nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

“Small” nuclear reactors for Hartlepool? ONLY THEY ARE NOT SMALL

COMMENT. SMALL nuclear reactors are those providing less that 300MW.

This Hartlepool plan plan is for 12 reactors providing 960 MW

X-energy Advanced Nuclear Reactor plan for Hartlepool

28th July , By Gavin Engelbrecht, https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/26408533.x-energy-xe-100-advanced-nuclear-reactor-hartlepool/

A leading developer of advanced nuclear reactors, who is targeting a site in Hartlepool, recently took a big step forward by starting the Design Assessment process for its Xe-100 reactor.

The move marks a significant milestone in X-energy and Centrica’s efforts to deploy up to 6 GW of new nuclear in the United Kingdom.

X-energy has been in active dialogue with UK regulatory authorities since 2024, and the company’s latest submission builds on its U.S. licensing progress.

It has now officially submitted its Xe-100 advanced nuclear reactor to the critical, formal regulatory pathway required to license new nuclear technologies in the UK.

In partnership with Centrica, Hartlepool remains the preferred first site for a 12-unit (960 MWe) power plant.

The first project alone is estimated to bring thousands of high-quality, long-term jobs to the local area where needs are greatest.

The regulatory assessment – administered by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Environment Agency – is expected to conclude by the end of 2029, keeping the project on track for deployment.

“Advanced Modular Reactors like the Xe-100 are the cornerstone of Britain’s future energy security, and would bring clean, reliable power as well as renewed opportunities for British industry,” said Alistair Black, Vice President and UK Market Lead at X-energy.

“We welcome the Regulators’ recent steps towards a more efficient GDA process, and look forward to working collaboratively to support an efficient, thorough review.

“GDA submission marks an important milestone in bringing our technology to the UK on a fleet-scale, with the potential to create thousands of high-quality jobs where needs are greatest.”

The Xe-100 is an 80 MWe HTGR deployed in four-or-twelve-unit plants, capable of providing both electricity, and high-temperature heat and steam for industrial applications.

In September 2025, X-energy and Centrica signed a Joint Development Agreement for the UK’s first advanced nuclear fleet, targeting 6 GW nationwide with Hartlepool identified as the preferred first site for a 12-unit/960 MWe Xe-100 plant.

That project is currently advancing through the UK Government’s Advanced Nuclear Pipeline assessment.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

‘Earth’s Greatest Enemy’ Delivers A Penetrating Insight Into The Heart Of Our Dystopia

Caitlin Johnstone, Jul 28, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/earths-greatest-enemy-delivers-a?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=208773412&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

There’s a powerful new documentary out called Earth’s Greatest Enemy by Abby Martin about the ecocidal abuses of the US war machine, and it addresses the most pressing existential hurdles we face as a species like nothing I’ve seen before.

The film breaks down how the US military has become the single most environmentally destructive institution on our planet by an extremely massive margin, walking the audience through the many ways the Pentagon and its global metastases have been churning out carbon emissions, pouring toxins into the air and water, wiping out precious ecosystems for gratuitous military bases, and pummeling our sea life with sonar and noise pollution, all while gleefully salivating at the prospect of plundering the resources which lay hidden beneath our planet’s rapidly thawing polar ice caps.

Martin skillfully ties the planet-devouring behavior of the US military to the global systems of capitalism and imperialism it was built to uphold. The viewer is left with a crystal clear picture of the ways ecocide, militarism and capitalism are inseparably intertwined, and an understanding that meaningfully opposing any of these malignancies necessarily entails opposing them all. The liberal fiction that one can be pro-environment while also supporting the US military is forcefully exposed for the absurdity that it is.

It’s a jarring film with extremely dark subject matter, but it also manages to be a work of transcendent beauty and optimism. A deep love of humans and all of earth’s creatures shines through in shot after shot, while slick editing and an inspired soundtrack allow the movie to zip along at a lively and entertaining pace. Martin concludes with a galvanizing call to use our outrage to loosen the empire’s already weakening grip on humanity’s collective consciousness, because our entire world depends on it.

Perhaps the most touching aspect of the documentary is the personal element Martin chose to bring in to her overarching narrative. She discusses how she and her husband (antiwar activist Mike Prysner, who co-directed the film) had their lives forever altered when they had kids and experienced a new level of urgency to help give rise to a brighter future. Their family of four becomes a microcosm of humanity’s struggle to liberate itself from the tyranny of the machine to create a better world for our children, and we see Martin’s love for her son and daughter reflected in a great tenderness for the world as a whole.

Anyway, I’ve never felt inclined to write a film review before so I don’t know if I’ve done a good job of encouraging people to watch this thing, but for my own audience I truly cannot recommend Earth’s Greatest Enemy enough. It’s available streaming on Apple TV, Prime Video, and Watermelon Pictures. Screening tour dates and further information can be found on the Earth’s Greatest Enemy website. Be sure to leave a review on Letterboxed or IMDB if you can.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | media, Resources -audiovicual, USA | Leave a comment

Leaked document reveals White House nuclear waste plan

By Hannah Northey, Francisco “A.J.” Camacho E & E News,| 07/27/2026 

The Trump administration is seeking to move past Yucca Mountain as the nation’s sole repository and store waste in willing states.

The White House is pushing Congress to break a decades-long impasse around the handling of nuclear waste and entice states to get on board, according to a document obtained by POLITICO.

The Trump administration is seeking changes to federal law to allow the Department of Energy to partner with states willing to store waste generated at the nation’s nuclear reactors, according to the document laying out “legislative principles.” It has been circulating on Capitol Hill and among nuclear industry leaders.

When asked about the document, a White House official said Monday that the administration “is always looking for ways to advance our civil nuclear energy sector.”

The legislative blueprint comes as President Donald Trump pushes to quadruple America’s production of nuclear power over the next 25 years, despite there being no long-term solution for the waste piling up at active and decommissioned reactors across the country………………………………………………………………………………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.eenews.net/articles/leaked-document-reveals-white-house-nuclear-waste-plan/

July 30, 2026 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

The Guardian view on a US-Saudi nuclear agreement: an offer that further erodes international safeguards

Even if no reactors are built, Donald Trump’s announcement of a double-standards deal with Riyadh has wrought further damage in a new era of proliferation

27 July 26,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/26/the-guardian-view-on-a-us-saudi-nuclear-agreement-an-offer-that-further-erodes-international-

Even as he threatened to escalate an unlawful war sold in part as preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, Donald Trump opened the door to proliferation in the region on Wednesday. The US announced that it had signed a deal with Saudi Arabia which would potentially allow the kingdom to enrich uranium in future and to avoid the fullest inspection rights for the international watchdog.

Experts have long warned that a civilian nuclear programme could create a path towards a nuclear-armed Riyadh. Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince and de facto leader, has said that if Tehran gets a nuclear weapon, “we will have to get one”. Concerns are magnified by the agreement’s terms. Washington previously argued that the “gold standard” was the United Arab Emirates’ agreement to permanently forgo enrichment and accept full monitoring by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. Weakening it sets a precedent that Russia or China could also cite in nuclear deals in future.

The turmoil that Mr Trump has created in the Middle East is encouraging governments both to hedge their bets and to tool up. The US paused attacks on Iran at the weekend, after 13 successive days of strikes, amid reports that it is concerned about declining interceptor stockpiles, but no exit is in sight. As António Guterres, the UN secretary general, said on Thursday, the region “is teetering on the edge of [the] unimaginable … One crisis feeds another. One escalation triggers the next.”

Gulf states premised their security on American-guaranteed order. But Benjamin Netanyahu’s strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar last year showed that the US shield would not protect them from Israel (itself an undeclared nuclear power). The reckless war on Iran has made US military presence an invitation to damage. Washington may be looking to bind Riyadh closer with a reactor deal, though the billions of dollars involved is probably a bigger incentive for Mr Trump. The crumbling of the region’s internal architecture – most visibly with the UAE’s departure from Opec – adds to the dangers of proliferation. Players are acting less predictably.

The US president threw the Saudi deal into doubt within hours by declaring it contingent on Riyadh recognising Israel. That had long been a precondition for an agreement, but Israel’s war of annihilation in Gaza has shored up the Saudi position that recognition cannot happen without a Palestinian state.

Yet even if no reactors are built, the announcement itself acts as legitimation of and encouragement for the pursuit of nuclear capabilities by others. Negotiations produced an Obama-era nuclear deal with which Tehran complied – until Mr Trump trashed the agreement. His war appears to have produced a more aggressive, risk-taking Iranian regime, as foretold; further military action is more likely to spur than end nuclear threat. The prospect of Riyadh acquiring a bomb is further encouragement.

Look further afield. The last US-Russia nuclear arms control treaty expired in February. China is rapidly expanding its arsenal. Asian and European states which counted on the US nuclear umbrella prior to Mr Trump are discussing acquiring or enhancing their own capabilities. Most of them at least understand that diplomacy, multilateralism and global standards are a better choice than a race for the bomb. Mr Trump does not believe in international institutions. But upholding existing nuclear safeguards would be in US interests too as we enter a new age of proliferation.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

What would happen if the UK’s Faslane nuclear weapons base was hit in a nuclear strike?

As the UK’s only nuclear weapons base, Faslane and the adjacent Coulport warhead storage
depot are among the highest-value military targets in Europe in the case of
a nuclear exchange targeting military facilities.

While many strategic
military facilities are located in highly remote areas to avoid civilian
casualties in the case of an attack, these bases are only roughly 40
kilometres from Glasgow and surrounded by other population centres such as
Greenock and Helensburgh.

In an effort to add to the existing literature
illustrating the risks posed by nuclear weapons facilities, I decided to
draw from my background in aerodynamics research to study the humanitarian
cost that would be incurred by an attack on the nuclear weapons bases in
Scotland. This research uses modelling techniques pioneered by Professor
Sébastien Philippe of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and software
developed by Ivan Stepanov to simulate both the blast and radiological
effects of a nuclear strike on the base.

Both the effect of the initial
blast and the fallout dispersed from two 100-kiloton ground-burst strikes
on Coulport’s storage bunkers were simulated across 100 historical weather
conditions. Both the long and short-term effects were mapped onto
population density data to assess both the immediate casualties in the
blast radius and the long-term casualties due to radiation induced cancers.
A protection factor was also applied to account for those sheltering
indoors.

The total predicted fatalities ranged from 1603 to 138,827 people,
with an average of 22,798 people. This wide variation is due to the strong
influence of wind on the dispersion of fallout. For instance, winds blowing
to the west or north result in far fewer casualties, due to the much
sparser populations in these directions. By contrast, winds blowing to the
east or southeast were found to disperse significant fallout over major
population centres such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The National 25th July 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26409093.happen-faslane-hit-nuclear-strike/

July 30, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is Trump’s Saudi nuclear deal set to trigger a Middle East arms race?

26th July, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/26409909.trumps-saudi-nuclear-deal-set-trigger-middle-east-arms-race/

He failed to articulate a persuasive argument for the Iran war and now a poorly negotiated deal with Riyadh has only compounded the danger writes Foreign Editor David Pratt

Among his many controversial traits, a tendency towards double standards sits high on the list.

If ever confirmation of this were needed, just cast your mind back to April, when US President Donald Trump reiterated that in Iran: “There will be no enrichment of uranium.”

On the face of it, Trump’s message appeared clear cut and, to that end, the

US-Israel war against the Islamic Republic was – along with regime change – aimed at preventing Tehran from possessing an atomic bomb.

But fast-forward just a few months and Trump appears now to have done a deal with Iran’s great rival Saudi Arabia that could, say some experts, put it on a trajectory to enrich its own fuel for nuclear reactors.

So far, so typically Trump, some might argue. But as if such duplicity were not bad enough, Trump then added another characteristic of his fickle decision-making thinking by insisting that the Saudi deal was conditional on Riyadh normalising relations with Israel.

“The Civil Nuclear Deal (There will be no enrichment of material!) being made between the United States Department of Energy and Saudi Arabia, which pertains only to non-military use such as the ones that Iran and UAE (and others) already have, will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform last Thursday.

Trump’s intervention, insisting that the deal was subject to recognition of Israel, arriving as it did some 16 hours after the initial announcement, appeared to come as late news to the Saudis.

For years now the Gulf kingdom has long insisted that their country will not establish formal relations with Israel until there is a clear path for Palestinian statehood, which Israel’s government staunchly opposes.

It came as late news, too, it would appear,

to US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and his team at the Washington Energy Department who some American media reports suggest jumped the gun in announcing the deal, triggering the social media backlash from Trump.

TRUMP, so the media speculation goes, added on the “normalisation” with Israel condition to teach Wright and his team a lesson for getting ahead of themselves.

Whatever the truth behind such internal bickering, the Saudi deal now appears somewhat in limbo, though should it go ahead as planned, will renew fears that Trump is triggering a Middle East nuclear arms race.

It’s not that there is anything new in US nuclear co-operation deals with countries in the region.

But back when America first made such a deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2009, the safeguards and conditions surrounding the deal were, according to US officials at the time, “gold standard”.

For starters, the Emiratis had to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing, and sign up to the Additional Protocol, a follow-on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which provides for tough inspections.

All these conditions were met, leaving the UAE with four reactors that now supply 25% of the country’s electricity.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canada’s silence on the U.S. and Saudi Arabia’s nuclear agreement isn’t neutrality. It’s something much worse


July 28, 2026, By Lloyd Axworthy, Contributor, Lloyd Axworthy is a former longtime MP who served as Canadian foreign minister from 1996 to 2000. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/canadas-silence-on-the-us-and-saudi-arabias-nuclear-agreement-isnt-neutrality-its-something-much-worse/article_99b7a436-6aa5-4627-9a04-15c688fcc5a7.html

Canada’s nuclear story has always been one of choice. In 1946, with Hiroshima still smouldering, Canada could have become a nuclear weapons state. It possessed the uranium, the scientific expertise, the industrial base, and the Manhattan Project experience that would have made it possible. The St Laurent government chose differently, pushing for international control of nuclear arms while directing Canadian nuclear power toward civilian ends. That was not weakness. It was judgment.

That decision forged a legacy of principled support for nuclear non-proliferation. But somewhere along the way, Canada lost its nerve. Today it speaks firmly against adversaries, grows cautious with allies and falls silent when principle would demand risk. The moral inconsistency is hard to miss.

Consider NATO. In 1998, Parliament did not rubber-stamp the government’s position on the Alliance’s Strategic Concept. It held hearings across the country, listening to Canadians, experts, and international voices. The skepticism about nuclear dependence that emerged was not an elite whim; it was the product of genuine democratic scrutiny, and Parliament pressed NATO to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War world.

That tradition has withered. Canada remains outside the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, hovers at the margins of disarmament diplomacy, and supports the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty mostly in ways that preserve the system without challenging its glaring contradictions. Canada talks as if the nuclear order is stable, even as norms crumble under selective enforcement and expanding arsenals.

Which brings us to now. The United States and Saudi Arabia are negotiating a nuclear arrangement that could normalize sensitive nuclear know-how and open the door to enrichment capabilities. Meanwhile, Washington uses its military force to stop Iran from pursuing the very same path. The message is unmistakable: nuclear restraint is demanded of some, relaxed for others when strategic or commercial interests beckon.

Canada has said almost nothing. That silence is not neutrality. In matters of nuclear proliferation, silence in the face of double standards is complicity. If enrichment is too dangerous for Iran, it is too dangerous for Saudi Arabia. If latent weapons capacity is unacceptable in one context, it cannot be tolerated in another simply because the recipient is a partner.

Canada has learned, at some cost, what can happen when civilian nuclear cooperation outpaces strategic caution. In the 1960s and 1970s, Canadian-supplied technology and uranium helped power India’s nuclear program, which was later diverted toward weapons development. That episode reshaped Canada’s export controls and helped define its modern non-proliferation posture. It stands as a reminder that intent can change, safeguards can erode and today’s partner can become tomorrow’s proliferator.

The commercial dimension sharpens the point. Westinghouse, poised to profit from Saudi nuclear contracts, is owned by Brookfield Asset Management, which acquired the company in 2023. A former chair of Brookfield is now our Prime Minister. This does not prove wrongdoing. But in nuclear policy, the appearance of conflict can be as corrosive as conflict itself, because credibility depends on the public belief that decisions rest on principle, not convenience.

A serious Canadian response would begin with a simple standard: civilian nuclear cooperation must be judged by the same rules, regardless of the country involved. That means no weakening of safeguards, intrusive verification, strong IAEA oversight, and full transparency.

It is time for another cross-country parliamentary examination of Canadian nuclear policy: a genuine national inquiry for a more dangerous nuclear age. The last serious parliamentary engagement shaped Canada’s thinking in the 1990s. The world has changed. Nuclear rivalry has returned, arms control is fraying and civilian nuclear deals are becoming vehicles for strategic ambiguity once again. Canada needs a fresh review that hears from Parliament, experts, Indigenous communities, diplomats, arms-control advocates and alliance partners

Such an inquiry should ask uncomfortable questions. What does Canada actually believe about nuclear deterrence? How should it respond when allies weaken non-proliferation norms? What standards should govern Canadian approval of civil nuclear cooperation, and should Canada remain on the sidelines of nuclear-ban diplomacy? Most importantly, how does it reconcile its commitment to international law with the strategic bargains being negotiated?

Canada does not need to abandon its alliances to recover its voice. It needs to recover its judgment. The country that once chose not to become a nuclear weapons state (despite having every means to do so) should not now stand silent while others normalize nuclear pathways under the banner of peaceful use. The country that once used Parliament to re-examine its nuclear assumptions should do so again.

The challenge is not merely to condemn nuclear danger where it is politically easy, but to do so everywhere it appears, including among friends, allies and trading partners. That is the standard Canada should set for itself. Parliament should help it reclaim that standard.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Philippines’ Marcos says ‘perhaps time to revisit nuclear energy’

Daily Mail 27th July 2026, AFP

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, who declared a national energy emergency this year, said on Monday that nuclear power might hold answers for a country paying the highest electricity prices in the region.

“Perhaps it is time for us to revisit nuclear energy production,” he told a joint session of Congress in a nationally televised speech.

“We will ensure it is safe. We will ensure the good benefits of nuclear energy will be explained properly to the public.”….

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant — the only nuclear power plant in the Philippines — was completed in the 1980s but never launched due to corruption issues and safety concerns.

The Philippines has conducted exploratory talks about nuclear energy with numerous countries including Japan, France, Russia and the United States.

While Marcos offered no specifics in his State of the Nation speech, the Philippines announced a deal with the United States in May 2024 to train Filipinos how to build and operate nuclear power plants.

The pact was aimed at helping the Philippines build “the skilled workforce needed to build a clean energy infrastructure, including the ability to operate state-of-the-art nuclear power plants”, Daniel Kritenbrink, then US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said at the time.
https://www.dailymail.com/wires/afp/article-16007645/Philippines-Marcos-says-time-revisit-nuclear-energy.html

July 30, 2026 Posted by | Philippines, politics | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia stares down Trump whiplash on nuclear deal

The text of the agreement is not public, but reported details include a 30-year, multibillion-dollar deal giving American companies a central role in developing Saudi Arabia’s nuclear infrastructure.

“at this juncture,” Trump’s demand for Saudi-Israel ties looks likely to delay implementation of the deal. 

Saudi Arabia views Israel as the obstacle toward normalization, insisting on a pathway toward a Palestinian state, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to block.

Comments:by Laura Kelly – 07/27/26, https://thehill.com/policy/international/5992914-saudi-us-nuclear-deal-stalls/

Saudi Arabia is sending no signals it will accept President Trump’s after-the-fact condition that Riyadh establish ties with Israel as part of a nuclear energy deal with the United States. In fact, its leaders haven’t even conceded that the deal signed last week is off. 

Normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia was long a central pillar of a package deal for the U.S. to partner with the kingdom in building its civil nuclear program — negotiated during the first Trump administration and then the Biden administration.

But that demand appeared absent when Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced Wednesday that the U.S. signed a major deal with Saudi Arabia for American companies to jointly build a civil nuclear program in the oil-rich country. 

Mohammed Alhamed, a Saudi geopolitical analyst and president of the consultancy group Saudi Elite, said Trump’s demands about the Abraham Accords “do not change the substance of the agreement.”

“If Saudi recognition of Israel had been a formal condition for the nuclear deal, it would have been negotiated before the agreement was signed and explicitly included in its terms,” he said.

“I believe President Trump was primarily speaking to a domestic political audience by reassuring Israel and its supporters in Washington. That does not necessarily mean Saudi Arabia has changed its position.”

Trump on Friday pushed back on reporting that he was caught off guard by Wright solidifying the nuclear agreement.

“No, nobody got out ahead. I mean, I just say that in order to do it, they have to be a member of the Abraham Accords,” he said in the Oval Office with Wright behind him. 

“It was always understood, and Chris knew, and Saudi Arabia knew, that if they didn’t join the Abraham Accords — I’m not going to do the deal.”

The Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the record about the status of the nuclear deal or whether it was considering joining the 2020 deal establishing ties between Israel and Muslim-majority countries. 

Michael Ratney, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said Saudi officials are likely taking a deep breath and withholding any actions that could trigger Trump to further bear down on his demand. 

“I think if you’re the Saudis, you’re like, all right, let’s kind of see where this goes. Maybe we’ll gradually start having some conversations … Does Trump really want to kind of scuttle this big deal? Which for Trump, it’s a big deal because it’s theoretically big business for U.S. companies. So do you really want to scuttle that?” he asked.

“I think they’re just going to take a pause, take a deep breath, have some quiet conversations, and see where this lands.”

A key test for Trump is if he transmits the nuclear agreement to Congress in the coming weeks, before Republicans possibly lose majorities in the House and Senate. 

Once the agreement is transmitted to Congress, lawmakers have 90 days to either oppose the deal or allow it to proceed. If Trump delays in sending the agreement after September, he’ll almost certainly have to contend with slimmer GOP margins or Democratic majorities. 

The text of the agreement is not public, but reported details include a 30-year, multibillion-dollar deal giving American companies a central role in developing Saudi Arabia’s nuclear infrastructure.

“We’ve been pushing the U.S. government for decades to get it done,” said Christopher Guith, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute.

Guith said, “at this juncture,” Trump’s demand for Saudi-Israel ties looks likely to delay implementation of the deal. 

Daniel Shapiro, who served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for the Middle East under the Biden administration, said Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman always viewed a partnership with the U.S. on nuclear energy as the “holy grail,” adding the Saudis are particularly focused on achieving “special exemptions” permitting possible uranium enrichment as a hedge against Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon. 

“The crown prince has always said that he would ensure Saudi Arabia matched that capability if Iran got it,” he said. 

There are different phases of the deal, including a two-year feasibility study to determine if uranium enrichment should take place in Saudi Arabia, instead of having such nuclear fuel shipped in by the United States. That provision raised flags for former diplomats and nuclear nonproliferation experts as a potential pathway for Riyadh to develop a nuclear weapon. Other reported details raised concern of lax oversight on nuclear safety and nonproliferation. 

Riyadh is unlikely to throw out the deal with the U.S. because of Trump’s demands on Israel. 

“They hope the agreement moves forward, that Trump will back down from his tweet,” Shapiro said of the president’s Truth Social post. 

While Russia and China are alternatives for civil-nuclear cooperation, Saudi Arabia is demonstrating it sees more value in a long-term partnership with the U.S. — despite Trump’s whiplash diplomacy, growing partisanship in the Congress on foreign policy and the immense fallout from the war with Iran. 

“The Saudis really want their security anchored in the United States,” said Ratney, who is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“So this is kind of a piece of that — If they’re going to develop nuclear energy, they would like it anchored in a relationship with the United States. That’s just where they’ve always been. … I don’t know that they’re going to see this as a reason to kind of brandish alternatives for their nuclear power.” 

Alhamed, the Saudi consultant, said there are clear incentives for both the Trump administration and Riyadh to see the nuclear deal put into play. 

“For the United States, the agreement strengthens a decades-long strategic partnership, supports American companies and the U.S. economy, and preserves U.S. influence,” he said. 

“For Saudi Arabia, it advances the Kingdom’s long-term energy and economic transformation while reinforcing a trusted partnership with Washington.”

But it’s not clear if Riyadh or Trump are ready to move off their stances toward the Accords. 

Saudi Arabia views Israel as the obstacle toward normalization, insisting on a pathway toward a Palestinian state, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to block. The long-serving Israeli leader is also heading into consequential elections on Oct. 27, where engaging on the issue of resolution with the Palestinians is radioactive for nearly all Israeli politicians. 

Israel’s brutal response to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack, increasing violence and deadly clashes between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, and the war in southern Lebanon have made it all but impossible for Riyadh to embrace Israel. 

“As the leading Arab and Islamic country, Saudi Arabia carries broader regional responsibilities, making normalization difficult without meaningful progress on Palestinian rights and a credible pathway to a two-state solution,” Alhamed said.

 

July 30, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA | Leave a comment

The Quiet Surrender of our Nation’s Sovereignty

28 July 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-quiet-surrender-of-our-nations-sovereignty/

It is our melancholy duty to inform Australians of the quiet surrender of our nation’s sovereignty

I. Introduction: The Mask and the Man

What they see is a Prime Minister. What I see is a party animal – trapped in a role he was never prepared to play. He knows how to win power. He doesn’t know how to wield it. And when he fails, he blames everyone but himself.

The Albanese government has presided over a quiet but systematic surrender of Australian sovereignty. Through AUKUS, through the integration of Australian forces into American military structures, through secret arms deals, and through a failure to interrogate the strategic consequences of our alliance commitments, Australia is being transformed from an independent nation into a junior partner – a vassal state without voting rights.

This is not a deepening of alliance. This is a strategic surrender.

II. AUKUS: The $368 Billion Abdication

The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is the clearest example of this failure. Australia will commit $368 billion to acquire nuclear-powered submarines – equivalent to more than $30 million per day across three decades.

But the deal is plagued by problems:

  • Deliverability: The United States shipyards cannot meet production targets, averaging only 1.1 to 1.2 Virginia-class submarines per year, far below the required 2.33.
  • Cost blowouts: Australia will commit nearly $10 billion to subsidise US and UK naval shipyards.
  • Strategic uncertainty: Former foreign minister Gareth Evans has warned that AUKUS will place Australia’s sovereignty at “serious risk,” with submarines effectively becoming “an extension of U.S. military power.”
  • A “junior partner” trap: Former Defence Department analyst Dr Andrew Gaczol told a public inquiry that Australia will become a “junior” partner to the United States and lose its strategic independence. According to Dr Gaczol, “The Australian political class and defence policy community still think it’s our melancholy duty to support the military commitments of our great and powerful friends, even if they conflict with Australian interests.”

III. The US-Israel Military Merger: Australia’s Involuntary Integration

In July 2026, the US House of Representatives passed a $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by a vote of 216 to 212.

Section 219 of the Act establishes a “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” requiring the Pentagon to appoint an executive agent to “expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research.” The provision “would all but fuse the two countries’ armed forces together” across multiple domains, including biotechnology, autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and cyberwarfare.

Representative Jennifer McClellan condemned the provision as one that “undermines our sovereignty and lacks any form of oversight.”

Why does this matter to Australia?

The Australian Defence Force has long achieved interoperability with the US military. Israel has achieved interoperability with the US since 1981. If the US and Israel move from interoperability to integration, the two degrees of separation between the ADF and the IDF are reduced to one.

Australia is being integrated into Israel’s military system through the American link. We are being drawn into a conflict not of our choosing, through a chain of obligations we never consciously accepted.

IV. Australia’s De Facto Participation in the Iran War

The evidence of Australia’s entanglement is already clear.

A. Intelligence Sharing

In March 2026, Australia deployed an E-7A Wedgetail surveillance aircraft and 85 ADF personnel to the UAE. The aircraft provides “long-range reconnaissance capability” to “secure the airspace above the Gulf.” Defence officials have confirmed that reconnaissance information obtained by the Wedgetail is also provided to US allies including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar.

While the government insists the role is “defensive,” the intelligence is fed into the Joint Air Operations Center (CAOC), which is under the command of US Central Command – and the US is waging an offensive war against Iran.

B. Embedded Troops

As of June 2026, 729 ADF personnel are embedded with US and UK armed forces. Some Australian personnel were aboard a US submarine that sank an Iranian frigate in the Indian Ocean. The Defence Chief defended this involvement as “in our national interest to have our people on board US Virginia Class submarines training, learning and understanding.”

C. Arms Supplies

Australia has been supplying Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) to the UAE. The government has also issued 322 defence export permits to Israel since 1 January 2017. As Greens Senator David Shoebridge noted, Australia has “one of the most secretive and unaccountable weapons export systems in the world.”

V. The Logic of Sovereignty Concession

The chain of sovereignty loss is clear:

  1. US-Israel Integration (NDAA Section 219) →
  2. Australia-US Integration (AUKUS, interoperability agreements) →
  3. Australia’s de facto military integration with Israel through the US →
  4. Australia’s strategic autonomy is diluted, and military decision-making is influenced by external forces.

Each link in this chain was forged without parliamentary debate. As the AUKUS inquiry has noted, the Federal Parliament “never held a thorough debate on the agreement,” exposing “a clear democratic deficit” in Australia’s largest strategic commitment.

VI. The Political Class: Incompetence or Complicity?

The Albanese government’s approach to national security is defined by caution, message control, and risk aversion – not by strategic vision.

  • On AUKUS: The government has refused to interrogate the $368 billion deal, despite “substantial reservations” that have “not abated.”
  • On the Iran war: The government insists Australia is not involved in “offensive operations,” but our assets are providing intelligence that enables offensive operations.
  • On arms exports: The government has fought to keep arms exports to Israel secret, only being forced to disclose information by Federal Court order.
  • On the NDAA: The government has remained silent on Section 219 – a provision that directly compromises Australian strategic autonomy.

Incompetent people, once in power, are more dangerous than bad people because:

  • Bad people can be brought down.
  • An incompetent person will remain there, constantly causing destruction, yet appearing “unblamed” after each failure.
  • VII. Conclusion: The Cost of Silence
  • Australia’s political class and defence policy community still believe it is their “melancholy duty to support the military commitments of our great and powerful friends, even if they conflict with Australian interests.”

But a new world order is coming. Australia has a choice: position itself for that new order, or desperately cling to a slipping world order.

Through AUKUS, through Section 219, through secret arms deals and uncritical alliance commitments, we are choosing the latter.

The chain of sovereignty concession is tightening. And the Australian people are being told nothing.

The question is not whether Australia will be dragged into a war not of its choosing. The question is: when that war comes, will we have any say in whether we fight?

Dedicated to my beloved wife and confidante – who taught me to see the person behind the mask, and to trust what I see.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

The nuclear lobby getting cold feet about public acceptance?

The Two Sides of Nuclear’s Challenge, By David Hess, Senior VP DeepGeo Staff Writer 27th Jul 2026

There are two types of people inside the nuclear community – those that think the greatest challenge facing the industry is economics, and those who believe it is public acceptance.

We can all agree that the nuclear industry faces serious challenges. Here we are, decades into the climate crisis and a couple of years past a global energy shock yet at the moment nuclear’s share of global electricity continues to trend down, not up.

There are signs of better times ahead as countries review their energy mixes and start planning in earnest for a zero-carbon future, but the elder nuclear industry hands have seen this kind of excitement before. They know that momentum for new nuclear can fade as external factors change and as the ‘issues’ come sharply into focus.

Even where the industry enjoys strong political support, if there’s no way to overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of development then few projects will actually emerge as a physical reality. With this in mind, the apparent lack of progress on roadblocks over the years is troubling and may prevent the industry from making the most of the favourable winds that are currently blowing.

The issues facing nuclear expansion are no mystery. While they may come in different forms, with varying levels of sophistication depending on who is articulating them, these days they almost always boil down to two things – public acceptance and economics.

Which leads to an interesting thought experiment. Granted, both have to be addressed, but if you could magically fix only one of these issues with a snap of your fingers, which would it be, which issue has done most to diminish industry prospects over the years, and what is acting as a hand-brake on it now?

Perhaps surprisingly, there is no definitive answer and industry experts seem to be split evenly into two camps.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that people are biased by their education, experience and work areas. For example, if you have a business background or regularly talk to the finance community then of course it’s economics that is the fundamental problem!

The thinking here goes that if the nuclear industry could consistently demonstrate on time on budget construction then the orders would come streaming in. Public acceptance issues would melt-away in the face of lower energy bills. Reluctance from important stakeholders in government and the finance community would be steam-rolled by profitable returns. The mountain-sized challenge of securing project financing from banks and investors would shrink down to a much more manageable boulder – or in the case of SMRs, a pebble.

For those in this camp, the failure of the nuclear industry to expand (in Western countries at least) is due overwhelmingly to high capital costs, or even more so the well-documented failure to control construction risk at project after project. This view is essentially an implicit mea culpa. It is tacit acknowledgment that the industry has none other than itself to blame for the situation that it now finds itself in.

On the face of things, this is convincing. After all, money is what makes the world go round, and we all have to deal with this on a daily basis. If you are money-oriented with the decisions in your own life – and certainly most highly- paid industry professional will be – then it makes sense that you expect everyone else to be as well. As a commercial enterprise, nuclear plants must make financial sense or companies simply won’t build them.

Those nuclear professionals with a communication or public facing role may see the world differently. Of course, energy costs are important, but it is just one of a number of factors that Jane/Joe Smith tends to be affected by. For starters, she/he will certainly be worried about jobs and economic opportunities generally, or perhaps lack thereof. More generally though, there will be range of social, cultural and even gender-based values which influences their views.

Acutely aware of concepts such as cognitive shortcuts and risk perception, at the top of the list of factors standing in way of nuclear expansion for these nuclear professionals are the dread-risks associated with nuclear accidents and nuclear waste. In their eyes opposition to nuclear energy is essentially irrational. In fact it is often pretty darn emotional but this is not to say it is ‘unjustified’. Addressing such concerns purely with facts (or improved standards and performance) is unlikely to win people over. Indeed, no other energy industry has to contend with such deeply- seated fears……….

Rather than seeking to prove which mindset is ultimately right, the point is that there is quite a fundamental difference in approach between those in the ‘it’s the economics’ and ‘it’s public acceptance’ camps. Moreover, the priorities for action end up being very different. It is at least important to be aware of the competing paradigms…………………………………………………………….

In many ways the rise of the objection-from-economics can be considered a victory for the nuclear industry. It’s a welcome shift from the howls of ‘too dangerous’ and ‘polluting’ that marked the discourse of earlier decades………………….https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/analysis/the-two-sides-of-nuclears-challenge/

July 30, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment