various fields, including doctors and physicists, during the development of the screenplay.
Brasiliens Tschernobyl
Exposição “Mãos de Césio”
When Flotillas Fight for Life, Not Empire
April 10, 2026 , Olivia DiNucci for Codepink, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/10/when-flotillas-fight-for-life-not-empire/
Flotillas have historically been fleets of military vessels—tools of empire designed for swift offensive or defensive operations at sea. The images they evoke are ones of imperial power and looming violence. Just look at the massive US naval buildup that surrounded Iran as part of the recent US attacks.
But peace activists have also developed a new kind of flotilla.
Instead of instruments of war, flotillas have become symbols of peace—acts of humanitarian direct action, civil resistance, and cross-border solidarity. Take the flotillas that have tried to reach Gaza, like the Global Sumud Flotilla. Even though they have been illegally intercepted by the Israeli military, they have educated millions of people worldwide about Israel’s atrocities, activated entire cities to shut down, and offered a beacon of hope to the beleaguered people of Gaza.
As U.S. policy continues to sanction and blockade Cuba—causing immense hardship for the Cuban people—I, along with many others, felt compelled to escalate our own tactics of solidarity by joining the recent flotilla to Cuba as part of the Nuestra América Convoy. Our boat carried 15 tons of aid, part of the more than 40 tons delivered by the convoy.
The United States is currently imposing some of the harshest sanctions on Cuba in recent history, compounding a 67-year blockade that has restricted access to medicine, fuel, and food. But in recent months, the US added another dimension: a naval blockade to severely limit fuel imports, leading to a humanitarian crisis.
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need fossil fuels—we would already have made a just transition to renewable energy. And while Cuba is working at lightning speed to expand solar power, the current reality is stark: people still need fuel to cook, to transport food, to operate ambulances, to power hospitals, and to keep ventilators running.
The international community has responded to this escalation in U.S. economic warfare with intensified solidarity. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have been mobilizing to send aid and condemn the US blockade. In March, Progressive International, CODEPINK, and The People’s Forum launched the Nuestra América Convoy, bringing together over 600 people from 33 countries. We came with millions of dollars’ worth of aid—from urgently needed medical supplies to longer-term solutions like solar panels.
While many of my friends boarded planes to Havana, packing every inch of their luggage with medicine, hygiene products, vitamins, and art supplies, I traveled to Mexico to meet the flotilla crew. We spent four days at sea together—activists, journalists, organizers. Some had helped organize the Gaza Sumud Flotilla; others had taken part in mass protests in solidarity with Palestine.
Our goal was to deliver much-needed aid to the people of Cuba. But just as important was challenging the dominant narrative—that Cuba’s suffering is the result of its own government, rather than decades of U.S. cruel policy.
Even though the boat was full of journalists documenting the trip, their cameras could not fully capture the sense of community among strangers united by a shared mission. I remember being nervous about the cold and the possibility of seasickness, but within minutes, people were offering ginger chews, acupressure bracelets, and rain gear.
Our departure was delayed due to weather, boat repairs, and the logistics of loading the aid. In the meantime, we stayed with supporters in Mexico who couldn’t join the voyage but found other ways to contribute. We shared a send-off dinner at an Egyptian restaurant whose owner had followed the Gaza flotillas. He told us how proud he was to see a flotilla to Cuba leaving from his small town.
On the boat, we shared cooking, dishwashing, and night watch shifts—standard practice in occupations, encampments, and direct actions where resources are limited but creativity and collaboration are abundant. At sea, a simple breakfast of rice, beans, eggs, guacamole, and toast tastes like a feast. We slept under galaxies of stars, woke to sunrises on the horizon, and at sunset made music with whatever we had—a guitar, a bucket drum, water bottles filled with dry beans.
Meanwhile, I stayed connected to those traveling by plane, watching group chats fill with photos of carefully packed bags and urgent questions: Who can fit more supplies? How many solar batteries can we carry on? The coordination was constant, collective, and inspiring.
The blockade severely limits what goods can reach Cuba. While US citizens can still travel there under certain categories, they face restrictions and often risk questioning upon return. But solidarity is not tourism. It is not about swooping in, taking photos, and leaving. It is about building relationships, listening, and committing to ongoing struggle from our home countries.
We had a beautiful reception from the Cuban people when we landed, and then had the opportunity to speak directly with community groups about current conditions.I learned how they overcome so much by placing value in community over the individual.
The US empire is indeed dying, and it is up to us to not just reimagine the better world we need and want, but to actually put that world into practice. Reflecting on my experience, I started thinking — if we can turn flotillas from a force of evil into vessels of hope and solidarity, then what else can we change? What if we built schools around the world instead of sending bombs? What if, like the Cubans, we funded healthcare over warfare and sent doctors to cure people instead of soldiers to kill them?
You don’t have to board a boat with humanitarian supplies to show solidarity. Flotillas are one tactic, but we need a variety and diversity of tactics right now, and always. You can move forward by showing solidarity to your neighbors at home, as well as to our neighbors 90 miles off our shores. Because what we build together, in community—whether through a peace flotilla or local mutual aid—is stronger than anything built through force.
Olivia CODEPINK’s DC Coordinator, who seeks to build and bridge connections from issues to people. She came to this work after living and working abroad as an experiential learning facilitator with college students. She is active in arts and creative communities, direct action, and building out more local to global solidarity in DC through deepening and weaving relationships.
US’s Erosion of the Right to Cartoon Is No Laughing Matter
Hank Kennedy, April 9, 2026 https://fair.org/home/uss-erosion-of-the-right-to-cartoon-is-no-laughing-matter/
During World War II, cartoonist Bill Mauldin was summoned to a meeting with Gen. George S. Patton. Mauldin’s Stars and Stripes cartoons drew Patton’s ire over his matter-of-fact depictions of war and American GIs.
To Mauldin, war was no fun adventure. In Up Front, his Willie and Joe were war-weary and disheveled soldiers, not heroes ready for movie stardom. They expressed a darkly comic view of the life of an infantryman. In an exemplary cartoon, one of the duo says to a medic attempting to hand out a medal: “Just gimme th’ aspirin, I already got a Purple Heart.”
Mauldin avoided punishment when Gen. Dwight Eisenhower circulated a letter instructing all officers “not to interfere” with “such things as Mauldin’s cartoons” (Oklahoman, 4/16/82). Mauldin won the Pulitzer twice for his editorial cartooning, once during the war and once afterwards.
Perhaps Donald Trump’s Pentagon saw itself as acting in the Patton tradition when it eliminated comics from Stars and Stripes. As FAIR (3/20/26) previously documented, Pete Hegseth has taken steps to crack down on the independence of the Pentagon’s own newspaper. Among the new guidelines to promote “good order and discipline” is a ban on syndicated material, including comics (Stars and Stripes, 3/13/26). US servicemembers have now been saved from the woke, subversive influences of Doonesbury, Pearls Before Swine and, perhaps worst of all, Beetle Bailey.
A global trend
Hegseth’s anti-comics viewpoint is part of a global trend. Cartooning for Peace, Cartoonists Rights, Reporters Without Borders and several others have teamed up to produce Under Pressure; the March 2 report surveys the status of caricaturists around the world.
Under Pressure collects the stories of some of the most grave casualties in the global war on satire. Egyptian Ashraf Omar has been imprisoned for over a year, awaiting trial under specious charges of terrorism (Committee to Protect Journalists, 3/2/26). Saudi Cartoonist Mohammed Al Ghamdi (pen name Al Hazza) faces a 23-year sentence for “sympathizing with Qatar” (Reporters Without Borders, 7/23/25)—reflecting a since-resolved quarrel between the two governments—and because he allegedly “insulted the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” . In 2024, Palestinian cartoonist Mahasen al-Khateeb was killed in Gaza by Israeli bombardment (Middle East Eye, 10/20/24).
When the survey turns to the United States, things remain ominous. Kak, the president of Cartoonists for Peace whose work appears in L’Opinion, found the “same tactics” that appear in authoritarian regimes, or those headed in a dictatorial direction, “are being used” in the US. He continued that “the ‘Land of the Free’ is now flashing bright red on our threat map,” putting the US in the same crowd as Iran, India, Turkey and Russia.
It’s quite a shift from the 2023 report Cartoonists on the Line, which had no section dedicated to the United States. Much has changed for the worse in three years.
Trump has long mused about using official pressure to suppress satirical responses to his government. In 2018, he threatened to sue Saturday Night Live over their mockery of his administration (Mother Jones, 12/16/18). His FCC chair, Brendan Carr, argued that it was in the “public interest” to threaten Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night ABC show over the host’s comedy (Variety, 12/17/25). These words and deeds have created a climate of fear in the United States, one that political cartoonists are feeling.
‘Long overdue for a housecleaning’
The report cites a few US examples that paint a dark portrait of freedom of expression under the second Trump administration. Some of them have previously been covered by FAIR, including the resignation of Ann Telnaes from the Washington Post (FAIR.org, 1/7/25), the firing of Palm Beach Post editorial page editor Tony Doris (FAIR.org, 3/27/25) and Bob Whitmore’s firing and belated reinstatement to Creative Loafing (FAIR.org, 9/30/25).
There are other examples, however, that deserve more examination.
In 1999, Felipe Galindo (Pen name Feggo) drew “4th of July From the South Border,” an endlessly reproduced and reprinted piece criticizing the militarization of the border with Mexico. Starting in 2022, Feggo’s work hung in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History as part of the ¡Presente! A Latino History of the United States exhibit. Feggo’s illustration was taken down after the Trump White House (8/21/25) attacked it as part of an “anti-American exhibition” that showed the US’s legacy of “colonization” and the history of Latino “victimhood and exploitation.” A crowing editorial in the Washington Examiner (8/24/25) asserted “the Smithsonian is long overdue for a housecleaning” over its “fashionable, culturally Marxist ideas.” The New York Times (3/28/25) described Trump’s interference with the Smithsonian as seeking “a more positive view of American history.” More positive for whom, is a question left unasked. Artist Rigoberto Gonzalez, whose “Refugees Crossing the Border Wall Into South Texas” was likewise removed, compared the administration’s censorship to the Nazi campaign against “degenerate art” (NPR, 8/24/25).
Julie Trébault of Artists at Risk Connection, who wrote Under Pressure‘s section on the United States, said it was a “rare and significant move” for the executive branch to single out “a specific work for removal from a federal museum.”
‘Direct threats’
The report cited another Pulitzer winner, Adam Zyglis, in its section on the United States. His July cartoon for the Buffalo News (7/7/25) on flooding in Texas showed a MAGA hat-sporting Texan being swept away while proclaiming, “Gov’t is the problem not the solution!”
The New York Post (7/10/25) reran a Fox News piece (7/9/25) that slammed the cartoon as “vile.” The Post’s conscience is an interesting development, considering that the paper ran a cartoon in 2009 comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee (Guardian, 2/18/09), echoing a well-known racist trope.
The slings and arrows of press criticism were nothing compared to what was to come. In response to this cartoon, Zyglis was subject to numerous death threats. An appearance at Buffalo Museum was canceled over public safety concerns (Politico, 7/11/25). The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists all released statements condemning the threats and supporting Zyglis (Daily Cartoonist, 7/17/25).
Trébault notes this as a sinister development. To criticize “the government’s actions or positions,” she wrote, “now exposes artists to direct threats.”
Heads in the sand
Unfortunately, Under Pressure has received little coverage in the United States, excepting the Daily Cartoonist (3/4/26). This contrasts with the coverage in New African Magazine (3/2/26), which gave the incidents the report highlights on that continent wider publicity.
The lack of attention media outlets gave to Under Pressure comes at a dangerous time for press freedom. The Inter American Press Association, a hemispheric media watchdog, recently classified the United States as a nation with “‘restrictions’ on freedom of speech” and of the press (AP, 3/10/26). By not giving reports like Under Pressure attention, media outlets are placing their heads in the sand.
Beyond open political censorship, there are also economic pressures on political cartoonists. Many newspapers do not employ their own cartoonists. Instead they choose material from syndicates, which reduces the amount of total cartoonists employed. It’s simple math. Why hire a dedicated cartoonist when syndicated material can be purchased for a fraction of the price?
The venues for cartoonists are also shrinking and sometimes disappearing. Since 2005, around 3,500 newspapers have shut down (Poynter, 10/20/25). Publications like the Atlantic Journal-Constitution, the Newark Star-Ledger and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are either ending their print editions or shutting down entirely. Cartoonist Walt Handelman (Editor & Publisher, 2/18/26), recently retired from the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Advocate, said he was “optimistic about satire…. The real question is, how do you make a professional living doing it.”
Are there still political cartoonists out there worth looking for? Of course. In These Times has a vibrant comics section with witty and insightful commentary from the likes of Mattie Lubchansky, Jen Sorenson, Tom Tomorrow and others. The annual collection World War 3 Illustrated provides a perspective not likely to be found in other outlets, as exemplified by last year’s issue dedicated to Palestinian cartoonists. In between winning awards for Insectopolis, his comic study of creepy crawlies, Peter Kuper’s work enlivens The Nation. Cartoonists may be “under pressure,” but the best of them are capable of rising to the challenge.
Chernobyl’s 40-year legacy: haunting photographs from the radiation zone
The Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 was the beginning of the end of
the Soviet Union. The photographer Gerd Ludwig, who has visited the site 12
times, explores its legacy with Mark Galeotti.
As the German-American
photographer Gerd Ludwig’s extraordinary photographs on these pages show,
however, Chernobyl is neither gone nor forgotten. Ludwig first visited the
site in 1993 and returned 11 times over the decades, most recently last
month. The disaster remained a baneful presence through so many
developments: the failure of Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to reform the
USSR, the initially cordial but ultimately bad-tempered divorce of Russia
and Ukraine, and even the conduct of today’s war.
Chernobyl will remain
with us for a long time, not least because there are some distinct
parallels to the present day.
Times 11th April 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/chernobyls-40-year-legacy-haunting-photographs-from-the-radiation-zone-k8bkhh79x
Finland Is About to Open the World’s First Permanent Nuclear Waste Site
By Haley Zaremba, Oil Price, – Apr 13, 2026
- Finland’s Posiva is on the verge of receiving an operating license for the world’s first permanent nuclear waste disposal facility, built 400 meters underground in 1.9-billion-year-old bedrock at a cost of 1 billion euros.
- Global spent nuclear fuel stocks are set to surge alongside the nuclear energy renaissance, but as of 2024, the U.S. alone faces a $44.5 billion liability with no permanent storage solution in place.
- The U.S. is inching forward: ARPA-E’s SCALEUP Ready program has directed $40 million to two deep borehole disposal projects, including one from Deep Isolation, which calls it the biggest milestone in the company’s history.
Nuclear energy is experiencing a resurgence in popularity on a global scale, thanks to a resurgence in energy security anxieties worldwide. The AI boom has majorly ramped up energy demand projections around the world at the same time that climate pledges are inching dangerously close with perilously little progress to show. Add to this a near-endless cycle of energy crisis and geopolitical conflict, and you’re presented with a majorly heightened energy trilemma: how to source energy that is sufficient, affordable, and sustainable. To solve this puzzle, nuclear energy — a reliable round-the-clock source of carbon-free energy production — can no longer be ignored.
But a nuclear renaissance, while a no-brainer for energy security and climate goals, will also come with a major uptick in nuclear waste, posing a big problem for public health and safety, as well as for the taxpayers that fund its maintenance. Between the 1950s and 2022, it is estimated that nearly 400,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel were generated on a global scale. Of those 400,000 tons, one-third has been ‘recycled’ in a complex and costly process, and two-thirds remain in temporary storage, either in nuclear fuel pools on-site at individual nuclear energy plants or in dry cask storage sites.
However, neither of these storage options are considered to be permanent solutions, and the global quantity of radioactive nuclear waste is about to explode. In fact, the policy and science behind the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel remains a critical liability at a global scale, and especially in the United States. As of 2024, it was estimated that the United States’ spent fuel liability clocked in at a jaw-dropping $44.5 billion.
A report from the National Center for Energy Analytics published earlier this month blasts the United States, the world’s biggest nuclear energy producer, for its kick-the-can-down-the-road approach to this critical issue, decrying that “Federal [nuclear waste] management has been a major black eye and policy failing for nuclear energy generation and technology.”
However, the world is, at long last, currently making great progress toward establishing the world’s first-ever permanent nuclear waste disposal site. In fact, a site on the West Coast of Finland is expecting to receive its license to begin operations in just a few months, an incredibly short stretch of time compared to the more-than two decades that the facility has been under construction. The facility will house canisters of spent fuel 400 meters underground in a remote region, housed in earthquake-resistant 1.9 billion-year-old bedrock……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Finland-Is-About-to-Open-the-Worlds-First-Permanent-Nuclear-Waste-Site.html
America Is Losing the World—and It Doesn’t Know How to Stop

April 10, 2026, Joshua Scheer
The so-called ceasefire is already cracking—and anyone paying attention knows why.
In this wide-ranging and unsettling conversation, retired U.S. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson pulls back the curtain on a geopolitical order that is not stabilizing, but unraveling. The war with Iran isn’t ending—it’s mutating. NATO isn’t adapting—it’s collapsing. And the United States, rather than recalibrating to a changing world, is doubling down on the very policies accelerating its decline. With Wilkerson saying of NATO: “I think NATO’s dead. I’ve said that before, I’ll say it again. It may take a few months, even a couple of years, for everyone to finally pronounce it dead and say a prayer over its grave—but it’s dead.
Trump may never formally declare the United States is leaving NATO. He’s not that kind of leader—he’s mercurial, inconsistent. You’re not going to get a clear, cogent statement out of him. But it’ll happen all the same.
This is already a fatal situation. Ukraine put the dagger in NATO’s heart—but the wound was there long before that. It began when we broke our promises to Russia after George H.W. Bush, when we failed to integrate them into Europe.
Every president since—starting with Clinton—drove that knife in deeper.”
Wilkerson, a former insider at the highest levels of American power, doesn’t speak in euphemisms. He describes a system running on inertia, denial, and violence—where ceasefires serve as cover, diplomacy is treated as theater, and entire regions are sacrificed to maintain a crumbling illusion of control. The result is not just endless war abroad, but growing instability at home, with the specter of internal fracture no longer unthinkable but increasingly probable.
This is not analysis meant to reassure. It is a warning—from someone who has seen how these decisions are made, and where they lead.
The ceasefire is a lie—and the system selling it knows it.
In this blistering conversation, retired U.S. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson doesn’t hedge, sanitize, or play along. He calls it what it is: a collapsing global order held together by deception, violence, and delusion. The so-called ceasefire with Iran, he warns, may be nothing more than a tactical pause—a familiar pattern where diplomacy becomes cover for the next round of escalation.
And the implications go far beyond one war.
Wilkerson flatly declares that NATO is “dead”—not weakened, not strained, but functionally finished, a relic already gutted by decades of broken promises and strategic arrogance. He points to a United States that has “created an enemy out of the whole planet,” pursuing confrontation over adaptation as global power shifts away from Western dominance.
Meanwhile, on the ground, the brutality continues. Civilians are being killed at scale, entire cities reduced to rubble, while political leaders posture and stall. There is, in Wilkerson’s assessment, “no inclination whatsoever” from Israeli leadership to stop the slaughter in Lebanon—making any broader ceasefire structurally impossible from the start.
But perhaps most alarming is what comes next.
Wilkerson warns that the United States is not just losing its grip abroad—it is fracturing internally. He describes a political system corrupted across branches, a military being reshaped along ideological lines, and a society saturated with weapons and polarization. The result? A credible path—not hypothetical, but emerging—toward internal conflict.
An empire in denial. A war without an endpoint. And a leadership class, in Wilkerson’s words, willing to “bomb the hell out of everything” rather than confront reality.
But the deeper story isn’t just about Iran or Israel. It’s about a global system breaking apart in real time—and leaders who would rather burn it down than adapt. Wilkerson describes a United States clinging to dominance it no longer has, fighting the rise of a multipolar world with sanctions, bombs, and denial. The result, he warns, is not stability—but escalation on multiple fronts at once.
He points to something even more destabilizing: a fundamental transformation in how power operates. Warfare is changing. Economics are shifting from sea to land. Alliances are dissolving. And yet Washington continues to act as if nothing has changed—doubling down on outdated strategies while the rest of the world moves on without it.
Some of the most important things for all Americans to understand—especially those who may not already—are truths like this from Wilkerson about the United States’ global position: “We’ve created an enemy out of the whole planet—and now we’re shocked the world is pushing back.”
The United States is confronting a reality it refuses to face: the world is changing, and where that change is acknowledged, it is met not with adaptation but with resistance—fought “tooth and nail.” At home, the decay is just as severe. The country, as Wilkerson puts it, has been “damned for a generation,” with dysfunction now entrenched across its core institutions—from Congress to the Supreme Court. That internal fracture is no longer abstract; it carries the real potential for conflict, with multiple factions poised in a nation that has “more guns than people.” And all of this is unfolding at the worst possible moment—during a period of imperial decline—where, in his blunt assessment, this is precisely when you do not want incompetent leadership steering a nation losing ground to rising powers.
As Wilkerson mentioned, there is is the distinct possibility of a civil war, with Wilkerson saying, “You have the potential for a lot of different people out there on the streets—and we have more guns than people.”
I would add this: when some states seem determined to drag us back into the dark ages—stripping away rights, narrowing the horizon of what it means to be free—and when our national leadership speaks of little beyond funding the machinery of war, it forces a reckoning. It makes one confront the unthinkable as something increasingly possible.
A nation cannot endure when its parts move in opposite directions—when some push toward repression while others struggle toward dignity and survival. At a certain point, unity becomes a fiction we tell ourselves to avoid the harder truth: that what we call a country may already be fractured beyond repair.
And if that is the case, then the question is no longer whether we hold together, but whether breaking apart might be the only way to prevent something far worse from tearing us apart first.
On that not at home, the consequences are just as severe. Wilkerson outlines a country hollowed out by corruption, gripped by polarization, and increasingly incapable of governing itself. Institutions are eroding. Trust is collapsing. And in that vacuum, more extreme forces are organizing, arming, and preparing for confrontation.
This is not just a warning about war abroad.
It’s a warning about what happens when a declining power refuses to recognize its own decline—and drags the world down with it.
U.S. Media finally acknowledging Israel’s central role in Trump’s criminal war on Iran
11 April 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow , https://theaimn.net/u-s-media-finally-acknowledging-israels-central-role-in-trumps-criminal-war-on-iran/
For the first 5 weeks of President Trump’s criminal war on Iran, mainstream media pretended this was totally a US war to defend the Homeland by destroying Iran’s nuclear bomb capability and neutering its missile arsenal. Israel was barely mentioned tho they started the war by assassinating Iranian leader Ali Khamenei. Israel’s relentless bombing of Iran was largely ignored to focus on the devastating US bombing. Also ignored was Iran’s robust retaliation causing the greatest damage to Israel in its 78 year history.
The reality is that on February 28th Israel realized its three decade dream of getting a US President to serve as their proxy to destroy Iran as Israel’s last hegemonic rival in the Middle East. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spent the entire 21st century lobbying George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump in term one and Joe Biden to take out Iran. Netanyahu finally hit pay dirt with Donald Trump in term two. On February 11 Netanyahu met with Trump, assuring him that once Israel assassinated Iranian leader Ali Khamenei, the regime would collapse within a few days with Iran’s populous rallying around their US liberators.
Gigantic mistake. The Iranian populous coalesced around the regime which retaliated with devastating effectiveness, not only inflicting massive damage on US, Israeli resources but shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, inflicting worldwide economic decline.
Knowing he’s lost, Trump is seeking an off ramp to save his presidency. Netanyahu, the lead actor in this lost war, will have none of it. He’s sabotaging the ceasefire Trump agreed to which would have allowed Iran to survive, retain control of the Strait and keep its nuclear enrichment and its defensive missile arsenal. Netanyahu’s massive bombing of Lebanon, forbidden by Iran’s 10 Point peace plan, puts the ceasefire hanging by a thread.
Mainstream media has taken note, beginning to allow analysts to publicly state this was largely Netanyahu’s war, not Trump’s. MS NOW’s Jen Psaki gave former Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, extensive time to review Netanyahu’s endless demands that US presidents destroy Iran on their behalf. Kerry noted how Netanyahu hyped the imminent Iranian nuclear threat to each president which was swallowed whole only by President Trump. A nuclear agreement meant nothing to Netanyahu. Regime change in a failed state Iran was the sole goal.
The more mainstream media tells the truth about Israel’s central role in Trump’s lost war upending the world economy, the more Trump will be pressured to break with Israel. Whatever Netanyahu has on Trump, whether the hundreds of millions in campaign cash or scandalous Epstein secrets, must be disregarded if Trump has any chance of salvaging his presidency, and more importantly, the world economy.
Keep it up, mainstream news. Expose the dirty secret of Trump’s dirty war launched on orders of Benjamin Netanyahu. If Trump does cut off the weapons train, Israel’s rampage against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen may be over. Time to force Israel to make peace with their neighbours, not endless war.
Mainstream news can assist that noble goal.
War has given Iran new leverage for nuclear programme, say US former envoys

Negotiators of 2015 deal say Tehran has seen how cutting off Hormuz strait can help it counter asymmetry of power
Andrew Roth in Washington. 10 Apr 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/10/middle-east-crisis-has-given-iran-new-way-to-resist-nuclear-limits-say-former-us-iran-envoys
Former US envoys who dealt with Iran have said that the US-Israeli attack on Iran and Tehran’s subsequent closure of the strait of Hormuz have given Iran new tools and resolve to resist pressure to shutter its nuclear programme.
Two senior negotiators for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama-era agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, said the Trump administration’s war had handed Iran a coveted weapon by demonstrating its ability to cut off the strait of Hormuz, an economic chokehold that one negotiator said would help Iran “balance the asymmetry of power” with the US.
“This administration, to say it more politely, cannot unsoil the bed,” said Alan Eyre, a former diplomat who helped negotiate the JCPOA. “There’s no way to get back to the status quo ante before this war started.”
In 2018, Donald Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA, which barred Tehran from enriching its uranium to weapons-grade. Trump called the deal, which lifted some sanctions on Iran, “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions” the US had ever entered into.
But after a strategy of high pressure – first through returning sanctions and then, after Trump’s return to power in 2025, a war that was meant to destroy Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities – the current US administration has found itself in more complex negotiations than before its campaign of economic and military strikes.
“The strait of Hormuz is such a good strategic deterrent [and] to an extent it makes the nuclear programme less crucial,” said Eyre. “It would have taken a lot of time and a lot of risk for them to weaponise [nuclear arms] … But they’ve got a really cool threat now, which is incredibly easy to turn on and off.”
Diplomatic sources have indicated that the Iranian delegation believes this is an unprecedented set of circumstances to negotiate on favourable terms, as the Trump administration appears keen to exit the conflict quickly.
A US delegation led by JD Vance will meet Iranian negotiators in Islamabad, Pakistan this weekend. The vice-president has been a less vocal booster of the war than other members of the administration such as the secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the secretary of state, Marco Rubio.
But while the US could withdraw its air power from the conflict, it has not presented a clear plan for reopening the strait of Hormuz – either through force or a negotiated settlement.
Robert Malley, a Yale lecturer who was former special envoy to Iran under Joe Biden and a lead negotiator on the JCPOA, said: “The strait of Hormuz wasn’t an issue before the US decided to strike. You have all the issues inherited from the past, but you just added a few, because the US has handed Iran a tool that it always had, but it never thought of using, or never felt it could.”
The chances for a comprehensive agreement addressing all of the US and Iran’s grievances appear slim. While the Obama administration sought to negotiate exclusively on Iran’s nuclear programme in the lead-up to the 2015 agreement, the Trump administration has sought a broader deal limiting Iran’s ballistic missiles programme and its support for regional proxies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.
But a catch-all deal appears to be fraying at the edges. Israel’s continued strikes on Lebanon, a country which Iran believed was part of the deal but the US has said was not, have already threatened its full collapse, with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps maintaining its blockade on shipping and top officials publicly questioning the ceasefire.
As Malley noted, the Obama administration had chosen to seek a more limited deal with Iran because “for every element that the US and others will put on the table, Iran will put a reciprocal element on the table. This is not a one-way street.”
“I think Trump has been driven by two objectives that were in clear tension,” said Malley. “One was he wanted to be able to declare outright victory, and the other one is he wanted a quick exit.”
“Even though he may claim victory … It’s being contradicted every hour by what’s happening on the ground.”
John Gibbons: I’ve changed my mind on nuclear power — we don’t need it any more

Becoming energy independent is simpler than it’s ever been — wind and solar have the potential to free us from endless energy shocks
Sat, 11 Apr, 2026 , John Gibbons, https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41825069.html
Nuclear power would, in the future, be “too cheap to meter”. This bold prediction was made by the chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, in September 1954. This was at the very dawn of the age of nuclear energy and it reflected the Utopian mood of the post-war era.
Fast forward to 2026, and while nuclear is no energy silver bullet, nor has it been an abject failure. Today, just under one tenth of total world electricity production is from nuclear reactors, which have the key environmental advantage of being virtually zero carbon.
Responding to the oil shocks of the early 1970s, France invested heavily in nuclear energy. Its 56 reactors account for about two thirds of total national electrical production, and it regularly exports surplus clean electricity to its European neighbours.
None of these plants are household names, for the good reason that France has managed its fleet of nuclear reactors well and avoided any major incidents over the last half century.
Ireland also looked seriously at the nuclear option, with proposals as far back as 1968 to build four nuclear power stations. These were revived some years later following the oil shocks and in late November 1973, the Irish government approved in principle the construction of a nuclear power station, with an initial budget of £100m. Carnsore Point in Co Wexford was selected as its location.
Growing public opposition to the Carnsore project, including two well-attended protest concerts at the site in 1978 and 1979, saw the government tiptoe away from plans to build a nuclear plant, and the idea was quietly shelved.
The disastrous nuclear accident at the Chernobyl power plant in April 1986 hardened public and political opinion decisively against nuclear energy.
In Ireland, this took the form of the Electricity Regulation Act, 1999, which set out in law a national prohibition on “the use of nuclear fission for the generation of electricity”. That, it seemed, was that.
Opposition to nuclear energy has long been an article of faith among environmentalists. The anti-war movement and the green movement largely coalesced around the idea that nuclear power was both intrinsically dangerous and associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. These fears are not totally unfounded. Many countries have indeed developed their civilian and military nuclear programmes in tandem.
In an ideal world, we would have neither nuclear power plants nor nuclear weapons, but that’s not the world we live in. As an environmental commentator, I took the view two decades ago that the unfolding climate emergency was by far the greatest threat we collectively face, and anything that could help in the fight to decarbonise the global economy had to be taken seriously. And yes, that absolutely included nuclear energy.
This was, to put it mildly, not a popular position to adopt. Many people who strongly support climate action are also fervently anti-nuclear. In late 2012, I took part in a green event at Carnsore Point and found myself the odd man out, facing a sceptical audience and an openly hostile fellow panellist, German Green MEP Rebecca Harms.
In 2006, German chancellor Angela Merkel stated: “I will always consider it absurd to shut down technologically safe nuclear power plants that don’t emit CO2.”
Five years later, under pressure from the German Greens in the aftermath of the 2011 nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan, the government decided to shut down its 17 nuclear power plants, and the absurd became real, as lignite, an ultra-dirty fuel, largely replaced zero carbon nuclear.
Now, the wheel has turned again. In response to the disastrous Iran war, Ireland is now looking to rethink its position on nuclear, with Taoiseach Micheál Martin expressing an open mind on nuclear energy, while noting costs and timescales make it very much a long term option — and this assumes the Irish public would ever tolerate the construction of a nuclear power plant.
Having long supported nuclear power when it was widely opposed in Ireland, I now find myself in the opposite camp. I no longer believe nuclear power can or will play any part in Ireland’s energy future, and here’s why.
First, the cost. In late 2022, Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor went online, 12 years behind schedule and three times over budget. The final cost exceeded €11bn. This was the first new nuclear power plant built in Europe in over 15 years. At full production, the Olkiluoto plant will supply around 1.6GW of power.
Last year, more than 10 times that amount of wind power was installed across Europe, while 65GW of new solar was deployed in Europe in 2025. In total, some 80GW of new clean renewable energy was added to the European grid last year — the peak equivalent of 50 Olkiluoto nuclear plants.
What changed my mind is that the facts have changed, and changed decisively, over the last decade and more as renewable energy technologies have rapidly matured.
Wind and solar, supported by battery arrays and e-fuels, are now the cheapest, cleanest sources of energy in history. Last year, Ireland alone added 1GW of new solar capacity, meaning we now have at peak a total of 8GW of green electricity, or the equivalent of five Olkiluoto plants.
To grasp the exponential nature of renewable energy roll-out, consider that in 2004, a total of 1GW of solar was deployed globally. Last year, the same amount was added every 12 hours.
Battery storage costs have fallen by an astonishing 90% over the last decade, with no sign as yet of this downward cost curve flattening out. According to the International Energy Agency, renewable power capacity is projected to increase by 4,600GW between 2025-2030.
You would need to build literally thousands of nuclear power plants to keep pace with renewable energy, yet barely 100 have even been commissioned worldwide in the last quarter century, while others, such as in Germany, and Japan, have been shut down.
Ireland has made huge strides in renewable electricity over the last decade in particular, and we need to double down on offshore wind and solar farms to power the electrification of our entire economy and society in the turbulent years ahead. Our continued reliance on fossil fuel imports places us at the mercy of an increasingly volatile global energy marketplace.
While the world’s existing nuclear plants should be maintained, I believe new nuclear power plants have no useful role in decarbonising and achieving energy independence quickly and at scale.
Worse, Irish politicians now dallying with nuclear may only serve to undermine our critical imperative to press ahead with the rapid roll-out of renewable energy.
John Gibbons is an environmental journalist and author of The Lie of the Land: A Game Plan for Ireland in the Climate Crisis
Ceasefire with Iran: Don’t hold your breath – Israel and US lie all the time

Donald Trump deceived millions of American voters with false promises of ending the wars, stopping globalization and industrial revival, and now he has proven himself to be one of the biggest puppets of Israel.
Trump: The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has undergone what will be a very productive regime change! There will be no uranium enrichment, and the United States, in cooperation with Iran, will extract and remove all the deeply buried nuclear “dust”. (It is more than obvious that this ‘ceasefire’ is just a public relations gimmick and a plan to reset US and Israeli offensive operations.)
Bruce K. Gagnon , 9 Apr 2026, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/04/ceasefire-with-iran-dont-hold-your.html
- Iran says the United States has agreed to the following:
1. A non-aggression commitment
2. Continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz
3. Acceptance of uranium enrichment
4. Lifting of all primary sanctions
5. Lifting of all secondary sanctions
6. Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions
7. Termination of all Board of Governors resolutions
8. Payment of reparations to Iran
9. Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region
10. Cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including against Hezbollah in Lebanon
- Axios, citing a White House official: The ceasefire will take effect as soon as Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz.
- Iran’s National Security Council: The agreement stipulates the lifting of all sanctions and the release of frozen Iranian assets abroad. It is emphasized that this does not mean the end of the war, and Iran will only accept the end of the war when, considering the acceptance of Iran’s principles in the 10-article plan, its details are also finalized in negotiations.
- These negotiations will begin with complete distrust on Friday, April 10, in Islamabad, and Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations.
- Greater Iran and the Origin of Civilizations: We did not abandon our allies in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq; this was a condition for a ceasefire in all these countries.
- Kan Hebrew Channel: If the agreement includes Hezbollah, we must burn the [Israeli] state down.
- During this two-week period, Israel will bolster its defenses, the United States will reinforce its forces, and the global economy will be revitalized. However, the negotiations could very well be a charade, as has happened before, with America launching a new offensive accompanied by assassinations.
- There’s a saying in Farsi which says: “My eyes aren’t watering.” من چشمم آب نمیخوره Which means: “I don’t think anything will come out of this.” But….if this truly does get implemented, this might be the biggest victory (for Iran) of all modern time.
- Donald Trump deceived millions of American voters with false promises of ending the wars, stopping globalization and industrial revival, and now he has proven himself to be one of the biggest puppets of Israel, the World Economic Forum and the Bilderberg Group.
- Over 55 US lawmakers called for invoking the 25th Amendment after Trump threatened to destroy Iranian civilization. Former Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene called it “evil and madness.” Tucker Carlson urged military personnel to refuse orders; the Pope and UN Human Rights chief condemned threats against civilians as violations of international law.
- Moscow and Beijing blocked a Bahrain-drafted Security Council resolution on Hormuz, with Russia’s envoy calling it a “greenlit aggression” that ignored the conflict’s root causes. The two powers submitted an alternative text calling for negotiated settlement. China’s representative said the vetoed draft would have “added fuel to the fire.”
- Around 10 AM today, Iran’s Lavan oil refinery facilities on Lavan Island were attack by the enemies. In response, Iran struck targets inside UAE & Kuwait.
- Iran’s UN representative: Israel must adhere to the ceasefire in Lebanon; continued attacks will further complicate the situation and have dire consequences.
- Lebanese Health Minister: Hospitals are overflowing with the injured and victims, and we have hundreds of martyrs and wounded throughout Lebanon as a result of the Israeli strikes. The raid that targeted Shamshtar occurred during a funeral procession, when the enemy bombed the place, resulting in the martyrdom of all those present. “Eternal Darkness” is the name given by Israel to the new aggression against Lebanon.
- Lebanese hospitals are appealing for blood donations due to the large number of injuries and deaths in the major zionist offensive.
- US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Let’s be clear, a ceasefire is a temporary pause. The US Secretary of Defense told US forces involved in the war against Iran: Stay prepared.
- Iran’s IRGC Navy warned ships near the Strait of Hormuz that they must obtain permission from the IRGC naval forces to pass, stating over radio that any vessel attempting to transit without authorization “will be destroyed,” according to a recording shared with The Wall Street Journal.
- Trump: The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has undergone what will be a very productive regime change! There will be no uranium enrichment, and the United States, in cooperation with Iran, will extract and remove all the deeply buried nuclear “dust”. (It is more than obvious that this ‘ceasefire’ is just a public relations gimmick and a plan to reset US and Israeli offensive operations.)
- Iranian media, quoting a high-ranking Iranian military source: We have begun a wave of attacks on US-allied countries in the region as a warning message to implement a ceasefire throughout the region, including Lebanon.
- Spain has called Israel’s continued attacks in Lebanon “unacceptable,” despite the recent U.S.–Iran two-week ceasefire. Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares said all fronts, including Lebanon, must stop.
- Israeli main opposition leader Yair Lapid: There has never been such a political disaster in all of our history. Israel wasn’t even at the table when decisions were made about the core of our national security. Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and did not meet a single goal he set himself. It will take years to repair the political and strategic damage caused by arrogance, negligence, and a lack of planning. Israeli Channel 12 reports from a source: Washington will ask Tehran to cancel the ballistic missile program.
- U.S. Vice President JD Vance: Trump “lacks patience” to make progress on everything related to Iran. If the Iranians do not act in good faith, they will discover that President Trump is not to be trifled with.
- (Update): Iran has halted the passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz after Israel’s ceasefire violations against Lebanon — Fars.
As Rocket Launches Increase, They May Be Polluting the Skies
“We’re actually slowing down the repairing of ozone hole with the space industry. Which is quite something.”
Undark, By Ramin Skibba, 04.06.2026
Research suggests that rocket exhaust and debris could be threatening the ozone layer, though uncertainties persist.
Rocket launches used to be a rare occurrence. But with access to space proliferating, partly thanks to an abundance of commercial space companies, global launches have risen exponentially: In the last five years, they’ve nearly tripled. According to an analysis by SpaceNews, in 2025 alone, humans shot about 320 rockets into space.
All those rockets produce a fair amount pollution, from the sooty plumes that catapult them into orbit and beyond to derelict satellites that burn up upon reentry. Regulators have been monitoring and restricting other air pollutants especially since the 1970s, including the exhaust from cars and jet engines. Many researchers believe such regulations are overdue for rocket engines — especially because nobody really knows exactly how much damage those pollutants cause. “It might be another 10 years until we found how large the influences on the atmosphere actually are,” said Leonard Schulz, a geophysicist at the University of Braunschweig – Institute of Technology in Northern Germany. By that time, he added, the pollution could accumulate to the point that, you cannot easily reverse it.
Though space pollution is still small compared to the aviation industry, rocket exhaust may be gradually depleting Earth’s protective ozone layer, which is still recovering from the impacts of pollution from a class of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons. (CFCs, as they are known, were once commonly used as coolant in refrigerators and air conditioners, among other uses, and were regulated in the late 1980s.) But with limited data and industry transparency, many unknowns and uncertainties persist, including the impacts of next-generation rocket fuels.
Compared to other sources of pollution, the effects of sending rockets into space and from space debris that comes back down from orbit “has been negligible,” said Christopher Maloney, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado who works out of the Chemical Sciences Laboratory at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, with recent research on emissions from rockets and reentries. “But if you follow these trends, what is it going to look like?”
The boost in rocket launches is largely driven by the private sector, and in particular SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets, which are used in part to loft Starlink satellites into orbit. There are now about 10,000 such satellites, which provide internet services to remote regions. Starlink is just one example of a large network of satellites, known as megaconstellations, the deployment of which accounted for some 40 percent of rocket pollution as of 2022. “The proportion of those emissions coming from megaconstellations is growing every year,” said Connor Barker, a research fellow at the University College London who focuses on atmospheric chemical modeling. In January, SpaceX filed an application at the Federal Communications Commission for a megaconstellation of 1 million satellites, which are reportedly intended for orbiting data centers.
Additional launches have come from Chinese rocket companies that deploy satellites and provide spaceflights to the Tiangong space station and other missions; companies like the United Launch Alliance, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab; and various European countries and Russia.
To account for pollution from both launches and reentries, Barker developed an online emissions tracker, which has shown a rapid increase in the pollution since 2020 — in particular, for the pollutants black carbon, also known as soot, as well as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Barker expects the pollutants to continue rising for years. “We’re actually slowing down the repairing of ozone hole with the space industry,” he said. “Which is quite something.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Spacecraft pollute not just on their way up, but also when they’re on their way down. All those satellites, rocket bodies, and random chunks of debris floating in orbit are mostly made of metals, and they have to go somewhere. “The biggest issue is, nobody has looked at this for quite a long time,” said Schulz, the German geophysicist, who recently published a paper about such “space waste.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Ultimately, researchers say, launch operators need to think about not only their rocket fuel, but the materials used to make their spacecraft. Because humanity depends on the ozone layer, if some of it were to disappear, the implications are clear — and different than those of climate change. “The environmental impact is an attack on the thing that makes life on Earth possible, the ozone layer,” Bannister said. “It’s very immediate.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://undark.org/2026/04/06/as-rocket-launches-increase-they-may-be-polluting-the-skies/?utm_source=Undark%3A+News+%26+Updates&utm_campaign=90003236de-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5cee408d66-185e4e09de-176033209
-
Archives
- April 2026 (181)
- 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


