nuclear-news

The collapse of multilateral law and the confusion of the battlefields

Thierry Meyssan, Voltairenet.org, Tue, 14 Apr 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/505787-The-collapse-of-multilateral-law-and-the-confusion-of-the-battlefields

The United States behaved like barbarians during the Israeli war against Iran. Its president, Donald Trump, claimed responsibility for attacking civilians, even though just a month earlier he had asserted his desire to liberate them. He went so far as to threaten to eradicate Iranian civilization, despite his ambition to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

By acting in this way, Washington not only violated the UN Charter, but also forced some of its allies to discover that it was not their protector, but rather, that it was dragging them into a war they had not chosen.

The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, initially stated that “the total destruction of areas and the certain death of groups of people which, until now, had not been considered as possible targets” were being “seriously considered” (S/2026/141). He then publicly and explicitly threatened to annihilate Iranian civilization on April 7, 2026 [ 1 ] , in violation of Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

In doing so, the President of the United States has placed himself outside of civilization. If there is one basic principle of international law, since the Hague Conference of 1899, it is that signatory states must not behave like barbarians.

He did not carry out his threat, but with unprecedented violence, deliberately destroyed civilian targets:

He began by participating in the assassination of the spiritual leader of millions of Shiites, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (S/2026/109). Then, he destroyed the Azadi and Besat sports complexes, the Azadegan water park, the Shahidan Esmaeili Stadium, and the Shahid Eskandarloo Sports Hall in Tehran (UN S/2026/130).

Next, he attacked the Minab Primary School. He then went on to attack Red Crescent buildings, the Gandi, Motahari, and Khatam hospitals in Tehran, and the Abouzar Hospital in Ahvaz (S/2026/111). It bombed several fuel storage facilities in Tehran, releasing large quantities of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, including sulfur and nitrogen oxides, causing acid rain, the deaths of many survivors of the Iran-Iraq War gas attacks, and massive fires (S/2026/149).

It bombed cultural sites, such as the Qajar dynasty palace, the Golestan (S/2026/180). And, probably due to confusion, it bombed UNESCO and WHO offices (S/2026/269) and even the Pasteur Institute of Iran (S/2026/279).

His violence knew no bounds, and while claiming to be fighting against an atomic threat — we have explained at length that there has been no Iranian military atomic program since 1988 — he bombed the Bushehr civilian nuclear power plant four times, risking the destruction of the cooling system and the spread of radiation throughout the region’s waters.

People in the Middle East no longer believe that the United Nations protects them and that the United States can bring them peace [ 2 ] .

The people of the Gulf, who had accepted US military bases on their soil for their protection, learned the hard way that they had been deceived. Their American hosts used their land to wage war against Persian civilization, turning them into targets for Iran’s legitimate resistance.

The confusion that has developed over the past five weeks has shown that multilateralism can conflict with international law. To protect themselves, the Gulf States have issued numerous multilateral declarations: to the Gulf Cooperation Council [ 3 ] , the Arab League [ 4 ] , and the International Maritime Organization [ 5 ] . They have finally discovered that international law is against them: they are jointly responsible for the US aggression perpetrated from their territory.

This confusion reached its peak with the adoption, with two abstentions, of Security Council Resolution 2817, which, on March 11, 2026, disregarded General Assembly Resolution 3314, adopted unanimously and without a vote on December 14, 1974.

It is clear that the UN, as we know it, will have to be profoundly reformed or dissolved [ 6 ] .

The confusion now centers on the Strait of Hormuz. Let’s leave aside the period of the war during which Iran barred ships from the strait to those of the powers aggressing against it (Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom), as well as to those of the countries that allowed them to use their territory to carry out their aggression (Germany and Italy, Jordan, and the Gulf States).

In the West, there is a consensus that no one can dictate their law in the strait during peacetime.However, this is not so simple:the waters of the Strait of Hormuz are Omani and Iranian territorial waters,not international waters. Given the depth of the strait, passage is generally more common on the Omani side than on the Iranian side.

The two countries can legitimately consult with each other and request a toll, as is the case in the Suez and Panama Canals, even though this is a natural strait [ 7 ] . However, they cannot prevent global traffic from passing, “innocently,” through their waters, especially since they control access to the Persian Gulf. Except that oil tankers represent a real danger with their highly polluting cargoes in the event of a shipwreck.

The Suez Canal is a significant example: in 1956, the British and French empires, militarily supported by the colonial state of Israel, attempted to seize control of the Suez Canal, which Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had just nationalized. This operation was a fiasco. It marked the end of both colonial empires and revealed the Franco-British alliance with Israel — an alliance that would be broken by Charles de Gaulle during the Six-Day War.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis could, in turn, mark the end of American ambitions in the “rest of the world.”

Another question arises: if Oman and Iran are allowed to collect a toll, how can we ensure that its amount will not be prohibitive and in what currency will it be paid? On this subject, Iran has considered that it be payable in yuan, while the United States, attached to the supremacy of the dollar, would like it to be in dollars or, failing that, in Trump coin ($Trump), the cryptocurrency of the US presidential family and the Emirati royal family, Al-Zayed [ 8 ] .

If the price were not set in dollars, oil companies would prepare to abandon that currency. However, the US dollar is no longer based on the US economy, but on its role in the global hydrocarbon market. This shift would therefore represent a continuation of the war against the “Great Satan.”

On April 12, President Trump posted a message on X:

“From this moment forward, the United States Navy, the finest in the world, will begin the process of BLOCKING all vessels attempting to enter or exit the Strait of Hormuz. At some point, we will achieve this principle of ‘ALL SHALL BE ALLOWED IN WHEN ALL SHALL BE ALLOWED OUT,’ but Iran has not allowed this to happen by simply saying, ‘There may be a mine somewhere,’ which no one but them knows about. This is GLOBAL RACKETEERING, and the leaders of countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted. I have also directed our Navy to search, in international waters, and prohibit all vessels that have paid a toll to Iran. None of those who have paid an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.” [ 9 ]

Not knowing what to do, Donald Trump himself blocked the Strait of Hormuz, even though the Anglo-Saxons have been enshrining freedom of movement and trade since 1837 — so much for the dogma of “free trade”! But it’s true that the Jacksonians aren’t globalists. No matter: Donald Trump already betrayed his voters by launching this war a month and a half ago. Today, he’s betraying his predecessors. We are witnessing the suicide of the United States.

References:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

April 22, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal | Leave a comment

International law or foreign military bases: a choice must be made

This is the great discovery of this war:international law provides that attacked states can take action against their aggressor not only on their own territory, but also against military bases that participate in the aggression from abroad, and finally against third-party states that host these bases [ 6 ] . Never before, since the creation of the United Nations, had an attacked state attacked its aggressor(s) on the territory of a third-party state. The whole world had forgotten this response, particularly effective in the era of economic globalization [ 7 ] .

Thierry Meyssan, Voltairenet.org, Tue, 07 Apr 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/505638-International-law-or-foreign-military-bases-a-choice-must-be-made

The war waged by Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom against Iran has called into question international law. Even the Security Council had forgotten its own definition of aggression. It ruled against itself. There has never been a precedent for this situation. All UN member states must now choose between international law and the alliance system devised by the United States.

The Israeli-American-British war [ 1 ] against Iran profoundly impacted the United Nations and revolutionized the way international law was approached. Until then, everyone believed that this law was based solely on respect for one’s signature and the right of peoples to self-determination. However, over time, everyone had also become accustomed to the idea that Israel and the United States would never be considered outside the law.

Although he invoked “collective self-defense” by Israel, this point was swept aside by the astonishing candor of US President Donald Trump, who stated that Iran did not threaten his country [ 2 ] . Until now, Washington had lied shamelessly to maintain the illusion that it respected international law. We remember the lies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama regarding the 9/11 attacks, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Libyan and Syrian massacres, and the wars that followed.

Benjamin Netanyahu simply resorted to his thirty-year-old rhetoric about “the head of the octopus” — that is, Iran — to explain his influence. He could think of nothing better than to refer to Iranian slogans: “Death to the Zionist entity!” and “Death to the United States!” implying that Iran wanted to kill all Israelis and all Americans. However, chanting “Death to the Zionist entity!” has never meant hoping for the death of the State of Israel and its people, but simply challenging the self-proclamation of this state, without the approval of the United Nations, and contrary to the initial plan for a binational state. As for the cry of “Death to the United States!”, it signifies that Iran is challenging the legitimacy of a state founded on the massacre of millions of indigenous people and the enslavement of millions of Black Africans.

One might have expected every UN member to declare this war illegal, an “aggression” as defined by the Charter. Not so! No one said it — except North Korea — though they all thought it. While this attitude is understandable, given the military might of the United States — each member preferring to avoid acknowledging this truth — it is clear that this collective cowardice will have consequences.

The most important point lies elsewhere: not only does this war constitute, in itself, an “aggression” and call into question the signatures of Tel Aviv and Washington, but it is being waged in a “barbaric” manner, in the sense defined by the Hague Conference (1899).Benjamin Netanyahu has openly admitted to assassinating, one by one, all the religious, military, and political leaders of the man he considers his enemy. These are crimes that Donald Trump has also repeated and endorsed.

Until now, Westerners considered assassinating leaders immoral and counterproductive. Israel and the United States are perfectly aware that it is counterproductive, but don’t care whether it’s moral or not [ 3 ] . For seventy-eight years, Israel has assassinated Palestinian leaders. It has orphaned this people and has no choice but to attack them if it no longer has anyone to negotiate with.

In the process, Israel razed the home of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and assassinated him. This is exactly as if it had bombed the Vatican and assassinated Pope Leo XIV because he — and all his predecessors — opposed the creation of a Jewish Empire, to use the expression of Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), even if he accepted that Israel and Palestine should be a refuge for Jews from all over the world, to use the expression of Theodor Herzl (1860-1904).

It should therefore come as no surprise that terrorist movements are forming today, such as Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI) (Islamic Movement of the Right-Hand People), which are planting bombs in Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and perhaps France. Those Shiites who have accepted the Velayat-e faqih (Islamic jurist doctrine) feel compelled to avenge their spiritual master.

As if that weren’t enough, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are now targeting Iranian civilians [ 4 ] whom they were calling on yesterday to “overthrow their regime” (sic). Alas! The Iranians, who were not convinced by Western propaganda that the Revolutionary Guards had massacred 40,000 of their compatriots, joined the Revolutionary Guards en masse to keep the aggressors at bay.

These cruel operations began with the bombing of Tehran’s hydrocarbon stocks, which released “sulfur and nitrogen oxides”, causing acid rain [ 5 ] .

Everyone, having clearly understood that Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are carrying out an illegal “aggression” against Iran and behaving like barbarians, assassinating leaders and deliberately targeting civilians, could realize that Iran was fully responding to the treatment it was receiving.

This is the great discovery of this war:international law provides that attacked states can take action against their aggressor not only on their own territory, but also against military bases that participate in the aggression from abroad, and finally against third-party states that host these bases [ 6 ] . Never before, since the creation of the United Nations, had an attacked state attacked its aggressor(s) on the territory of a third-party state. The whole world had forgotten this response, particularly effective in the era of economic globalization [ 7 ] .

The members of the Security Council themselves had forgotten the “definition of aggression,” adopted unanimously without a vote on December 14, 1974. So much so that, on March 11, 2026, they adopted Resolution 2817, which “condemns in the strongest terms the unacceptable attacks perpetrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran” against the six Gulf States and Jordan. Without immediately realizing it, they voted on a text contrary to all their signatures and therefore to international law.

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar were thrust into this war against their will. These seven states — like the Security Council — initially reacted without understanding. They filed a complaint with the Security Council. Then, through a series of letters, they were forced to admit that Iran was within its rights and that the Council had overlooked this. They all signed United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314(XXIX) (December 14, 1974). Their protests became less vehement, more vague. All had agreed to host US military bases to ensure their security, and all found themselves trapped by the presence of these bases.

There are several ways to react to this contradiction, either by declaring international law inappropriate, but who will protect them in the future? Or by declaring that the United States is doing whatever it wants and putting them in danger, but how can they free themselves from their precious patron?

At the time of writing, more than 80 letters have been exchanged at the Security Council, but none of these seven states has resolved this dilemma: international law or foreign military bases. A choice must be made.

No more able than the others to reconcile the irreconcilable, the Sultanate of Oman, for its part, “invites the Security Council to exercise its responsibilities by carrying out a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the root causes of this crisis so that these can be addressed at the root and not just on the surface.” [ 8 ] .

References:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

April 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal | Leave a comment

NuScale Power Corporation Class Action Reminder – Robbins LLP Encourages SMR Stockholders to Contact the Firm for Information About Their Rights  

 Business Wire  Apr 4, 2026, https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20260403532096/nuscale-power-corporation-class-action-reminder-robbins-llp-encourages-smr-stockholders-to-contact-the-firm-for-information-about-their-rights

NuScale Power Corporation Class Action Reminder – Robbins LLP Encourages SMR Stockholders to Contact the Firm for Information About Their Rights  

Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR) Class A shares between May 13, 2025 and November 6, 2025. NuScale is a nuclear technology company focused on scalable, modular reactors.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

What is the class period? May 13, 2025 – November 6, 2025

What are the allegations? Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Mislead Investors Regarding its Business Prospects

According to the complaint, NuScale’s core technology, the NuScale Power Module (“NPM”), is a small modular nuclear reactor designed to generate energy within a broader power plant. Prior to the start of the class period, NuScale entered into a global commercialization partnership with ENTRA1 Energy LLC (“ENTRA1”). Defendants claimed that this critical partnership would allow the Company to take its NPM technology from development to deployment, enabling NuScale’s NPMs to serve as meaningful, revenue-generating components in power plants. During the class period, defendants emphasized ENTRA1’s purported wide-ranging capabilities and deep experience in power plant development in their communications with investors. However, during its entire operating history ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant project, let alone one in the highly technical and difficult field of nuclear power generation.

On November 6, 2025, NuScale surprised investors by revealing that the Company’s general and administrative expenses had ballooned more than 3,000% to $519 million during its third fiscal quarter, up from $17 million in the prior year period, due largely to NuScale’s payment of $495 million to ENTRA1 for its TVA agreement. As a result, NuScale’s quarterly net loss skyrocketed to $532 million, up from $46 million in the prior year period. On this news, the price of NuScale Class A shares declined more than 12% over a two-day trading period, from approximately $32 per share on November 6, 2025 to approximately $28 per share on November 10, 2025. The price of NuScale Class A stock continued to fall in subsequent days, dropping to a low of just $17 per share by November 21, 2025 – more than 70% below the class period high of more than $57 per share.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant projects – let alone projects in the highly technical and complicated field of nuclear power generation – during its entire operating history; (ii) NuScale had entrusted its commercialization, distribution, and deployment of its NPMs and hundreds of millions of dollars of NuScale capital to an entity that lacked any significant prior experience owning, financing, or operating nuclear energy generation facilities; (iii) the purported experience and qualifications attributed to ENTRA1 by defendants during the class period in fact referred to the purported experience and qualifications of the principals of the Habboush Group, a distinct entity without significant experience in the field of nuclear power generation; and (iv) as a result, NuScale’s commercialization strategy was exposed to material, undisclosed risks of failure, delays, regulatory challenges, or other negative setbacks.

What can shareholders do now? You may be eligible to participate in the class action against NuScale Power Corporation. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by April 20, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here.

April 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal | Leave a comment

Going Native in the Trump Jungle: How it became Legal to Attack Iran

3 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark , https://theaimn.net/going-native-in-the-trump-jungle-how-it-became-legal-to-attack-iran/

The allies of the United States have gone native, feral even, in the jungle of international relations planted by President Donald J. Trump. While we keep hearing about how awful Russia’s war against Ukraine is, with its shattering of international law and its dismissiveness of the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Israeli-US attack on Iran has been given the seal of approval by America’s client states and supporters. Countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada, for instance, were clear in endorsing a UN General Assembly resolution on February 24 supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The provision explicitly “prohibits the threat or use of force,” calling on Member states “to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.” Nothing of the sort has been seen regarding the illegal assault on Iran that began on February 28

Most pitiful in the repudiation of the Charter by US allies are the stances of the supposed “middle powers”, a term as flattering as middle management. These middling types – Australia and Canada stand out here – have been keen to wish themselves into abject irrelevance on the issue of international law. This is despite calls from the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that like-minded powers should club together to rectify the collapse of the rules-based international order so cherished under the Pax Americana. At his speech delivered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Carney extolled the ideas of being principled and pragmatic which would include valuing “sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter.” Nothing of this was evident in the joint February 28 statement from Carney and his Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

All craven positions taken by states have slight differences, and the Australian one can be measured by the position that not taking part in the strikes does not mean having to consider their legal nature. “Obviously,” said Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong on March 1, “Australia did not participate in these strikes.” But it supported “action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

The United Kingdom has gone one better by becoming entirely revisionist. In a March 1 statement, the government of Sir Keir Starmer revealed why the UK would be committing to the conflict against Tehran. This was not about Iran being pre-emptively and unlawfully attacked in the first place but Iran daring to defend itself by attacking regional powers hosting US military bases and personnel. Britain would therefore be mounting, at the insistence of Washington, a “defensive action” by targeting “missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes on regional allies.” It would also act “in the collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support.” Any propaganda minister in the annals of history would have been proud of that fatuous formulation.

The propaganda of justification focuses on positions that, were they to become a template, could be applied to any number of regimes in the world. Do they crush and violate the human rights of their subjects, restrict lawful assembly, and fire on protestors? Are they theocracies, or governed by martial law, or traditional police states? Do they destabilise their region with needless meddling, posing “imminent” threats? Along the way, forget the limits on the use of force as stated in the UN Charter: that the territorial integrity of all states should be respected, and that any permission for the use of force should take place via the UN Security Council or be undertaken in cases of self-defence.

With sheer abandon, then, we can justify bumping off the leaders, the commanders, and the top officials – but be selective which theocracies, autocratic thugs and shifty types we want to keep company with. And the one to be selective here is Trump, who has personalised international relations with such dramatic effect as to terrify his allies into complicity and obedience. To condemn the actions against Iran as illegal could lead to frosty dismissal, the imposition of crushing sanctions or tariffs, exclusion from intelligence sharing, the shutting off from cooperative ventures. Be good to Donald, or he will bite. Best be bad to everybody he dislikes.

Important in the apologias for attacking Iran has been the anecdotal gauging of attitudes from the Iranian diaspora to be found in Canada, the US, Australia and Europe. Celebratory gestures of flag waving and ghoulish revelling in the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, albeit understandable, have also been used to rationalise the war. The Iranian security apparatus had been brutal in putting down protests by brave citizens. We can forget what follows: greater instability and fractiousness within the borders of that state. The creation of more regional problems. The potential for even greater fanaticism and resolve.

In terms of immediate international consequences, protests against the killing of Khamanei in other Islamic states have taken place, in some cases with brutal results. In Pakistan, security forces have used lethal force, leaving 10 dead in Karachi, eight in Skardu and two in Islamabad. Yet little mention in the corridors of Western power is made about these fallen, presumably because they were not the right or relevant sort.

Both the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led attacks on Libya in 2011 offer disturbing lessons, none of which interest the ahistorical outlaws of the Trump Jungle. The crime of international aggression against Iraq demonstrated the importance of lies and inflated threats – in that case deployable Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found – along with the dismal failure of occupation and nation building. The Libyan example is seminal given the current aerial nature of the Israeli-US campaign against Iran.

In Libya, a NATO-led coalition intervened in the civil war ostensibly to protect civilians against the security forces of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi. “When crisis erupted in Libya,” remarked Sir John Sawers, former Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service, in February 2015, “we didn’t feel it right to sit by as Gaddafi crushed decent Libyans demanding an end to dictatorship.” But Britain and its partners “didn’t want to get embroiled in Libya’s problems by sending in ground forces.”

Initially framed as an operation to protect civilians, the air campaign became one of support for anti-government militias, leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow and lynch-mob murder. The country duly fractured between rival fundamentalist groups and remains divided to this day. It also became a safe-haven for al-Qaeda and Islamic State forces to conduct operations against the country’s neighbours. “Libya,” recalled Sawers, “had no institutions. Who or what would take over? The answer? Those with the weapons. Result? Growing chaos, exploited by fanatics.” The lessons for the Israeli-US campaign are all too startlingly relevant.

The grotesque cowardice of various representatives, including the clueless fawning by Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte, the unpardonable conduct of the European Commission’s top diplomats Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and most of the EU governments, has also revealed their feral conversion to a doctrine of force that does away with softening diplomacy and the tenets of international law. It’s almost an embarrassment to read the EU statement on avoiding escalation when the powers escalating the matter were Israel and the US while still insisting that diplomacy would have a role. The Iranians were engaged in diplomacy and were reassured that more talks would follow.  This was a charade, a confidence trick that will impair the credibility of the West, or Global North, in terms of its conduct of relations when it comes to addressing threats, actual or perceived. All is permissible in the Trump Jungle.

March 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal | 1 Comment