The Art of the Deal Is War
April 11, 2026, ScheerPost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/11/the-art-of-the-deal-is-war/
In a moment that was supposed to signal de-escalation, the United States and Iran announced a temporary two-week ceasefire—only for it to begin unraveling almost immediately. Within hours, accusations of violations surfaced, Israeli airstrikes hit Lebanon, and the fragile illusion of diplomacy gave way to a more familiar reality: war continuing under a different name. As makes clear, this is not an end to conflict—it is a transition into a more dangerous and uncertain phase.
Ben Norton’s latest analysis cuts through the fog with clarity and urgency. His reporting lays out a pattern that is as old as U.S. foreign policy itself: agreements made publicly, undermined privately, and ultimately discarded when they no longer serve imperial interests. Norton points to immediate violations following the ceasefire announcement, particularly Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon, which Tehran argues was explicitly included in the terms of the deal. Washington denies this. Both sides claim victory. Both cannot be telling the truth.
At the heart of Norton’s analysis is a deeper indictment—not just of this ceasefire, but of a broader strategy. The so-called diplomacy surrounding Iran, he argues, often functions less as a path to peace and more as a tactical pause: a chance to regroup, rearm, and reposition. This aligns with a long historical record in which negotiations are used as cover for escalation rather than resolution. From the collapse of the nuclear deal to repeated ceasefire breakdowns in Gaza, the pattern is consistent—and deadly.
But this moment is not just about broken promises. It is about shifting global power. Norton highlights how Iran has leveraged its strategic position—particularly control over the Strait of Hormuz—to exert real pressure on global energy markets. The consequences are already rippling outward: rising oil prices, supply chain disruptions, and the early tremors of what could become a global economic crisis. Even in the unlikely event that peace were to hold, the damage has already been set in motion.
Perhaps most striking is the contradiction at the center of this ceasefire. The U.S. reportedly issued sweeping demands—limiting Iran’s military capacity, restricting enrichment, and reshaping regional alliances—while Iran presented its own conditions, including the lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of U.S. forces, and a halt to all aggression, including in Lebanon. Each side claims the other agreed. The reality, as Norton bluntly frames it, is simple: someone is lying.
This is why Norton’s video is essential viewing. It doesn’t just recount events—it exposes the mechanics of power behind them. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: What does a ceasefire mean when bombs continue to fall? What is diplomacy worth when it is used as a weapon? And how should the world respond when the architects of “peace” are the same actors perpetuating war?
For ScheerPost, reposting and amplifying this analysis is not just about sharing information—it is about challenging the narratives that normalize endless conflict. Because if this moment teaches us anything, it is that war no longer begins with declarations. It begins with agreements.
And sometimes, it never really stops.
From the very start of his video, Norton underscores a crucial reality often buried beneath headlines: this ceasefire is temporary, fragile, and possibly strategic rather than sincere. He warns that even in a “best-case scenario,” the war has already triggered a global energy shock—one that will take months, if not years, to fully unfold. Inflation, supply chain breakdowns, and rising food and fuel prices are not side effects—they are central consequences of this conflict. The war doesn’t pause when bombs stop falling; it continues through markets, shortages, and economic strain felt worldwide.
At the heart of Norton’s analysis is a deeper indictment—not just of this ceasefire, but of a broader strategy. The so-called diplomacy surrounding Iran, he argues, often functions less as a path to peace and more as a tactical pause: a chance to regroup, rearm, and reposition. He points specifically to how a two-week ceasefire could allow U.S. and allied forces to restock depleted weapons systems and prepare for the next phase of escalation. This aligns with a long historical record in which negotiations are used as cover for escalation rather than resolution.
Norton also highlights one of the most revealing contradictions: both Washington and Tehran claim the other agreed to their demands. The U.S. reportedly pushed a sweeping 15-point plan, while Iran published its own 10-point proposal, including sanctions relief, recognition of its regional position, and an end to attacks across all fronts—including Lebanon. These positions are fundamentally incompatible. As Norton bluntly frames it, one side is not telling the truth—and history suggests where skepticism should fall.
Perhaps most striking is his breakdown of what he calls Trump’s “art of the deal” in practice: agreements are made, selectively followed, and then reinterpreted to justify further escalation. It is not diplomacy—it is leverage through deception. And in this case, it may already be unfolding again.
But this moment is not just about broken promises. It is about shifting global power. Norton emphasizes that Iran has demonstrated significant leverage through its control of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. That leverage has already disrupted global markets and forced the U.S. to the negotiating table—whether in good faith or not.
This is why Norton’s video is essential viewing. It doesn’t just recount events—it exposes the mechanics of power behind them. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: What does a ceasefire mean when bombs continue to fall? What is diplomacy worth when it is used as a weapon? And what happens when economic warfare becomes indistinguishable from military conflict?
A conflict of attrition: Iran’s bet on asymmetric warfare
Destabilizing the global economy is perhaps Iran’s most visible and salient use of asymmetric warfare. Tehran has used artillery strikes, sea mines, and electronic warfare to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz, dominating a vital maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s fossil fuels and fertilizers transit.
By Spenser A. Warren | Analysis | April 7, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/a-conflict-of-attrition-irans-bet-on-asymmetric-warfare/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Iran%20s%20bet%20on%20asymmetric%20warfare&utm_campaign=20260409%20Thursday%20Newsletter
Around midnight on March 30, crewmembers on the bridge of the oil tanker Al Salmi were rocked by a large explosion. Hours later, fires still raged on the ship’s deck. The explosion was caused by an Iranian drone strike. The Al Salmi is not an adversary warship; its crew are not enemy combatants—it is a civilian vessel owned by the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
Like others on civilian oil tankers, this attack was intended to disrupt energy supplies and threaten regional security. In short, it’s part of Iran’s asymmetric warfare effort—which includes the use of several types of disruptive technologies—over the course of its ongoing conflict with the United States and Israel.
For Iran—in overall military terms far weaker than the United States—an asymmetry strategy attempts to counter expensive, often exquisite US capabilities with cheaper, lower-tech weapons and tactics designed to target critical American vulnerabilities. Most visibly, this strategy has included the use of mines, drone boats, and anti-ship missiles to close the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, Iran has used drone strikes against US assets and those of its regional partners, cyberwarfare, and missile strikes against economic and civilian targets in Israel and the Gulf States. These drone attacks deplete the stockpiles of interceptor missiles defending US and allied bases and infrastructure, degrading air-defense capabilities and increasing political and economic pressure against continued American engagement.
The Trump administration appears to have been taken off guard by at least some of Iran’s tactics, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. A degree of uncertainty is unsurprising given the nature of both asymmetric warfare and disruptive technologies. However, such tactics have been at the center of Iranian strategy for decades, and analysts have explicitly predicted the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a US-Iran war.
Thus far, Iran’s warfare has to some degree degraded American and Israeli capabilities, increased pressure on Washington, and hampered the global economy. While Iran has employed emerging or evolving technologies as part of its efforts, it is also using older technologies to significant effect. But Tehran’s strategy has serious limits, and the United States and Israel have exacted a significant toll on Iran’s military capabilities over the course of the war, now in its sixth week. Overall, this war has shown both the ways that weaker opponents can leverage asymmetric advantages to significant effect and how stronger opponents may still be able to limit the ultimate impact of asymmetric tactics.
Use of asymmetric warfare and disruptive tech. Recognizing its marked conventional imbalance against countries such as the United States and Israel, Tehran has been preparing to fight such a war for years and thus developing a range of technologies and strategies. Iran’s war effort has one overarching goal: survival. To try to achieve it, Iran has pursued tactics that appear to be aimed at three instrumental sub-goals: it has sought to degrade American and Israeli offensive capabilities; attempted to increase political pressures to end the war quickly; and sought to disrupt the global economy to increase economic pressure on Washington.
To target American, Israeli, and partner assets, Iran has used both ballistic missiles and drones. Coming into the war, Iran had a large and diverse missile force that included short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Some estimates placed the number of the Iranian ballistic missile arsenal at around 3,000. Recently, Iran showcased a possibly extended range for some of its ballistic missiles, firing two at a joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia, well beyond the stated maximum range of their capabilities. At this range, Iranians could strike parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia, as well as naval targets in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean, previously thought safe. To conduct the attempted strike, it’s possible that Iran modified space-launch assets. However, the reliability of such strikes is questionable: One of the two missiles broke up during flight, while the second proved vulnerable to air and missile defenses from Diego Garcia.
Iran’s drone arsenal, which dates to the 1980s, has yielded significant innovations despite producing mostly cheap and expendable, drones. The low cost of these systems, combined with their accuracy and reliability, has allowed Iran to deploy large numbers of them against specific targets, overwhelming defenses. This means Iran can launch enough drones to make a survival rate of only 10 to 20 percent acceptable.
Israel, the United States, and other American partners in the Persian Gulf have succeeded in intercepting many Iranian missiles and drones, limiting the effectiveness of Iran’s strikes. But the interceptions have taken a significant toll on American and partner forces. The United States reports a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) intercept success rate of 90 percent. But this level of effectiveness comes at a high burn rate, potentially using more than 30 percent of its total stockpile of THAAD interceptors in the first 96 hours of Operation Epic Fury alone.
The financial burden of interception alone is staggering. Iran’s Shahed-136 and several other of its variants are estimated to cost between $20,000 and $50,000 per unit. Interceptor costs vary significantly depending on which system a defender is using but can involve multimillion-dollar assets. Beyond the financial bottom line, the depletion of interceptor stockpiles will take many years to rectify, substantially weakening the United States regionally and globally. A reportspecifically on Terminal High Altitude Area Defense depletion suggests that just replacing these assets could take three to eight years.
Iran initially used its improving missile force and drone capabilities to strike American bases in the region but pivoted towards softer civilian targets. Among Iran’s nonmilitary targets is water infrastructure in the Gulf. On March 8, it struck a critical desalination plant in Bahrain. This strike exhibited a level of symmetry instead of asymmetry, with the attack occurring after Iran accused the United States of striking an Iranian desalination plant. Iran’s other targets have included airports and hotels, disrupting travel, tourism, and the domestic economies of several Gulf Arab states, as well as global air travel and logistics networks.
Destabilizing the global economy is perhaps Iran’s most visible and salient use of asymmetric warfare. Tehran has used artillery strikes, sea mines, and electronic warfare to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz, dominating a vital maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s fossil fuels and fertilizers transit.
Civilian ships have reported strikes from unknown projectiles that are likely mobile or shore-based artillery. Iranian forces have also rammed vessels with explosive-laden uncrewed “kamikaze boats.”
As of March 24th, Iran has also laid approximately a dozen Maham 3 and Maham 7 limpet mines in the Strait. Further, Tehran has made extensive use of electronic warfare targeted at military and civilian assets in and around the Gulf. While the broader use of electronic warfare has had limited effects, it has proven significantly successful in targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Maritime data and intelligence company Lloyd’s List Intelligence has tracked Iranian’s global navigation satellite systems in and around the Strait, logging more than 1,700 jamming incidents affecting 655 vessels, usually lasting around three to four hours each.
The Strait of Hormuz is not completely shut. Iran is allowing shipping from some friendly or neutral states to transit the waterway, so long as vessels comply with IRGC requirements and acquiesce to their inspections. Previous Iranian strikes on neutral shipping, however, has limited the credibility of this claim. As such, the threat of Iranian strikes, concern for seafarer safety, and exorbitant insurance costs have resulted in transit grinding to a near halt.
New and old technologies. Much has been written about the impacts of emerging and novel technologies on strategic outcomes, escalation dynamics, stability, and warfighting. Some of the technologies that Iran has used, such as uncrewed speedboats, are emerging—or at least evolutionary. However, Tehran has proven that many of its old, dated technologies, such as artillery, can still be effective tools of asymmetric warfare.
Both drones and cyber capabilities figure heavily in past literature on emerging disruptive technologies. It may be difficult to describe either, as well as electronic warfare systems, as emerging or novel today. But Iran’s capabilities are evolutionary, with its drone, cyber, and electronic warfare systems becoming increasingly advanced and effective over the past several decades. This is particularly true for Iran’s drone forces, with the country being among the pioneers of drone warfare.
Ballistic missiles, which Iran has used for strikes against US bases and softer, nonmilitary targets, are fundamentally a mid-20th century technology, even if Iran took longer to develop them. Short-range ballistic missiles and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, in particular, emerged more than 70 years ago. Similarly, sea mines are an old technology, not an emerging one, and their impact on the US-Iran war has been limited not by their technological characteristics, but by intentional American strikes against minelaying vessels.
Global impact and wider implications. Iran’s asymmetric warfare has implications beyond the ongoing war and the greater Middle East. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led to an increase in global oil prices. And those prices are threatening to rise further if the war doesn’t end or the strait isn’t reopened. Additionally, food prices are likely to rise due to a shortage of fertilizer, as the region is one of the main producers of nitrates necessary for crops. Further, up to 20,000 seafarers and several ships are stranded in the Persian Gulf, complicating global shipping, while the inaccessibility of Middle Eastern airports has exacerbated supply chains around the world.
The conduct of the war also provides possible lessons for future conflicts. The use of cheap drones and relatively rudimentary ballistic missile capabilities to draw down interceptor stores is indicative of forthcoming issues that United States would have if fighting a larger conventional adversary unless the American defense industrial base can rapidly ramp up production. Even then, Iran’s successes with $35,000 Shahed drones against multimillion dollar interceptors indicates a balance that favors offensive capabilities in the missile-interceptor race. Conversely, the unwillingness of the United States Navy to traverse the Strait or attempt to clear it alone indicates a balance favoring defensive capabilities and Anti-Access/Area Denial (which restricts adversaries in an area by prohibiting or limiting their ability to operate at a level of acceptable risk) strategies in naval warfare. Iran has successfully limited the world’s most powerful navy’s freedom of navigation despite losing most of its own navy—as well as most of its air force—in the war’s opening days.
Iran’s asymmetric successes may provide lessons for a potential United States-China conflict, though experts should use caution when trying to understand the similarities between the current crisis and a hypothetical one in the Taiwan Strait. First, the United States is likely to bring more forces to bear on China than it has against Iran. Second, the Taiwan Strait is far wider than Hormuz, making certain capabilities that China may use less effective. Third, additional actors—including the Taiwanese and Japanese—would play a significant role, with Taiwan seeking to counter Chinese movements in the Strait and the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force potentially joining the fight, one much larger than partner navies are currently playing in the Persian Gulf. Finally, the Chinese military, especially the Chinese Navy, is far more capable than their Iranian counterparts. Despite these important differences, the United States should draw lessons about the missile-interceptor balance and the effectiveness of adversary Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities.
Analyzing Iran’s many tactical and operational successes and their implications for future conflicts may be conducive to overstating their broader military successes. Despite blocking off the strait, depleting United States’ and partner interceptor stocks, and hitting military, political, and economic targets with kinetic and cyberattacks, Iran has had several military and political setbacks and has faced stark losses.
The United States has attacked Iranian minelaying ships attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, potentially destroying several dozen of such vessels, if the Defense Department estimates are accurate. The destruction of so much of Iran’s minelaying force has likely contributed to its inability to deploy more than maybe a dozen mines in the Strait. While Iran has continued missile strikes against American, Gulf Arab, and Israeli targets, American and Israeli precision strikes and sabotage have degraded Iran’s missile capabilities, placing a ceiling on their ultimate effectiveness.
Militarily, Iran is likely to be defeated in this war, facing mounting losses with mounting time. But the war is also taking a major strategic toll on the United States. The cost of achieving America’s shifting war aims—including the decapitation of Iran’s pre-war leadership, degrading Iran’s missile forces, and potentially weakening its ability to restart a nuclear program—has been steep. The United States has burned through a large portion of its interceptor stockpile. The war has placed a high level of stress on the U.S.S. Gerald Ford aircraft carrier and its crew, hampering its future readiness. And Iran has struck and destroyed some critical assets, most important an E-3 Sentry aircraft that is part of the airborne warning and control system. Each of these losses reduces American readiness to respond to crises or counter great power adversaries in the short to mid-term future.
I Hope The US Loses And The Empire Collapses, And Other Notes
Caitlin Johnstone, Apr 15, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/i-hope-the-us-loses-and-the-empire?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=194191543&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I don’t mind admitting that I hope the US and Israel suffer a crushing, devastating defeat in Iran. I hope this war collapses the entire US empire. My only loyalty is to humanity, and being on Team Human in today’s world means being against the US empire and against Israel.
I hope the empire falls. I hope the apartheid state of Israel is dismantled. I hope humanity is able to pry the steering wheel from the fingers of the ghouls who currently rule our world, so that we can create a healthy planet and a harmonious future together.
YouTube has banned the channel that’s been creating viral AI Lego music videos criticizing the US war on Iran. The Google-owned platform claims the Lego videos somehow constituted “violent content”, but we all know it was to facilitate the US propaganda effort by shutting down effective propaganda for the other side.
Silicon Valley is a crucial arm of US imperial control. It chooses to advance the interests of the empire at every significant juncture. It’s a branch of imperial soft power in the same way the military is a branch of imperial hard power.
The US and Israel have so normalized the assassination of national leaders that the mainstream press now discuss it as a standard military tactic. The other day The Washington Post ran an article by Marc Thiessen arguing that the US should “carry out a final barrage of leadership strikes, eliminating the Iranian officials who had been spared for the purpose of negotiations.”
“Iran’s leaders must be made to understand that their lives literally depend on reaching a negotiated settlement to Trump’s liking. If they refuse to do so, they will be killed,” Thiessen writes.
At some point one of America’s enemies is going to assassinate a US official and my replies are going to be full of shrieking, outraged Americans acting like I’m the bad guy when I say Washington had it coming.
Even if the US wasn’t directly responsible for the Strait of Hormuz situation, it would still be the last country on earth with any business whining about it. They’re openly imposing a fuel blockade on Cuba while complaining that nobody should be allowed to block shipping lanes, for Christ’s sake.
❖
The Democratic National Committee voted to reject a resolution denouncing the influence of AIPAC in US politics. Eighty percent of Democrats have a negative view of Israel today. The DNC’s main function is to keep the Democratic Party and its representation on the ballot from reflecting the will of the public.
Dear Trump supporters, send me all of your money. I have a plan to make America great again. I will end all the wars and drain the swamp. Don’t worry if it looks like I’m not doing any of those things, I’m playing 4d chess, trust the plan. Send me your life savings right now.
❖
It’s important not to let them pin this all on Trump, in the same way it’s important not to let them pin Israel’s crimes on Netanyahu. Everything we are seeing with this disastrous Iran war is the product of the entire power structure which gave rise to it, not one guy’s dopey decisions.
The warmongers in the DC swamp have been pushing war with Iran for decades. Trump is just the guy who was chosen by Zionist oligarchs and bloodthirsty empire managers to carry out the deed. He happens to be the face on the operation, but if it wasn’t him it would have been someone else.
American warmongering insanity didn’t start with Trump, and it isn’t going to end with him either. Don’t direct your rage merely at the fleeting puppets who come and go from the imperial stage as the US murder machine trudges onward. Direct it at the empire itself.
THE WAR THEY STARTED—AND LOST: HOW THE U.S. AND ISRAEL TRIGGERED A CRISIS THEY CAN’T CONTROL
April 13, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/13/the-war-they-started-and-lost-how-the-u-s-and-israel-triggered-a-crisis-they-cant-control/
On April 11, independent outlet Consortium News aired a stark assessment of the war on Iran—one that cuts through official narratives and exposes a far more dangerous reality.
Hosted by Joe Lauria and featuring Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Chris Hedges, the program delivers a blunt conclusion:
The United States and Israel have already lost.
Not in rhetoric. Not in headlines.
But in material, strategic, and geopolitical terms.
What is now being presented as diplomacy is, in truth, an attempt to manage the fallout from a war that spiraled beyond control—a war built on flawed assumptions, misread intelligence, and political arrogance.
A WAR BUILT ON FANTASY
The premise was simple: strike Iran, decapitate its leadership, and trigger internal collapse.
It didn’t happen.
Despite assassinations and sustained bombardment, Iran’s government held. Its military capacity remained intact. Its alliances across the region—particularly with groups like Hezbollah—did not fracture.
Instead, the war produced the opposite effect.
Power consolidated internally. Hardline factions strengthened. And Iran adapted quickly, shifting to asymmetrical tactics that exposed vulnerabilities across U.S. and Israeli systems.
U.S. bases in the region were hit. Radar systems were degraded or destroyed. Israeli defenses were strained.
And most critically—Iran retained control over the Strait of Hormuz, the single most important energy chokepoint in the world.
IRAN HOLDS THE LEVERAGE
This is the turning point.
Iran doesn’t need to win a conventional war. It only needs to control the flow of global trade—and it does.
By restricting access to the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has already demonstrated its ability to disrupt global markets, spike energy prices, and threaten cascading economic instability.
The consequences are immediate and global:
- Oil and gas supply disruptions
- Rising food prices tied to fertilizer shortages
- Semiconductor production slowdowns
- Supply chain breakdowns
This is not speculation.
It is already unfolding.
And it is why the United States—despite public posturing—has been pushing urgently for a ceasefire.
NEGOTIATING FROM WEAKNESS
According to Consortium News, Iran entered negotiations holding “almost all of the cards.”
The talks, mediated by Pakistan, reflect not a diplomatic breakthrough but a strategic necessity for Washington.
Iran’s demands are sweeping:
- Guarantees of no further aggression
- Continued control over the Strait of Hormuz
- Recognition of its right to uranium enrichment
- Removal of sanctions
- Withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region
- Compensation for war damages
The U.S. position, by contrast, demands Iran dismantle the very capabilities that now give it leverage.
The result is a fundamental impasse.
ISRAEL’S DIVERGENCE: SABOTAGING THE CEASEFIRE
If Washington is seeking an exit, Israel is moving in the opposite direction.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who played a central role in pushing the United States into the war, has shown no intention of de-escalating. Even as negotiations unfold, Israeli strikes in Lebanon continue—undermining the fragile ceasefire framework.
According to reporting highlighted on the program, Israel’s objective remains unchanged: not containment, but the destruction or fragmentation of Iran as a regional power.
This divergence creates a dangerous dynamic:
- The U.S. seeks de-escalation
- Israel seeks continuation
- Iran demands enforcement
And the entire process hinges on whether Washington can—or will—restrain its closest ally.
Iran has made its position clear: if Israel’s attacks continue, the talks collapse.
A GLOBAL ECONOMIC TIME BOMB
The implications of this conflict extend far beyond the Middle East.
Countries across Asia—Japan, South Korea, India—depend heavily on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Even limited disruption forces emergency responses, including the release of strategic reserves.
The longer instability continues, the greater the risk of systemic economic shock.
We are not looking at a regional downturn.
We are staring at the potential for a global depression-level crisis.
And unlike previous conflicts, this one intersects directly with already fragile supply chains, inflation pressures, and geopolitical fragmentation.
THE COLLAPSE OF U.S. AUTHORITY
Perhaps the most profound consequence of this war is not military—it is structural.
The United States entered the conflict without meaningful consultation with allies. Gulf states—long dependent on U.S. protection—found themselves exposed and targeted. NATO distanced itself. Regional confidence eroded.
The message was unmistakable:
American power no longer guarantees stability.
In some cases, it produces the opposite.
This moment has been compared to the 1956 Suez Crisis—a historical inflection point where imperial limits were exposed to the world.
The comparison is not hyperbole.
A SHIFTING WORLD ORDER
Behind the immediate conflict, a larger transformation is underway.
- China and Russia are increasingly aligned with Iran
- Trade routes are shifting away from dollar dominance
- Regional alliances are recalibrating
- U.S. military infrastructure is being reassessed as a liability
Even financial systems are beginning to reflect the shift, with transactions in key corridors moving away from the dollar.
The foundations of U.S. global dominance—military, economic, and political—are all under strain.
WHAT COMES NEXT
The ceasefire is fragile.
The negotiations are unstable.
And the outcome remains uncertain.
Iran has made clear it is prepared to escalate if its demands are not met. Israel appears willing to continue pushing toward broader conflict. The United States is caught between its strategic commitments and the growing recognition that this war cannot be won.
Any miscalculation—from any side—could trigger a far more catastrophic phase.
THE REALITY THEY CAN’T SPIN
This was not a victory.
It was a miscalculation of historic proportions.
A war launched on the belief that power could dictate outcomes—only to reveal that power itself is shifting.
The language of diplomacy may attempt to soften that reality. But the facts remain:
The United States and Israel initiated a war they could not control.
Iran emerged stronger.
The global economy now hangs in the balance.
And the world, whether Washington acknowledges it or not, is already moving into a new era.
Normalizing zionist terrorism against Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran
Organizing Notes, Bruce Gagnon, April 09, 2026
Pakistan confirmed US and Iranian delegations will meet Friday in Islamabad, with V-P Vance supposedly leading the American team and Ghalibaf heading Iran’s. However, Iran informed mediators its participation is conditional on a Lebanon ceasefire—a condition Washington explicitly rejected. Trump named Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff as special envoys for behind-closed-doors negotiations.
- New footage documents the effects of the occupation’s bombing of a building in the Tellat al-Khayat area of Beirut, Lebanon.
- The Pentagon: Operation Epic Fury is currently paused, objectives have been achieved, and US forces remain on high alert.
- Sheikh Ali Reza Panahian (Iranian Twelver Shia Scholar & official): “If we leave Lebanon to its fate, God will leave us to ours. If we withdraw from the temporary Zionist regime, it will not withdraw from us. We must secure a possible agreement with the U.S. by destroying Israel”.
- Tehran Metro displays slogans and banners including the phrase ‘We will not abandon Lebanon’. A lot of anger among Iranians tonight for ceasefire violations in Lebanon. One man on the street says, ‘We don’t want this cursed ceasefire if our brothers & sisters in Lebanon are being slaughtered. They stood by us, now we should stand by them’.
- Terrorist Netanyahu: The Zionist entity announces its withdrawal from the ceasefire agreement with Iran. The ceasefire will not include Hezbollah, and we will continue striking them. Yesterday we dealt Hezbollah its biggest blow since Operation Siren (the Pager).
- The United States officially announces that the agreement does not include Lebanon and threatens Iran with escalation if it reneges on the agreement. Trump on Lebanon: ‘That’s part of a separate skirmish, okay?’ And the Trump admin says they will be discussing their 15 points, not Iran’s 10 points. (Recall the Native Americans told us that the ‘White man speaks with a forked tongue’.)
- White House spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt: ‘Iran submitted a 10-point proposal, which was ignored by the President’. JD Vance will not be able to take part in negotiations with Iran in Pakistan due to security concerns —Trump told the New York Post. That leaves perennial liars Witcoff and Kushner. Both real estate crooks and not statesmen which are needed but the US doesn’t have any.
- The ceasefire already going down the hill – fast. The death cult bombed a Chinese New Silk Roads railway INSIDE Iran. US-Israel don’t want peace. They are out to take down all BRICS+ nations. The collective west is in a war to stop the fall of the colonial genocide project. This is a war of massive desperation.
- Iranian National Security Expert Mostafa Najafi: ‘Pakistan’s mediation should be approached with skepticism and caution. It is a country heavily reliant on Saudi Arabia financially, and since Trump came to power, it has sought various ways to curry favor with Washington! It is not unlikely that what is happening in Lebanon is the result of Pakistan’s cunning, acting as a covert agent for the Saudis! The Saudis harbor animosity toward Hezbollah in Lebanon no less than that of Israel! To what extent can Pakistan be relied upon to convey messages’?
- Don’t forget Pakistan’s very popular Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister, is rotting in prison on trumped up charges because he dared support true peace in regional hotspots around the globe.
- Iran has emerged as victorious in the public mind throughout the entire world.
- New York Times: ‘Trump faces political pressure preventing him from resuming the war’. Who could be exerting pressure? The American people? Yes. Global public opinion? Yes. The Iranians, Lebanese, Palestinians, people in Yemen and Iraq? Yes. Then who wants Trump to keep the war going? Israel, Wall Street and the military industrial complex….along of course with the Epstein class. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/04/normalizing-zionist-mobster-terrorism.html
What secret report reveals about British nuclear weapons tests – veterans claimed they were harmed by the fallout
Christopher R. Hill, Professor of History, Faculty of Business and Creative Industries, University of South Wales, Jonathan Hogg, Senior Lecturer in Twentieth Century History, School of Histories, Languages and Cultures, University of Liverpoo, l April 15, 2026 https://theconversation.com/what-secret-report-reveals-about-british-nuclear-weapons-tests-veterans-claimed-they-were-harmed-by-the-fallout-280189
“The Ministry of Defence has always maintained that it never rained,” said Ken McGinley, founder of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). “I’m sorry, you’re liars … I was there!”
McGinley, who was a royal engineer, gave this interview in January 2024, shortly before his death, as part of our Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans project.
McGinley was present during the Grapple nuclear weapons test series, conducted by the UK on the central Pacific island of Kiritimati (also known as Christmas Island) in the late 1950s. At the time, this remote atoll was inhabited by 250 villagers as well as thousands of British servicemen.
For decades, many of those present during this and other above-ground British nuclear weapons tests have argued they were harmed by radioactive fallout. McGinley founded the BNTVA in 1983 to “gain recognition and restitution” for the veterans who took part in British and American nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965.
Rain became a key symbol in their argument as one of the only tangible signs of fallout taking place. The nuclear physicist Sir Joseph Rotblat described these alleged post-blast showers as “rainout”, a phenomenon whereby rain and mushroom clouds interact, leading to the contamination of rain droplets by harmful radionuclides.
In almost all cases, any link to subsequent health issues has been denied by the UK government because of lack of evidence of widespread radioactive contamination. However, a review of the evidence – written in 2014 by anonymous government scientists in response to freedom of information requests – was recently leaked by whistleblowers.
It reveals that post-blast radiation readings increased by a factor of up to seven on the island, compared with the normal background level. In our view, this would be more than enough to satisfy the “reasonable doubt” that tribunals require for veterans to receive a war pension due to illness or injury related to their service, as stated in the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Services Pension Order.
The top secret review, first revealed publicly by the Mirror newspaper on March 14 2026, also contains new evidence of radioactive contamination of fish in the island’s waters.
The repeated dismissal of veterans’ testimony in court cases and pension appeals caused stress and trauma for many. The majority died insisting they were not deceitful or forgetful – and that it did indeed rain while they were living on Kiritimati.
Factually inaccurate’
Kiritimati was monitored for fallout by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after each detonation over the island – the largest of which, Grapple Y, was 200 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
In 1993, environmental monitoring data was collated into a report by a team at the MoD’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Known as the Clare report, this informed the UK’s official position on fallout: namely, that none occurred over populated areas and that veterans would need to prove otherwise to secure redress.
However, the 2014 review of fallout data concluded the Clare report was “incomplete and, in some cases, factually inaccurate”.
Despite this review being passed on to the MoD, however, it was kept secret for more than a decade. Following its release, the legal implications could be gamechanging. According to the 2014 review: “The instrument readings could potentially be used to challenge the validity of statements made by MoD and UK government regarding … fallout on Christmas Island.”
In a recent House of Commons debate on the issue, the UK minister for veterans and people, Louise Sandher-Jones, confirmed her commitment “to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency … They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them.”
What Merlin reveals
Behind the scenes, the release of newly declassified archival material in the publicly accessible Merlin database has added to calls for government accountability about the nuclear tests.
Compiled by the treasury solicitor during a class action against the MoD between 2009 and 2012, the database was stored at AWE until the journalist and author Susie Boniface discovered it held information about the medical monitoring of servicemen and Indigenous people. Her work led to its release in 2025.
Holding over 28,000 files, Merlin was commissioned by the MoD in response to the compensation claims made by almost 1,000 veterans from 2009. Its contents include official reports and communications, photographs, maps, safety guidelines and health monitoring information. Video footage includes the Grapple X test in November 1957.
A University of Liverpool team based in The Centre for People’s Justice and the Department of History is working with Boniface and campaign group Labrats International to catalogue and analyse the contents of Merlin – combining it with other sources, including personal testimony. Recently released files indicate nuclear fallout in the island’s ground sediment and rainwater, and heightened radioactivity in its clams.
Evidence has also emerged of radioactive waste being dropped from aeroplanes into the sea off Queensland in 1958 and 1959. Although dumping radioactive waste was surprisingly common during the cold war, this revelation raises questions about how risk and danger was understood and managed during Britain’s nuclear test programme.
The files also show workers without protective clothing around a plutonium pit at Maralinga in South Australia, site of seven British atmospheric nuclear tests in 1956-57.
The Merlin releases have galvanised claims that not so long ago may have been interpreted as conjecture. The recent releases suggest that servicemen and islanders were exposed to radioactive fallout – not just from rain showers, but from the fish they ate and the water they drank.
While a causal link with subsequent health conditions would be hard to prove, we believe it is time for the UK government to get behind a public inquiry into the full impact of Britain’s nuclear weapons testing programme.
Chernobyl at risk of ‘catastrophic’ collapse as haunting new images of nuclear site emerge
It’s nearly 40 years since the world’s most terrifying nuclear disaster and rare access in side the stricken plant show how it looks today
By Johnny Goldsmith, Picture Editor, 14 Apr 2026, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gallery/chernobyl-risk-catastrophic-collapse-haunting-37009206
As the war in Ukraine continues to rage, haunting new images have emerged from inside the site of the world’s most terrifying nuclear catastrophe.
AFP photographer Genya Savilov alongside Greenpeace have been given rare access inside the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history.
An uncontrolled collapse of the internal radiation shell at the defunct Chernobyl nuclear power station in Ukraine could increase the risk of radioactivity release in the environment, Greenpeace have warned.
Our gallery reveals the eerie reality of the plant today, nearly 40 years after the 1986 explosion sent radioactive fallout spewing across the globe.
It was on 26th April 1986 when an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine caused radioactive fallout to begin spewing into the atmosphere.
Dozens of people were killed in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, while the long-term death toll from radiation poisoning is believed to number in the thousands.
How efficiency measures could almost halve industrial energy demand globally
Stuart Stone, 15 April 2026
How efficiency measures could almost halve industrial energy demand
globally. Implementing proven efficiency measures could reduce energy
demand from heavy industry and carbon intensive sectors by up to 45 per
cent and slash global energy investment needs by an estimated $15tr through
to 2050. while enhancing energy and resource security, new study claims……………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.businessgreen.com/news-analysis/4528346/efficiency-measures-halve-industrial-energy-demand-globally
Mass Destruction in Southern Lebanon as Israeli Forces Use ‘Gaza Tactics,’ Level Villages
Satellite images confirm over 1,400 buildings destroyed in Israeli invasion
by Jason Ditz | April 16, 2026, https://news.antiwar.com/2026/04/16/mass-destruction-in-southern-lebanon-as-israeli-forces-use-gaza-tactics-level-villages/
Israeli officials have been saying they intended to apply a Gaza Strip model to the invasion of Lebanon, but the extent of the destruction inflicted on the southern part of Lebanon in the first month and a half of the war is even bigger than initially feared.
New reports from the BBC are that they’ve visually confirmed more than 1,400 buildings destroyed in the course of the Israeli offensive using satellite imagery and that, given the limited access on the ground, the true number is potentially far higher.
Images show that villages like Taybeh have been effectively erased, and while it’s being done concurrently with an invasion and occupation, much of the actual destruction is being inflicted by Israeli military bulldozers and demolition crews, explicitly destroying the buildings.
That’s illegal under international law, though the IDF maintains they do “not allow the destruction of property unless there is an imperative military necessity.” In as much as Israel is wiping entire villages off the map systematically and demolishing civilian residences, it would be a real legal challenge to argue that was actually a military necessity above and beyond territorial ambitions on the Israeli far-right.
It’s not only the villages. Part of a UNESCO-listed historical site in Shamaa, the shrine of Prophet Shimon al-Safa, was bulldozed by Israeli forces before its ruins were further leveled by artillery fire. It’s a religious site that includes a Shi’ite mosque.
Here again, the destruction of a shrine with aspects dating back to the 11th century is going to fuel long-term resentment about the Israeli offensive, but importantly, it would also be difficult to argue that such an ancient shrine had any specific, immediate military requirement to be destroyed.
Israel’s promise of Gaza tactics seems definitely to have come to pass, but beyond Israeli military intentions to install more permanent military bases on Lebanese soil, practical policy has been forced mass displacement and systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, both war crimes under international law.
Jason Ditz is Senior Editor for Antiwar.com. He has 20 years of experience in foreign policy research and his work has appeared in The American Conservative, Responsible Statecraft, Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Washington Times, and the Detroit Free Press.
Chernobyl could face ‘catastrophic’ collapse as repairs stall following Russian drone strike.
euro news, By Evelyn Ann-Marie Dom, 14/04/2026
Failure to repair the protective structure around the nuclear site could unleash ‘highly radioactive dust’ that ‘does not recognise borders’, experts warn.
A potential collapse of the internal radiation shelter at the defunct Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine could risk a release of radioactivity into the environment, Greenpeace warned on Tuesday (14 April).
It comes just days before the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which remains the world’s worst nuclear disaster. On 26 April 1986, while Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, a reactor at the plant exploded, contaminating a vast area spanning Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
Following the disaster, an inner steel-and-concrete structure, known as the sarcophagus, was hastily built around the destroyed reactor to prevent further radiation leaks.
Years later in November 2016, a high-tech metal dome called the New Safe Confinement (NSC) structure was built, at a cost of €1.5 billion, to reinforce the inner shell.
Why are experts concerned about Chernobyl?
……..While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initially had not reported any radiation leaks, in December it confirmed that the drone impact had degraded the steel structure and that it no longer blocked radiation.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said that an inspection “confirmed that the [protective structure] had lost its primary safety functions, including the confinement capability, but also found that there was no permanent damage to its load-bearing structures or monitoring systems.”
Grossi added that while some repairs had taken place, “comprehensive restoration remains essential to prevent further degradation and ensure long-term nuclear safety”
Chernobyl requires an estimated €500 million in repairs
Last month, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot estimated the dome required almost €500 million in repairs.
“We presented this evening the first financial estimate of the damage caused by this drone which amounts to around €500 million,” said Barrot after chairing a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in March.
Greenpeace reported that despite some repair efforts, the protective shield has not yet been fully restored. The organisation warned that this increases the risk of radioactivity release, especially in the case of a collapse of the internal structure.
“That would be catastrophic because there’s four tonnes of dust, highly radioactive dust, fuel pellets, enormous amounts of radioactivity inside the sarcophagus,” senior nuclear specialist for Greenpeace Ukraine, Shaun Burnie, told media agency AFP earlier this month.
“And because the New Safe Confinement cannot be repaired at the moment, it cannot function as it was designed, there’s a possibility of radioactive releases,” Burnie added.
‘Radioactive particles do not recognise borders’
The deconstruction of unstable elements of the inner shell is crucial to prevent an uncontrolled collapse, Greenpeace said, but further works to the site have been impeded by Russia’s ongoing attacks.
In addition to Greenpeace’s warning, the power plant’s director Sergiy Tarakanov has also warned that if a rocket were to land near the facility, the structure could be at risk of collapsing due to the impact.
“And from what the 1986 accident showed us…the radioactive particles do not recognise borders,” Tarakanov added. https://www.euronews.com/2026/04/14/chernobyl-could-face-catastrophic-collapse-as-repairs-stall-following-russian-drone-strike
Greenham Women’s Peace Camp: The forgotten protest against nuclear weapons that lasted 19 years
Writing her novel Fallout – set against the backdrop of the Greenham Women’s Peace Camp – turned Eleanor Anstruther into an anarchist
Eleanor Anstruther, The Big Issue, 16 Apr 2026,
You’d have thought a protest that lasted 19 years, involved hundreds of thousands of people, achieved its aims through non-violent direct action and was women-only would already be assured of its place in history. If not in the story of women, then surely as a module in a political degree, or on the school curriculum alongside the suffragettes, apartheid, Gandhi and the American civil rights movement.
Yet throughout all my research and the many conversations I’ve had since writing Fallout, I’ve only met one – yes, you read that right, one – person under the age of 30 who’d heard of it, and she was a journalist who’d studied politics at university and consciously sought out the missing pieces in the history of British civil disobedience.
.
Even those of us who knew about Greenham from seeing it on the news as young people ourselves in the Eighties are surprised when I tell them how long it lasted. “Nineteen years?” They say, incredulously. “Yes,” I reply,“ and in the signing of the INF treaty which marked the removal of the cruise missiles from RAF Greenham Common, Reagan and Gorbachev cited Greenham women as part of their inspiration.
The leaders of America and Russia, locked for so long in a deadly battle of mutually assured destruction (or MAD for short) found it in themselves to namecheck these women who refused to give in to bullying, not only from the government but consistently from the British media. Yet, the history books? Barely a whisper. A level politics? Forget it. Primary school dress-up days? You can’t move for Emmeline Pankhursts, but Greenham women are nowhere to be found.
Can you hear the outrage in my voice? You’d be right in thinking Fallout is more to me than a book. I thought I knew about Greenham until I started researching it and I thought I had a pretty good handle on the history of protest until I started talking to Greenham women. I’ve been holding up banners and holding up the traffic for much of my adult life, but writing Fallout turned me into an anarchist, and I mean that in the true sense of the word; a belief in the goodness of people to organise themselves around caring for one another.
Because more than a political action which got rid of the bombs and reclaimed the land, Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp was living proof of our ability to share space with conflicting opinions. Greenham was not one-size-fits-all. It was an idea, not an ideology, and no one, as far as I know, was thrown out of camp for failing to comply. There was no dogma to comply with, and not everyone who came to Greenham was there for political reasons…………………………………….
The women who did leave home to take up space at Greenham did so at their peril – not only physically at the hands of the police but also reputationally throughout their towns and villages. They weren’t held up as icons by their children and husbands; they were lambasted for failing their families.
And this weapon was liberally used by state and media too, shaming them into returning home and if they refused, shaming them on the front pages of national newspapers.
Yet they persisted. Through biting winters and heatwave summers, through prison and beatings and bailiffs and the nighttime assaults by local vigilante groups who tore through camp on motorbikes hurling buckets of blood and maggots.
Despite every effort by the government to get the women to give up and go home, they stood firm. They crawled through brambles, bolt cutters down their boots to cut the fence, proving how poorly the bombs were defended. They threw carpets over barbed wire and danced on the silos. They sang and weaved and fought and held hands and were funny and refused to back down, and they won.
When young people, overwhelmed by the challenge before them, ask me what can be done, I point them towards Greenham. Look, I say. Look what they did. Never underestimate the power of being consistently and creatively annoying. Believe in your rage. There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. Greenham women are all of us and we are everywhere. https://www.bigissue.com/news/activism/greenham-womens-peace-camp-eleanor-anstruther/
Amid the Iran chaos, war over Taiwan just became less likely
by Marcus Reubenstein | Apr 15, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/amid-the-iran-chaos-war-over-taiwan-just-became-less-likely/
Last week’s meeting between Beijing and Taiwan’s main opposition leader is a bad sign for the China hawks and a sign of rapprochement. Marcus Reubenstein reports.
The combination of the US-Israel war on Iran and the anti-China media narrative in Australia has meant the visit of the leader of Taiwan’s main opposition party, Cheng Li-wun, to China has largely been ignored. Cheng chairs the Kuomintang (KMT) party, and she spent five days in mainland China from the 7th until the 12th of April.
Her public pronouncements indicate a belief that it is not in Taiwan’s interest to pin all of its hopes on an economic and military alliance with the US, and its future is better served with a pivot towards Beijing.
A significant proportion of Taiwan’s population does not want armed conflict with China. More importantly, Taiwan’s political leaders are acknowledging the fact that the US is becoming an increasingly unhinged and unreliable ally.
As reported by NBC News, Cheng points to Ukraine, saying,
“People do not want to see Taiwan become the next Ukraine.”
Add to that mix that Taiwan gets 70% of its oil from the Middle East, there is sentiment in Taiwan that the US bombing of Iran has been disastrously thought out and delivers Taiwan massive economic pain. Will Taiwan risk becoming the centrepiece of a future US military disaster?
In December, Cheng told the New York Times, “Could it be the United States is treating Taiwan as a chess piece, a pawn strategically opposing the Chinese Communist Party at opportune times?”
Taiwan’s ruling DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) had attempted to push a $US40B arms deal with the US through parliament in March, but that was sunk by Cheng’s KMT. The ruling DPP was eventually able to get a deal worth just $US11B through – around one third of an AUKUS submarine.
Cheng’s China visit
The visit to China by Taiwan’s opposition leader took in three very significant cities, Nanjing, Shanghai and Beijing. Shanghai and Beijing, as financial and political capitals, were logical, but Nanjing is of great historical significance.
She visited the Sun Yat‑sen Mausoleum in Nanjing with a large Taiwanese delegation, a site honouring the founding father of the Republic of China, revered in both Taiwan and mainland China. Nanjing is also the site of one of Japan’s greatest wartime atrocities, the so-called Rape of Nanjing.
A small number of hardline figures in Japan’s ruling LDP continue to deny Japanese participated in any wartime atrocities. The LDP’s newly elected prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, stating that Japan would send in its military to aid Taiwan in any conflict with China, has dramatically escalated tensions between Beijing and Tokyo.
Takaichi is one of Japan’s most pro-US leaders, and Cheng’s visit to Nanjing would not be lost on the US. By extension, Cheng’s point of visiting Nanjing could be seen as a backhanded message to Japan, which hosts 55,000 US troops, to stay out of Taiwan’s affairs.
Implications for Australia
Cheng’s trip to China has implications for Australia and our foreign policies towards both our biggest trading partner and most important strategic partner.
The Albanese government has gone all in on the US’s East Asia military push, and now the US is showing clear signs of stress. The US has redeployed Thaad missile systems from South Korea to fight its war with Iran, while supercarrier naval vessels based in Japan, and operating in the South China Sea, have also been sent to the Gulf. Despite being the greatest military power in global history, it’s obvious it doesn’t take much to wear US forces thin.
Neither Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, nor Defence Minister Richard Marles has deviated from Australia’s blind support for the US war on Iran.
The question is, will they follow the US into an inevitably disastrous war against China or, worse still, act as a proxy in a future war?
Australia’s tilt towards offensive military capability, also enthusiastically supported by the LNP opposition, and the billions committed to submarines which may never arrive, do not augur well.
If the US cannot defeat Iran, there is no path to victory against an equally determined China, far better equipped, with the world’s second largest economy, and that is not a pariah state.
1×1515
2:54 / 8:51
1×1515
0:16 / 8:51
Last week’s meeting between Beijing and Taiwan’s main opposition leader is a bad sign for the China hawks and a sign of rapprochement. Marcus Reubenstein reports.
The combination of the US-Israel war on Iran and the anti-China media narrative in Australia has meant the visit of the leader of Taiwan’s main opposition party, Cheng Li-wun, to China has largely been ignored. Cheng chairs the Kuomintang (KMT) party, and she spent five days in mainland China from the 7th until the 12th of April.
Her public pronouncements indicate a belief that it is not in Taiwan’s interest to pin all of its hopes on an economic and military alliance with the US, and its future is better served with a pivot towards Beijing.
A significant proportion of Taiwan’s population does not want armed conflict with China. More importantly, Taiwan’s political leaders are acknowledging the fact that the US is becoming an increasingly unhinged and unreliable ally.
As reported by NBC News, Cheng points to Ukraine, saying,
People do not want to see Taiwan become the next Ukraine.
Add to that mix that Taiwan gets 70% of its oil from the Middle East, there is sentiment in Taiwan that the US bombing of Iran has been disastrously thought out and delivers Taiwan massive economic pain. Will Taiwan risk becoming the centrepiece of a future US military disaster?
In December, Cheng told the New York Times, “Could it be the United States is treating Taiwan as a chess piece, a pawn strategically opposing the Chinese Communist Party at opportune times?”
Taiwan’s ruling DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) had attempted to push a $US40B arms deal with the US through parliament in March, but that was sunk by Cheng’s KMT. The ruling DPP was eventually able to get a deal worth just $US11B through – around one third of an AUKUS submarine.
Cheng’s China visit
The visit to China by Taiwan’s opposition leader took in three very significant cities, Nanjing, Shanghai and Beijing. Shanghai and Beijing, as financial and political capitals, were logical, but Nanjing is of great historical significance.
She visited the Sun Yat‑sen Mausoleum in Nanjing with a large Taiwanese delegation, a site honouring the founding father of the Republic of China, revered in both Taiwan and mainland China. Nanjing is also the site of one of Japan’s greatest wartime atrocities, the so-called Rape of Nanjing.
A small number of hardline figures in Japan’s ruling LDP continue to deny Japanese participated in any wartime atrocities. The LDP’s newly elected prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, stating that Japan would send in its military to aid Taiwan in any conflict with China, has dramatically escalated tensions between Beijing and Tokyo.
Takaichi is one of Japan’s most pro-US leaders, and Cheng’s visit to Nanjing would not be lost on the US. By extension, Cheng’s point of visiting Nanjing could be seen as a backhanded message to Japan, which hosts 55,000 US troops, to stay out of Taiwan’s affairs.
Implications for Australia
Cheng’s trip to China has implications for Australia and our foreign policies towards both our biggest trading partner and most important strategic partner.
The Albanese government has gone all in on the US’s East Asia military push, and now the US is showing clear signs of stress. The US has redeployed Thaad missile systems from South Korea to fight its war with Iran, while supercarrier naval vessels based in Japan, and operating in the South China Sea, have also been sent to the Gulf. Despite being the greatest military power in global history, it’s obvious it doesn’t take much to wear US forces thin.
Neither Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, nor Defence Minister Richard Marles has deviated from Australia’s blind support for the US war on Iran.
The question is, will they follow the US into an inevitably disastrous war against China or, worse still, act as a proxy in a future war?
Australia’s tilt towards offensive military capability, also enthusiastically supported by the LNP opposition, and the billions committed to submarines which may never arrive, do not augur well.
If the US cannot defeat Iran, there is no path to victory against an equally determined China, far better equipped, with the world’s second largest economy, and that is not a pariah state.
Respected US political scientist Professor John Mearsheimer says, US President Donald Trump’s war with Iran is “manna from heaven” for China. He argues the war on Iran has made the US an irresponsible stakeholder in the international system and that China looks like the “adults in the room.”
China’s carrot and stick
China’s approach to Taiwan, and more broadly to much of its global diplomacy, has been a mix of carrot and stick. Beijing is still dangling carrots in front of Taiwan. Reunification with Taiwan remains the endgame,
“but the overwhelming desire is that it should be achieved peacefully.”
Cheng was warmly received by Chinese President Xi Jinping, and following Cheng’s visit, the Chinese government announced a list of ten new policies to promote economic and travel initiatives to strengthen ties between Beijing and Taiwan.
In the background, a looming stick could be an easily achievable Chinese blockade of commercial shipping around Taiwan. As Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates, it doesn’t take a great deal of military firepower to cripple an economy.
What would, or could, Australia do to intervene? Hypothetically, that is a question which may face Australia, but a reconciliation, indeed possible unification between Taiwan and China, would render moot Australia’s current strategic policy.
Taiwan’s future?
While opinions in Taiwan about Cheng are divided, she has a realistic chance of becoming Taiwan’s next president at the 2028 election. To win, she doesn’t only have to run on China policy; there are plenty of domestic issues facing voters. Also, there is no suggestion that a reunified Taiwan would be considered as a province of China. Instead, it would become a special administrative region, citizens would keep their Taiwanese passports, and the New Taiwan Dollar would remain the official currency.The line in the sand for Beijing would be separatist movements and their sympathisers speaking out publicly. Taiwan would also be prohibited from entering into any military alliances or agreements with other nations.
While this is the same set of conditions imposed on Hong Kong, Taiwan hardly has a tradition of democracy. For its first four decades as a territory, it was governed under martial law, and it wasn’t until 1996 that democratic presidential elections were held.
Current president, Lai Ching-te, is unpopular with his approval rating sinking to 33% in late 2025, having recovered to the low 40% mark in the most recent polls. Cheng’s approval rating is lower, reflecting the distrust Taiwanese people have for their political leaders.
In terms of specific issues, concerns over the economy rank first for Taiwanese voters.
The Chinese, that is to say those of Chinese ethnicity, are by and large very pragmatic. Cheng is betting on a belief that close ties with China represent the future and that the
“Taiwanese people will come to distrust Washington more than they distrust Beijing.”
Netanyahu Doctrine: How one man’s war addiction is consuming Israel, Lebanon, and the World
The concept of Greater Israel – a territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Turkey – is not a fringe fantasy. It is the stated aspiration of the Netanyahu government.
Israel is not being destroyed by its enemies. It is being destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The addiction to war, the messianic ideology, the economic unsustainability, the exodus of the educated – these are not external threats. They are internal cancers.
15 April 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-netanyahu-doctrine-how-one-mans-war-addiction-is-consuming-israel-lebanon-and-the-world/
From the ‘Villa in the Jungle’ to the ‘Greater Israel Nightmare’
I. Introduction: The Doctrine of Perpetual War
On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. Hamas militants crossed from Gaza, unimpeded, and killed and tortured Israeli civilians. That day alone should have disqualified Benjamin Netanyahu from office. In most political systems, he would have been driven from power long ago.
Instead, he did what he has always done: he escalated.
What emerged from the ashes of October 7 is what analysts now call the Netanyahu Doctrine – a security strategy based not on containment, not on deterrence, but on perpetual war. As Netanyahu himself told military officers:
“No more containment of threats. No more the idea of the ‘villa in the jungle’, where one hides from predators beyond the wall. On the contrary: if you don’t go into the jungle, the jungle comes to you.”
The doctrine is simple: preventive attacks against every perceived threat, the creation of buffer zones through the seizure of neighbouring territories, and the constant use of force as the only guarantee of security. It is a doctrine born of trauma, shaped by political expediency, and devoid of any long-term diplomatic vision.
This article examines the Netanyahu Doctrine in action: in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, and against Iran. It documents the destruction, the displacement, and the erosion of Israel’s international standing. It argues that Netanyahu is not a strategist – he is an opportunist. He does not plan for the long term. He plans for the next distraction.
And the world is always distracted.
II. The Greater Israel Dream: From the Nile to the Euphrates
The doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The buffer zone is not the goal. The settlements are the goal. The land clearance is not for defence. It is for colonisation.
The concept of Greater Israel – a territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Turkey – is not a fringe fantasy. It is the stated aspiration of the Netanyahu government.
This is not a fringe position. It is the official policy of the Netanyahu government. And it is being executed.
III. Lebanon: The Pattern Repeats
The same pattern as Gaza. The same destruction. The same rubble.
On March 2, 2026, Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The stated goal was to create a “buffer zone” up to the Litani River, approximately 30 kilometres north of Israel’s border, to protect northern Israeli communities from Hezbollah rockets.
The reality is different. The buffer zone is not a buffer. It is a land grab. The territory up to the Litani is not needed for defence. It is needed for settlements.
Defence Minister Israel Katz has been explicit:
“All houses in villages near the Lebanese border will be destroyed, in accordance with the model used in Rafah and Beit Hanoun in Gaza, in order to permanently remove the threats near the border.” Displaced residents will not be allowed to return south of the Litani “until the safety and security of residents of northern Israel is guaranteed” – a condition that may never be met.
The human cost in Lebanon (as of April 2026):
- 1,268 people killed in Israeli strikes, including 125 children and 52 medics
- 303 killed in a single day (April 8, 2026) – one of the deadliest bombings ever inflicted on Lebanon
- 1,200+ killed and 1.2 million displaced since March 2
- 1,094 confirmed martyrs and 3,119 injured according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.
The air force can project power anywhere. The ground troops are not needed for security. They are needed for clearance.
IV. Conflicting Views: Military vs. Political Leadership
The Israeli military and political leadership are not aligned. The military leaders want a buffer zone. The political leaders want settlements.
In early April 2026, the Israeli army proposed a revised set of objectives for its operations in Lebanon, limiting the goal of disarming Hezbollah to areas south of the Litani River, rather than across the entire country. The proposal triggered sharp disagreements with Israel’s political leadership, leading to the postponement of a cabinet meeting.
Foreign Minister Israel Katz was among those who opposed the plan. Under the alternative military approach, the army would focus on the large-scale destruction of villages in South Lebanon and the forced displacement of their citizens to establish a buffer zone.
The gap is not a failure of communication. It is a feature. The ambiguity provides cover. The confusion provides deniability.
The military leaders can say: “We were only establishing a buffer zone.”
The political leaders can say: “The military recommended it.”
And the settlers move in.
V. The Economic Cost: Israel Cannot Afford This War
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not sustainable. The economic numbers are stark.
The cost to Israel:
The defence budget has ballooned. The army needs approximately 15,000 more soldiers, half of them for ground combat units. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned the government: “I am raising 10 red flags. If this continues, the Israeli army will collapse from within.”- The ultra-Orthodox community, which relies heavily on state benefits, is expected to triple by 2065, pushing the burden on non-Orthodox households to the equivalent of 60,000 shekels ($19,370) a year.
- Foreign investment is down. Institutional investors have been moving money out of the country since the 2008 financial crisis.
- More than 150,000 people have left Israel in the past two years, and more than 200,000 since the current government took office in December 2022. The educated upper class are more able to leave – they speak English, can find jobs, and are more exposed to international media.
The cost to Lebanon:
The Lebanese economy, already in freefall, is being shattered. The destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of 1.2 million people, and the loss of agricultural land in the south will take decades to repair.- Sectarian tensions are rising. Non-Shi’a Lebanese are increasingly ostracising the Shi’a community, viewing them as a liability that brings Israeli bombs. The country’s fragile social fabric is tearing apart.
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. And expansion costs money that Israel does not have.
VI. The Sabra and Shatila Precedent
This is not the first time Israel has invaded Lebanon. It is not the first time the world has been distracted. And it is not the first time the consequences have been catastrophic.
In 1982, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon and besieged Beirut. On 16 September, under Israeli supervision and protection, Lebanese Forces militias entered the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. For 43 hours, they tortured and killed everyone they came across. They crushed the heads of children and babies against walls. They raped women and girls before slaughtering them. They dismembered their victims.
An estimated 3,500 to 4,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed.
The Israeli government did not deny that it had overseen the camps. It denied knowledge of the massacre, despite order number 6 of the Israel Defense Forces command stating that “the refugee camps are not to be entered” and that “searching and mopping up the camps will be done by the Phalangists/Lebanese Army.”
The Kahan Commission found Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon “personally responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge.” He was forced to resign.
The world was shocked. The world moved on. And Israel invaded Lebanon again.
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not new. It is the same doctrine, dressed in new clothes, enabled by a distracted world, and executed with unprecedented brutality.
VII. The UN Warning: ‘The Gaza Model Must Not Be Replicated’
The international community is not silent. But its warnings are being ignored.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has issued a warning cry, stressing that the model of destruction witnessed in the Gaza Strip must not be repeated in Lebanese territories. He described the humanitarian repercussions as severe and requiring immediate intervention to prevent a slide towards a comprehensive catastrophe.
Stanford Law Professor Tom Dannenbaum warned that destroying all homes near the Lebanese border would not meet the standard of “absolute military necessity” required by the laws of war. “The unnecessary destruction of property can qualify as a war crime,” he said. Katz’s comments barring residents from returning home “strongly indicate an illegal policy of long-term or permanent displacement.”
European countries have called on Israel to avoid further escalation. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory was a “violation of their territorial sovereignty” and condemned it.
The world is not silent. But the world is distracted.
VIII. The Netanyahu Doctrine: A Record of Failure
Jonathan Freedland, writing in The Guardian, sums up the Netanyahu record:
“This is now the fourth time in a row – in Gaza, once in Lebanon and twice in Iran – that Netanyahu’s boasts of total victory and the removal of existential threats have been exposed as empty promises.”
The failures are clear:
Gaza: Netanyahu promised “total victory” over Hamas. After a two-year campaign that killed approximately 70,000 people, Hamas still rules the ruins of half of Gaza.- Lebanon (first round): Netanyahu boasted that he had “vanquished” Hezbollah, destroying its ability to menace northern Israel. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets.
- Iran (first round, June 2025): Netanyahu described the 12-day confrontation with Iran as a “historic victory that will stand for generations.” Eight months later, Tehran was once again said to pose an existential threat.
- Iran (second round, February-April 2026): Iran still has a stockpile of enriched uranium. Its rulers remain in place, more hardline than before. Tehran has demonstrated a mighty deterrent – a chokehold on the global economy in the form of the Strait of Hormuz.
As Yair Golan, the Israeli opposition politician and former general, observed: Netanyahu “does not know how to turn military achievements into political security.” There is no attempt to seize diplomatic openings, no effort to turn Israel’s enemies’ enemies into friends.
The Lebanese government and much of its people are desperate to be rid of the Hezbollah cuckoo in their nest. But Netanyahu speaks to them only through bombs.
IX. The Strait of Hormuz Distraction
The timing of the Lebanon escalation is not accidental. The world is focused on Trump and Iran. The media is focused on oil prices. The public is focused on the cost.
On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched joint military strikes against Iran. The war has spread across the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively blockaded. Oil prices have spiked. Inflation is rising. The global economy is bleeding.
Netanyahu is taking advantage. He always does.
The Iranian threat is not existential. It is useful. The fear is the tool. The distraction is the opportunity.
Netanyahu has been playing this game for decades. He is very good at it.
X. What This Means: The Erosion of Israel’s Standing
The Netanyahu Doctrine has gained nothing. And it has come at a monstrously high price.
Most obviously, in the lives of all those killed – whether in Rafah or the Bekaa Valley or Israel itself. But it has also inflicted perhaps irreparable damage on Israel’s standing in the world. Every day Netanyahu remains in post, he makes his country more of a pariah.
The Knesset has passed a racist law that will, in effect, impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of terrorist murderers – but not Jews. The bill was driven by Itamar Ben-Gvir, but Netanyahu went out of his way to vote for it.
Israel is not being destroyed by its enemies. It is being destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The addiction to war, the messianic ideology, the economic unsustainability, the exodus of the educated – these are not external threats. They are internal cancers.
The collapse will not be dramatic. It will be bureaucratic. The economy will contract. The allies will defect. The public will turn. The reservists will refuse. The militias will fight each other.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis will pass. The oil prices will stabilise. The media will move on.
But the land in Lebanon will not return. The settlements will not be dismantled. The buffer zone will become permanent .
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The existential threat is not a threat. It is an excuse.
And the world is too distracted to notice.
XI. A Final Word
The Netanyahu Doctrine is a death spiral – for Israel, for Lebanon, for the region. It is a doctrine of perpetual war, sustained by distraction, enabled by silence, and paid for with the bodies of the innocent.
The question is not whether Israel will collapse. The question is how many more must die before the world stops looking away.
Sources……………………………………..
Congress A-OK with Trump murdering thousands in Iran and crashing the world economy
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL . 17 April 2026
On Thursday the US House completed Congress’ capitulation to Trump’s deranged, failed war to destroy Iran on behalf of Israel.
The House voted 214 -213 to defeat a War Powers Resolution directing Trump to end his failed Iran war. All Democrats but 1 (Rep. Jared Golden) voted to end the war. All Republicans but 1 (Rep. Tom Massie) voted to keep up the murder and mayhem destroying Iran, Israel, Gulf States, and possibly sending the world economy into recession.
A day earlier the Senate put their ignominious approval on Trump’s madness, defeating their War Powers Resolution by a wider margin of 47-52. Again just 1 Republican (Sen. Rand Paul) voted to end the war and 1 Democrat (Sen. John Fetterman) voted to keep it killing and blowing up the world economy.
Republicans both support whatever Trump promotes and relish endless wars in furtherance of US world dominance no matter how murderous and criminal they are. One Republican representative and senator opposing Trump’s criminal wars out of 274 GOP congresspersons disgraces the Grand Old (War) Party.
Democrats are minimally better. Their War Powers vote was more connected to their opposing anything trump supports. They largely enable US military adventurism worldwide, unlimited military spending in support thereof, and acquiescing in Israeli genocide in Gaza and relentless bombing of civilians in Lebanon. They, like nearly the entire GOP, are bought and paid for by US weapons makers and the US Israel Lobby.
As criminally murderous are Trump and his war party of Hegseth, Vance and Rubio, they could not proceed without the support of Congress. By funding Trump’s endless wars, refusing to condemn them thru War Powers Resolutions and gobbling up pro war campaign cash, they ignore the majority of voters who want this madness ended.
At the rate Trump and his enabling Congress are breaking things, this may be the worst in America’s 250 years.
Trump/Newsom Attack Renewables and Push Nuclear
the Trump family’s media company announced a merger with TAE Technologies, a California-based nuclear fusion company, in a deal worth over $6 billion. So, Trump now has a vested financial interest in nuclear power.
Trump-style, Democrat Newsom has also backstabbed a 2018 comprehensive plan he had signed to phase in a 100% renewable energy-based state grid while phasing out the embrittled, hyper-expensive Diablo reactors, which are surrounded by earthquake faults.
Karl Grossman – Harvey Wasserman
Amidst Donald Trump’s wild Middle East War declarations, the tech billionaire push to nuclear reactor suicide has escalated with the shock relicensing of California’s two nuclear power plants at Diablo Canyon, now being pushed by the state’s liberal Governor Gavin Newsom, who has also joined Trump in their all-out attack against renewable energy.
Together, Trump and Newsom are pushing decrepit, virtually uninsured, militarily indefensible nuclear power plants whose drastic deregulation may now rival the dangers posed by any bombs Iran could produce
They also make no economic or ecological sense.
Despite the latest tsunami of “Nuclear Renaissance” hype, nuclear power plants are losing bigly to the worldwide surge in renewable energy. Solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal, and epic advances in battery storage continue to make the green alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear reactors—big and small—a far cheaper, safer, cleaner, more reliable, more job-producing alternative.
Despite the all-out Trump/Newsom all-out anti-green attack, as the “independent global energy think tank” Ember reported last month, “the world installed a record 814 GW of new solar and wind capacity in 2025, 17% more than in 2024 (696 GW).”
“The latest additions bring the combined global installed capacity of wind and solar to 4,174 GW (over 4 TW),” it said.
One GW (gigawatt) equals a billion watts, roughly the capacity of a big nuclear power plant; a TW is a trillion watts.
London-based Ember adds that “solar accounted for the majority of new capacity additions, with almost 4 GW of new solar added globally for every 1 GW of wind.”
Reuters reported last month: “Renewable power made up almost 50% of the world’s electricity capacity last year after a record increase in solar installations.”
Despite the nuclear power push, some 90% of Earth’s annual newly installed annual generating capacity for the past few years has been solar, wind or geothermal, with battery backup.
Nonetheless, Republican Trump says, “nuclear’s a great energy.” His flood of executive orders on nuclear power have weakened or eliminated nuclear safety regulations—making nuclear power plants more dangerous than ever—and has expedited their being built. Last year his administration finalized an $80 billion deal with Westinghouse for new nuclear power plants.
Also, last year, the Trump family’s media company announced a merger with TAE Technologies, a California-based nuclear fusion company, in a deal worth over $6 billion. So, Trump now has a vested financial interest in nuclear power.
Trump is also attacking wind turbines everywhere. He even wants a $928 million chunk of taxpayer cash spent to kill a French-proposed offshore wind project and to instead fund Texas gas/oil projects, some of which will go for export.
Trump is joined in his all-out war on renewables by Newsom’s pro-utility rate hikes, virtually killing California’s once-booming rooftop photovoltaics industry, costing thousands of jobs and billions in extra rate payments. Even a proposed “balcony solar” bill would strictly limit a technology now cheap, reliable, and enough to power the whole state, as it does on a regular basis, without the need for Diablo’s hyper-expensive billionaire-benefitted power.
Trump is also attacking wind turbines everywhere. He even wants a $928 million chunk of taxpayer cash spent to kill a French-proposed offshore wind project and to instead fund Texas gas/oil projects, some of which will go for export.
Trump is joined in his all-out war on renewables by Newsom’s pro-utility rate hikes, virtually killing California’s once-booming rooftop photovoltaics industry, costing thousands of jobs and billions in extra rate payments. Even a proposed “balcony solar” bill would strictly limit a technology now cheap, reliable, and enough to power the whole state, as it does on a regular basis, without the need for Diablo’s hyper-expensive billionaire-benefitted power.
Trump-style, Democrat Newsom has also backstabbed a 2018 comprehensive plan he had signed to phase in a 100% renewable energy-based state grid while phasing out the embrittled, hyper-expensive Diablo reactors, which are surrounded by earthquake faults.
Trump has promised many millions to cover a loan to keep Diablo operating. But state legislators fear he may leave them holding much of the bag. They could vote to turn down the NRC’s 20-year license extension, and close Diablo instead in 2030.
But Newsom, who’s term-limited this year, will be pushing hard, even as his Diablo betrayal underscores global economic failure of nuclear power.
The two nuclear power projects in the U.S. since 2000 have been fiscal fiascoes. Construction of two plants in South Carolina was halted, the would-be plants abandoned, wasting $9 billion while producing zero electricity. Two plants at Vogtle, Georgia, opened seven years late, costing nearly $40 billion, more than double their original price. Projected cost estimates for the ceaselessly hyped “Small Modular Reactors” vastly exceed current prices for proven battery-backed solar, wind and geothermal.
And from the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants in California to the Palisades plant in Michigan to the Indian Point plants in New York and onto Ukraine and Iran, the perils of nuclear power are clear.
Coupled with nuclear war, nuclear power—hyped as “Atoms for Peace” in the last century—and the more than 400 nuclear power plants worldwide that are now in operation, 94 of them in the United States, constitute lethal threats. The ability of the human species to survive on this planet is being put in nuclear danger, and not just at Diablo Canyon.
Kevin Kamps, executive director of Don’t Waste Michigan, the statewide anti-nuclear coalition founded in the mid-1980s, commented in an interview: “The nuclear industry’s massive campaign contributions to help get its preferred politicians elected in the first place, and it’s even more massive lobbying expenditures to influence office holders and government bureaucrats, explains its stranglehold on law and regulation—it’s the best pro-nuclear democracy money can buy, to paraphrase Greg Palast,” said Kamps. (Palast is the author of the book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.)
“The industry barbarians are so running rampant through the ‘Halls of Power,’ we might as well just hand over the keys to the U.S. Treasury to the nuclear lobbyists and their bosses,” says Kamps.
“Nearly $400 billion in nuclear power bailouts, at federal taxpayer expense, was authorized in just three bills—the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 as well as the absurdly named, downright dangerous ADVANCE Act of 2024 (“Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy”). The three bills, signed into law by President Biden, teed up the current even more outrageous giveaways under Trump, not to mention the regulatory free fall, without a parachute, regarding safety, security, health, and the environment.”
“Such collusion,” said Kamps, “between safety regulators, industry, and government officials, was the root cause of the still unfolding Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe that began in 2011, the Japanese Parliament officially concluded after its year-long independent investigation, the first in its history.”
“After successfully lobbying Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to champion the unprecedented zombie reactor restart of the infamous, closed Palisades reactor, and to grant Holtec $300 million of state taxpayer funding for its trouble, the head of the University of Michigan nuclear engineering department was downright giddy.” Todd Allen, as reported in Stateline, said: “You’re starting to see a lot of states transition to a position where they’re supportive of nuclear. And compared to 30 years ago, the amount of federal support for nuclear is unbelievable.”
Said Kamps: “It is unbelievable, in a shocking, horrifying, insanely exorbitant, and extremely risky sense.”
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, emasculated by Trump, has just extended the operating licenses of the two Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants by 20 years.
They are now more than 40 years old—with 40 years the length of time nuclear regulators originally set as the limit for a nuclear power plant running before its innards became embrittled by radioactivity leaving them prone for accidents. And. indeed, both Diablo Canyon plants are now deeply embrittled.
Further, the earthquake faults that surround the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants could easily trigger a catastrophic accident. Indeed, the other major industry in the area of the Diablo Canyon plants are hot spas.
The plants were to be shut down, Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025, but California Governor Newsom, a Democrat, led in undoing that arrangement.
In the middle of the U.S., the Palisades nuclear plant was closed in 2022, after five decades of operation, and Holtec International got a contract to decommission it. But then Holtec turned around and said it would instead restart the plant. It would be first restart of a closed nuclear power plant in U.S. history.
Last week, Don’t Waste Michigan warned of “dire consequences” in a little more than a year following a restart. It issued a report by Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with 55 years experience, that cited a document of Holtec contractor, Framatone, that said “if Palisades is allowed to restart, the steam generators will degrade quickly.”
Gundersen said Framatone “determined that Palisades cannot operate safely even after just the first 14.5 months. Holtec’s contractor admits the likelihood of damage will increase ‘exponentially’ after that point if Palisades is restarted.”
The proposed restart has been made possible by $3.12 billion in federal grants and loans and funds from the state of Michigan with Michigan Governor Whitmer, a Democrat, a major advocate of a Palisades restart.
As Roger Rapoport, an author and journalist who has long reported on nuclear power and also Palisades, wrote last month in the Detroit Free Press, how Holtec International’s purported “unprecedented milestone in U.S. nuclear energy” may be turning into a millstone. Holtec is attempting the first-ever reopening of a nuclear plant permanently closed for decommissioning—the Palisades reactor….Twenty-one months into the project, Holtec has announced delay after delay while continuing to draw vast public subsidies…”
Currently, “Holtec seeks exceptions from Nuclear Regulatory Commission for work on a reactor so noncompliant that no government agency would even consider approving its construction today….After multiple delays…Holtec, a New Jersey company with zero nuclear reactor operating experience, is back in line at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking forgiveness for unpermitted welding on the 55-year-old Palisades reactor pressure vessel containment head.”
This “follows a controversial NRC exemption related to re-sleeving approximately 1,400 cracked tubes at the plant’s ancient steam generators…”
Meanwhile, in New York at the site of the Indian Point nuclear power plants—25 miles from New York City—U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, formerly CEO and founder of a fracking company, joined last month with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York calling for the reopening of the two plants.
One plant was shut down in 2020 and a second in 2021 because of safety concerns related to the plants being located in the most densely populated area of the U.S. Some 22 million people live within 50 miles of the nuclear plants. The two plants began operating in 1974 and 1976.
Holtec also got the contract to decommission these plants. Holtec International President Kelly Trice declared interest in his company restarting them instead, at a cost of $10 billion. “I’m getting so many people asking me from New York if this is possible,” he said. “The answer is yes.”
Even on Long Island, east of New York City, where the Long Island Lighting Company proposed nearly 60 years ago to build seven to eleven nuclear power plants, suddenly a pro-nuclear voice has emerged. There was strong opposition from the grassroots and from the government of Suffolk County, where the plants were to be located, and the scheme was blocked, along with the opening of the one plant built, at Shoreham.
Among issues raised in the decades-long battle against nuclear power on Long Island was how the eight million people on Long Island could evacuate in the event of a major nuclear plant accident—considering that the only ways off Long Island are several bridges and tunnels into New York City.
But, last week, John Duffy, treasurer and business manager of Local 138 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, wrote in Long Island Business News a piece which included the heading that “let’s repower Shoreham.”
Even on Long Island, east of New York City, where the Long Island Lighting Company proposed nearly 60 years ago to build seven to eleven nuclear power plants, suddenly a pro-nuclear voice has emerged. There was strong opposition from the grassroots and from the government of Suffolk County, where the plants were to be located, and the scheme was blocked, along with the opening of the one plant built, at Shoreham.
Among issues raised in the decades-long battle against nuclear power on Long Island was how the eight million people on Long Island could evacuate in the event of a major nuclear plant accident—considering that the only ways off Long Island are several bridges and tunnels into New York City.
But, last week, John Duffy, treasurer and business manager of Local 138 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, wrote in Long Island Business News a piece which included the heading that “let’s repower Shoreham.”
She also, in her state of the state address this year, called for the construction of five gigawatts of new nuclear power in the state—the equivalent of five large nuclear power plants. And her Public Service Commission last year approved $33.3 billion to be paid by every electric ratepayer in New York State as a subsidy for four nuclear power plants in upstate New York, including Nine Mile Point 1, the oldest nuclear power plant now running in the United States.
Meanwhile, overseas, in the wars in Ukraine and Iran, nuclear power plants have become examples of what Dr. Bennett Ramberg, an internationally known expert on nuclear proliferation, wrote about in his book “Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril,” first published in 1980. In it he wrote that “despite multiplication of nuclear power plants, little public consideration has been given to their vulnerability in time of war.”
When Putin sent troops pouring through Belarus into northern Ukraine in 2022, they quickly assaulted the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which exploded in 1986. The core of Unit 4 has been covered with a $2 billion sarcophagus funded by European nations.
Since then, Russia has used drones at the Chernobyl site which have punctured the sarcophagus. And has also attacked the six-reactor Zaporyzhia nuclear plant site in Ukraine.
In Iran, there have been attacks at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Just last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that “following information from Iran of a projectile incident on Tuesday evening, the IAEA can confirm that a structure 350 metres from the Bushehr NPP reactor was hit and destroyed.” IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said: “Although there was no damage to the reactor itself nor injuries to staff, any attack at or near nuclear power plants violates the seven indispensable pillars related to ensuring nuclear safety and security during an armed conflict and should never take place.”
But they are taking place—and can be expected to continue because, indeed, nuclear power plants can be “weapons for the enemy” and, indeed, this largely remains an “unrecognized military peril.”
A measure of the impacts of a nuclear plant disaster are detailed in the book “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment.”
Published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009, it was authored by three noted scientists: Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor was Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.
The book is based on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports—5,000 documents. It concluded that based on the records that were scrutinized, some 985,000 people died largely of cancer caused by the Chernobyl accident in nations that underwent radioactive fallout from the disaster. That was between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projected, would follow. And they have.
Contrary to the industry hype, all atomic reactors emit planet-killing radioactive Carbon 14. They directly heat the planet, destroy our lakes, rivers and oceans with chemicals and radiation, kill millions of fish per year. They create radioactive waste for which there is no safe place on this planet. Their “normal” radiation releases ceaselessly harm and kill untold thousands of downwind neighbors.
And with the planet-killing new “Nuclear Renaissance” now in play, there will be more and more deaths from nuclear power—unless there is a stop put to this failed, deadly, hyper-expensive technology, with our species finally taking the true Solartopian road with energy we can live with.
Harvey Wasserman wrote the books Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth and The Peoples Spiral of US History. He helped coin the phrase “No Nukes.” He co-convenes the Grassroots Emergency Election Protection Coalition at www.electionprotection2024.org Karl Grossman is the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and Power Crazy. He the host of the nationally-aired TV program Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman (www.envirovideo.com)
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (102)
- April 2026 (356)
- 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)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 