nuclear-news

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

Palantir’s Shadow War On Iran

 July 2, 2025, Kit Klarenberg, https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/palantirs-shadow-war-on-iran

As the dust settles on the “12 Day War”, it is ever-clearer that the conflict was a crushing defeat for Israel and the US. In retrospect, the Zionist entity’s sole success was a wave of assassinations in the conflict’s first hours. A fawning June 19th Financial Times report hinted cutting-edge technology drawing together diverse data and intelligence sources was responsible. This raises the obvious question of whether Tel Aviv was assisted in its murderous spree by notorious private spying giant Palantir.

An avowedly pro-Israel tech giant founded by Donald Trump confidante and ardent Zionist Peter Thiel, which reportedly provides artificial intelligence tech supporting Tel Aviv’s genocide in Gaza, Palantir’s tendrils extend typically unseen into almost every conceivable sphere of public and private life across the West. Moreover, the firm – launched with seed funding from CIA venture capital wing In-Q-Tel – has long-played a pivotal but barely acknowledged role in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear research.

The interpretation Palantir was one way or another involved in Israel’s illegal “preemptive” war of aggression against Tehran is amply reinforced by the release of sensitive Israeli documents by Iran’s intelligence ministry. These files indicate the IAEA previously provided Israeli intelligence with the names of several Iranian nuclear scientists, who were subsequently assassinated. Additionally, current Association chief Rafael Grossi enjoys a close, long-running, clandestine relationship with Israeli officials. Subsequent disclosures could expose the IAEA’s dark alliance with Palantir.

‘Fishing Expedition’

In July 2015, the Obama administration inked the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Tehran. Under its auspices, in return for sanctions relief, the IAEA was granted unimpeded access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, to ensure the Islamic Republic was not developing nuclear weapons. Vast amounts of information on and within the sites, including surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents were collected along the way. The Association consistently found Iran was stringently adhering to the JCPOA’s terms.

Following Trump’s first inauguration however, the JCPOA began to come apart at the seams. In October 2017, he refused to certify Iran’s compliance with its obligations on bogus grounds, and began threatening to tear up the agreement outright and reimpose sanctions. The next March, then-IAEA director general Yukiya Amano sounded alarm over this prospect, claiming the JCPOA had produced “the world’s most robust [nuclear] verification regime” in Iran, and its cessation would represent a “great loss”. He went on to boast of how Association inspectors:

“Now spend 3,000 calendar days per year on the ground in Iran. We have installed some 2,000 tamper-proof seals on nuclear material and equipment. We have carried out more than 60 complementary accesses [unannounced inspections] and visited more than 190 buildings…We collect and analyse hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by our sophisticated surveillance cameras…about half of the total number of such images that we collect throughout the world. We collect over one million pieces of open source information each month.”

Amano added IAEA activities in Tehran were “supported by state-of-the-art technology, including data collecting and processing systems.” Unmentioned was that these innovative resources were provided by Palantir. The company’s central role in scrutinizing Iran’s nuclear compliance and intimate handshake with the IAEA was revealed two months later by Bloomberg, mere days before the Trump administration shredded the Agreement and launched a “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. Former US energy secretary Ernest Moniz effusively praised Palantir’s contribution:

“We have a completely unique and unparalleled intrusive verification regime that was not there before the agreement.”

A tool dubbed Mosaic served as “the analytical core” and “platform of choice” for the IAEA’s verification mission in Iran. The software helped the Association “plan and justify unscheduled probes”, collating and processing data from around 400 million “digital objects” globally, “including social media feeds and satellite photographs.” Mosaic was also charged with examining en-masse documents not only collected by the IAEA, but tens of thousands of sensitive files stolen by Mossad from Tehran.

Bloomberg quoted Ali Vaez, International Crisis Group’s Iran Project director, as expressing concern about Mosaic analysing “dirty” data obtained by Mossad, “which prides itself on deception.” After all, “even a small amount of false information could trigger a flurry of unnecessary snap inspections and derail an agreement that took years to reach.” The broader the terms of Palantir’s work with the IAEA, the more the mission “appears as a fishing expedition,” Vaez fretted, suggesting Iran could become less willing “to open its doors to inspectors.”

Vaez’s comments were eerily prophetic. Recent disclosures of intensive collusion between the IAEA and Zionist entity authorities, and the resultant prospect Association inspections assisted Israeli and US attacks on Tehran, prompted Iranian lawmakers to unanimously pass legislation indefinitely suspending cooperation with the Association on June 25th. It is unlikely IAEA inspectors will ever be permitted to tread on the Islamic Republic’s territory again. But Bloomberg highlighted a number of other anxieties that have only gained in gravity in light of recent events.

‘False Assumption’

For one, the outlet recorded how Palantir’s IAEA role granted the company “access to information that governments don’t,” while questioning whether “an international agency known for its independence” could truly remain neutral and objective given “Thiel’s close personal ties to Trump.” Furthermore, Bloomberg noted the Association’s Palantir-provided “enhanced investigative abilities” had “raised concern that the IAEA may overstep the boundary between nuclear monitoring and intelligence-gathering,” transforming its inspectors into unwitting “potential cyber sleuths.”

Such fears were only exacerbated by Mosaic being based upon Palantir’s highly controversial “predictive-policing software”. For the IAEA, this capability turned “databases of classified information into maps” helping “inspectors visualize ties between the people, places and material involved in nuclear activities” in Tehran. The risk of innocent Iranian civilians being made targets for surveillance, harassment, or even assassination created by erroneous data being fed into and/or pumped out by Mosaic is gargantuan.

Bloomberg quoted a representative of a British company “that advises governments on verification issues” as saying “predictive-analysis” systems were extremely vulnerable to such corruption, “either by accident or design.” He noted, “you will generate a false return if you add a false assumption into the system…[and] end up convincing yourself that shadows are real.” Of course, a dangerous “false assumption” lay at the very core of the IAEA’s inspection mission in Iran – namely, that Tehran was developing nukes in the first place.

The Islamic Republic has for decades consistently denied any suggestion it harbours ambitions to possess nuclear weapons. Her denials were corroborated by a November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate expressing “high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted” any and all research into nuclear weapons. This assessment remained unchanged for several years, and was reportedly shared by Mossad. As Bloomberg recorded, come May 2018 the IAEA had “certified Iran’s work 10 times.”

In March 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that Iran had not restarted the nuclear weapons program it halted in 2003. On June 17th, with the 12 Day War well-underway, IAEA chief Grossi declared “we did not have any proof of a systematic effort” by Tehran “to move into a nuclear weapon.” Yet, Israel justified its attacks based on an intelligence dossier that concluded the Islamic Republic had in fact reached the “point of no return” in acquiring nukes.

That dodgy dossier depended in no small part on the findings of a May IAEA report. The document provided no new information – its dubious charges related “to activities dating back decades” at three sites where purportedly, until the early 2000s, “undeclared nuclear material” was handled. If this report was analysed by Palantir’s “predictive-analysis” systems, it is all but inevitable false results and connections would’ve been created, in turn influencing the Zionist entity’s targets and strategy.

One of the “predictive policing” tools innovated by Palantir guiding Mosaic’s operations is Gotham, which is used by an uncertain number of Western law enforcement agencies. Leaked documents on the resource show it collects an extraordinary volume of data on entire populations – whether they are law-abiding, suspected of having committed a crime, or simply connected to individuals accused of wrongdoing. This includes sex, race, names, contact details, addresses, prior warrants, mugshots, surveillance photos, personal relationships, past and current employers, and identifying features such as tattoos.

In October 2024, a major Norwegian asset manager divested from Palantir due to the company offering “AI-based predictive policing systems”, aiding the Zionist entity’s mass surveillance of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. These systems are designed “to identify individuals who are likely to launch ‘lone wolf terrorist’ attacks, facilitating their arrests preemptively before the strikes that it is projected they would carry out.” Their deployment results in countless Palestinians languishing in Israeli dungeons without charge or trial.

If Mosaic informed the Zionist entity’s strategy during the 12 Day War, that may account for why individuals with no connection whatsoever to Iran’s civilian nuclear program were directly targeted for assassination. This includes Majid Tajan Jari, a prominent professor in the field of AI locally, slain in an Israeli strike on a residential building in Tehran on June 16th. Yet, reliance on faulty or false information collated by Mosaic would simultaneously explain the conflict ending in embarrassing defeat for Israel, and victory for Tehran.

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Spying on Iran: How MI6 infiltrated the IAEA

The Iranian government has alleged that the IAEA supplied the identities of its top nuclear scientists to Israeli intelligence, enabling their assassinations, and provided critical intelligence to the US and Israel on the nuclear facilities they bombed during their military assault this June.

Leaked confidential files indicate the International Atomic Energy Agency was infiltrated by a veteran British spy who has claimed credit for sanctions on Iran.

The Grayzone, Jul 02, 2025, By Kit Klarenberg, https://thegrayzone.substack.com/p/spying-on-iran-how-mi6-infiltrated?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=474765&post_id=167288793&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=n09ij&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

A notorious British MI6 agent infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on London’s behalf, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The agent, Nicholas Langman, is a veteran intelligence operative who claims credit for helping engineer the West’s economic war on Iran.

Langman’s identity first surfaced in journalistic accounts of his role in deflecting accusations that British intelligence played a role in the death of Princess Diana. He was later accused by Greek authorities of overseeing the abduction and torture of Pakistani migrants in Athens.

In both cases, UK authorities issued censorship orders forbidding the press from publishing his name. But Greek media, which was under no such obligation, confirmed that Langman was one of the MI6 assets withdrawn from Britain’s embassy in Athens.

The Grayzone discovered the résumé of the journeyman British operative in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a prolific British intelligence cutout. The bio of the longtime MI6 officer reveals he “led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology, including by innovative technical means and sanctions.”

In particular, the MI6 agent says he provided “support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and through high level international partnerships.”

Langman’s CV credits him with playing a major role in organizing the sanctions regime on Iran by “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy” between 2010 and 2012. He boasts in his bio that this achievement “enabled [the] major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”

The influence Langman claimed to have exerted on the IAEA adds weight to Iranian allegations that the international nuclear regulation body colluded with the West and Israel to undermine its sovereignty. The Iranian government has alleged that the IAEA supplied the identities of its top nuclear scientists to Israeli intelligence, enabling their assassinations, and provided critical intelligence to the US and Israel on the nuclear facilities they bombed during their military assault this June.

This June 12, under the direction of its Secretary General Rafael Grossi, the IAEA issued a clearly politicized report recycling questionable past allegations to accuse Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Three days later, Israel attacked the country, assassinating nine nuclear scientists as well as numerous top military officials and hundreds of civilians.

Iranian former Vice President for Strategic Affairs Javad Zarif has since called for the IAEA’s Grossi to be sacked, accusing him of having “abetted the slaughter of innocents in the country.” This June 28, the Iranian government broke ties with the IAEA, refusing to allow its inspectors into the country.

While Iranian officials may have had no idea about the involvement of a shadowy figure like Langman in IAEA business, it would likely come as little surprise to Tehran that the supposedly multilateral agency had been compromised by a Western intelligence agency.

Langman’s name placed under official UK censorship order

In 2016, Langman was named a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George, the same title bestowed on fictional British spy James Bond. By that point, the supposed secret agent held the dubious distinction of being publicly ‘burned’ as an MI6 operative on two separate occasions.

First, in 2001, journalist Stephen Dorril revealed that Langman had arrived in Paris weeks prior to Princess Diana’s fatal car crash in the city on August 31 1997, and was subsequently charged with conducting “information operations” to deflect widespread public speculation British intelligence was responsible for her death.

Then, in 2005, he was formally accused by Greek authorities of complicity in the abduction and torture of 28 Pakistanis in Athens. The Pakistanis, all migrant workers, were suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London, July 2005.

Brutally beaten and threatened with guns in their mouths, the victims “were convinced their interrogators were British.” When Greek media named Langman as the MI6 operative who oversaw the migrants’ torture, British news outlets universally complied with a government D-notice – an official censorship order – and kept his identity under wraps when reporting on the scandal.

London vehemently denied any British involvement in torturing the migrants, with then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissing the charge as “utter nonsense.” In January 2006 though, London admitted MI6 officers were indeed present during the Pakistanis’ torture, although officials insisted the operatives played no active part in their arrests, questioning or abuse.

Following his withdrawal from Athens, Langman returned to London to head the UK Foreign Office’s Iran Department, a shift which highlights his importance to MI6 and suggests the British government had no qualms about his allegedly brutal evidence gathering methods.

Britain’s Foreign Office collaborates closely with MI6, whose agents use it as cover just as the CIA does with State Department diplomatic postings.

MI6’s man on Iran takes credit for “maximum pressure” strategy

While leading the Foreign Office’s Iran Department from 2006 – 2008, Langman oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of the Iranian government’s “nuclear program.”

It’s unclear exactly what that “understanding” entailed. But the document makes clear that Langman then “generated confidence” in that assessment among “European, US and Middle Eastern agencies” in order to “delay programme [sic] and pressurise Iran to negotiate.” The reference to “Middle Eastern agencies” strongly implied MI6 cooperation with Israel’s Mossad intelligence services.

In April 2006, Tehran announced it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time, although officials denied any intention to do so for military purposes. This development may have triggered Langman’s intervention.

The Islamic Republic has rejected any suggestion it harbors ambitions to possess nuclear weapons. Its denials were corroborated by a November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate expressing “high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted” any and all research into nuclear weapons. This assessment remained unchanged for several years, and was reportedly shared by the Mossad, despite Benjamin Netanyhau’s constant declarations that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.

Langman’s IAEA support work overlaps with Iran sanctions blitz

International governmental attitudes towards Iran changed abruptly between 2010 and ‘12. During this period, Western states and intergovernmental institutions initiated an array of harshly punitive measures against the country, while Israel ramped up its deadly covert operations against Iran’s nuclear scientists.

This period precisely overlapped with Langman’s tenure at the Counter-Proliferation Centre of the UK Foreign Office. His bio implies he used this position to influence the IAEA and other UN-affiliated organizations to foment a campaign of global hostility towards Iran.

In June 2010, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, which froze the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ assets, and banned overseas financial institutions from opening offices in Tehran. A month later, the Obama administration adopted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. This set off a global chain of copycat sanctions by Washington’s vassals, who often imposed even more stringent measures than those levied by the UN and US.

In March 2012, the EU voted unanimously to cut Iranian banks out of the SWIFT international banking network. That October, the bloc imposed the harshest sanctions to date, restricting trade, financial services, energy and technology, along with bans on the provision of insurance to Iranian companies by European firms.

BBC reporting on the sanctions acknowledged European officials merely suspected Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but lacked concrete proof. And behind the scenes, the MI6 operative Langman was claiming credit for helping legitimize the allegations against Iran.


Following the Western-led campaign isolation of Iran from 2010 – 2012, over its purported nuclear weapon program, the Obama administration negotiated a July 2015 agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the JCPOA’s terms, the Islamic Republic agreed to limit its nuclear research activities in return for sanctions relief. In the years that followed, the IAEA was granted virtually unlimited access to Tehran’s nuclear complexes, ostensibly to ensure the facilities were not used to develop nuclear weapons.

Along the way, IAEA inspectors collected vast amounts of information on the sites, including surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents. The Iranian government has since accused the Agency of furnishing the top secret profiles of its nuclear scientists to Israel. These include the godfather of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, who was first publicly named in a menacing 2019 powerpoint presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The following year, the Mossad assassinated Fakrizadeh in broad daylight with a remote-controlled machine gun.

Internal IAEA documents leaked this June indicated that IAEA Secretary General Rafael Grossi has enjoyed a much closer relationship with Israeli officials than was previously known, and suggested he leveraged his cozy ties with Tel Aviv to secure his current position.

During a June 24 interview with Fox News’ war-crazed anchor Martha MacCallum, Grossi did not deny making the inflammatory claim that “900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium was taken to an ancient site near Isfahan.” Instead the IAEA director asserted, “We do not have any information on the whereabouts of this material.”

Well before Grossi rose to the top of the IAEA with Western and Israeli backing, the agency appears to have been penetrated by a British intelligence agent who took responsibility in his bio for engineering the West’s economic attack on Iran.

The IAEA has not responded to an email from The Grayzone seeking clarification on its relationship with Langman and the MI6.

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Sellafield supporting Whitehaven Science Fair -(nuclear lobby infiltrates education)

 We were pleased to support Whitehaven Town Council in hosting the 5th
Annual Whitehaven Science Fair, working in partnership with Nuclear Waste
Services to plan and deliver a two-day programme focused on innovation,
scientific curiosity and community engagement. The first day welcomed
primary school pupils to experience an engaging theatre-style science
demonstration, followed by interactive exhibits located in the robotics and
technology marquees. Local employers, including ourselves and Nuclear Waste
Services, presented a range of technologies and provided hands-on
activities. These included opportunities to operate robots, participate in
educational games, test coordination skills, and meet Spot-the-dog.

 Sellafield Ltd 30th June 2025 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sellafield-supporting-whitehaven-science-fair

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste near nature reserve plan ongoing

 Residents and politicians have hit out at plans to allow radioactive waste
to be disposed of at a landfill site near a nature reserve and town. The
site, on Huntsman Drive in Port Clarence, Stockton, run by Augean, already
disposes of a range of hazardous waste but requires permission to deal with
nuclear material.

Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen said the plans were wrong
in 2019 when they were first put to the Environment Agency (EA) and were
“still wrong now”. But Augean said risk assessments demonstrated the
proposals “would not harm people in the local area or the environment”. The
EA previously asked for more information about the plan in September 2020
and it has now opened a public consultation, which will close on 4 August.
Lord Houchen said: “We absolutely want new nuclear power and we are working
hard to deliver this – but I will not allow Teesside to be seen as a
dumping ground for the country’s waste. “I will continue to stand firmly
against any plan, and I urge everyone to make their voices heard loud and
clear in this consultation.”

 BBC 1st July 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80pp5vl49yo

July 3, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Iran could resume enriching uranium within months, UN nuclear watchdog boss says

Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS News in an interview on Sunday that Iran’s capabilities to resolve any damage to its nuclear program do not appear to have been wiped out.

30 June 25, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-30/iran-could-enrich-uranium-within-months-iaea-says/105475434

In short:

Iran could resume producing enriched uranium in months, according to the head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog.

Rafael Grossi from the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised more doubt about the efficacy of the US bombing of key Iranian nuclear facilities.

What’s next?

US President Donald Trump has suggested individuals could be prosecuted if found responsible for leaking a classified report that also cast doubt on the success of the US strikes.

Iran could resume producing enriched uranium in months, according to comments made by the head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog that have raised more doubts about the efficacy of US strikes on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Officials in the United States have repeatedly stated that the strikes on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities “obliterated” them, although President Donald Trump said on Friday that he would consider bombing the Middle Eastern nation again if it was enriching uranium to worrisome levels.

Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS News in an interview on Sunday that Iran’s capabilities to resolve any damage to its nuclear program do not appear to have been wiped out.

“The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that,” he said.

“Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there.”

US officials also obtained an intercepted phone call between Iranian officials appearing to suggest the government in Tehran believes the US strikes were less devastating than expected, according to a report from The Washington Post.

In an interview on Sunday local time, Mr Trump also suggested that his government would look to investigate and potentially prosecute individuals found responsible for leaking an internal, preliminary classified report that cast doubt on how successful the US strikes in Iran were.

“They should be prosecuted. The people who leaked it,” the president said on the Fox News US.

“We can find out. If they wanted, they could find out easily. 

“You go up and tell the reporter: ‘National security, who gave it?’ You have to do that, and I’ll suspect we’ll be doing things like that.”

Mr Trump’s interview with Fox aired as his “Big Beautiful Bill” cleared a procedural hurdle in the US Senate, before it entered a 10-hour debate process.

The US strikes came after Israel said this month it wanted to remove any chance of Iran developing nuclear weapons, launching its own attacks on Tehran that ignited a 12-day war between the two countries.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Mr Grossi said the US strikes on the three Iranian sites had significantly set back Iran’s ability to convert and enrich uranium.

Western powers, however, have stressed that Iran’s nuclear advances provide it with an irreversible knowledge gain, suggesting that while losing experts or facilities may slow progress, the advances were permanent.

“Iran is a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology,” Mr Grossi said. 

“So, you cannot disinvent this. You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have.”

Mr Grossi was also asked about reports of Iran moving its stock of highly enriched uranium in the run-up to the US strikes and said it was not clear where that material was.

“Some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved,” he said.

On Friday, Mr Trump scoffed at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s heated warning to the US not to launch future strikes on Iran, as well as the Iranian supreme leader’s assertion that Tehran “won the war” with Israel.

Mr Trump said the ayatollah’s comments defied reality after 12 days of Israeli strikes and the US bombardment, and the US president suggested the comments were unbecoming of Iran’s most powerful political and religious figure.

“Look, you’re a man of great faith. A man who’s highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth,” Mr Trump said. 

“You got beat to hell.”

Mr Trump also told reporters at the White House that he expected Iran to open itself to international inspection to verify that it does not restart its nuclear program.


Asked if he would demand during expected talks with Iran that the IAEA or some other organisation be authorised to conduct inspections, Mr Trump said Iran would have to cooperate with the group “or somebody that we respect, including ourselves”.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Uranium | Leave a comment

Seizing Zaporizhzhia: A Meltdown in Nuclear Governance

By Robert Schuett – 30 June 2025, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/30/06/2025/seizing-zaporizhzhia-meltdown-nuclear-governance

This is not just about Ukraine. Robert Schuett argues that Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant signals a broader unravelling of global nuclear governance—one that must urgently be addressed.

“There cannot be a crisis next week,” Henry Kissinger once quipped. “My schedule is already full.”

Decades later, the line reads less like a joke about the work ethic and demands of high office, and more like a grim diagnosis of the current global condition. From the ongoing war in Europe—where Russian armed forces continue their relentless aggression, with recent escalations in Kyiv and Odesa—to the deepening geopolitical fracture in the Middle East, international society is not short on crises, violence, and human suffering. 

The real strategic risk for global policy is that when pre-emptive force becomes the de facto tool for upholding non-proliferation principles, the entire framework of nuclear governance begins to fracture.

Yet among them, one threat quietly festers in a war zone on the east bank of the Dnipro River: the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP)—after all, the largest in Europe—located in the city of Enerhodar, in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Overshadowed by battlefield developments and Russia’s broader diplomatic brinkmanship, this overlooked flashpoint risks unravelling the foundational norms of nuclear safety, civilian infrastructure protection, and international law itself. 

Captured by Russian forces in March 2022, the facility has become a symbol of everything that should not happen in modern warfare. Russia has consistently ruled out transferring control of the ZNPP—either back to Ukraine, the US, or any international authority. The Kremlin maintains a posture of legal reinterpretation, insisting on its operational authority despite international condemnation.

Although all six reactors remain in cold shutdown, the risk is far from neutralized. The plant now depends on a single functioning high-voltage line to power critical cooling and safety systems, which is a stark contrast to the ten off-site lines it had before the illegal Russian war of aggression. The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in 2023 eliminated its primary cooling reservoir, forcing the plant to rely on makeshift groundwater wells.

Russian forces have reportedly deployed military assets within the facility, further compromising its integrity. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) maintains a presence onsite, its ability to enforce safety protocols is severely limited under conditions of foreign military occupation.

As IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi recently warned, the power supply to Zaporizhzhia remains “extremely fragile,” placing the site, and the entire region, at persistent risk.

This is not merely a technical or regional issue, however. Russia’s nuclear blackmail is a serious threat to global nuclear order.

Russia’s occupation of ZNPP constitutes a rupture in the international legal and regulatory architecture that safeguards civilian nuclear infrastructure. For decades, global norms and laws—rooted in instruments like the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and IAEA guidance—have treated nuclear power plants as protected, non-military assets. Seizing or attacking them was once unthinkable. Russia’s actions have shattered this principle, undermining legal norms from which it has historically benefited.

The twist is as alarming as it is cynical. Russian state entities like Rosatom, which in peacetime present themselves as responsible global stewards of nuclear safety, are now party to an act of strategic subversion and tool of ruthless state power. Rosatom and its subsidiaries regularly construct and operate nuclear plants abroad, complying with international standards and cultivating an image of professionalism. But at Zaporizhzhia, the same actor has helped transfer control of the facility to a newly created Russian-operated entity. The contradiction is jarring: the self-proclaimed guarantor of global nuclear norms is now violating them in pursuit of pseudo-geopolitical gain. Rosatom has recently confirmed its long-term intention to restart ZNPP, despite the unresolved security, political, regulatory, and moral challenges on the ground.

At a strategic level, this selective application of international rules and norms sets a dangerous precedent. If civilian nuclear infrastructure can be seized and operated by military force—while cloaked in the language of regulation—it opens the door to the normalization of impunity. The rulebook governing civilian nuclear conduct risks becoming a tool of expedience rather than a binding constraint. Such erosion undermines not only nuclear safety but also the predictability and trust that underpin broader technical agreements, from arms control to climate-related energy cooperation.

The longer Zaporizhzhia remains a “nuclear hostage,” the more the world risks sleepwalking into disaster. The plant is not operational, but that is no guarantee of safety. The worst-case scenarios, ranging from damage to spent fuel pools, sabotage of safety systems, or collapse of staff morale, are not theoretical. The ongoing uncertainty erodes public trust in nuclear energy, destabilizes non-proliferation efforts, and sends dangerous signals to other regimes watching how the world responds.

Moreover, the moral implications cannot be ignored. Civilian nuclear facilities were never meant to be pawns in geopolitical contests. They exist to serve public needs, not strategic or revanchist ambitions. Allowing one state to weaponize this infrastructure risks eroding the civilian character of nuclear energy itself.

What’s at stake is far more than a single nuclear plant—or even the authority of one international watchdog. This is a stress test for the entire system of rules that keeps the world from tipping into chaos. If the norms protecting nuclear safety can be so casually violated, what’s to stop similar breaches in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, climate regulation, or space?

The responsibility now lies with the international community not only to condemn, but to act. Diplomatic actors—especially those in Europe and within multilateral institutions—must ensure that the Zaporizhzhia crisis remains at the forefront of international attention. It cannot be allowed to drift into the background of conflict fatigue or be buried beneath newer headlines.

Sustained diplomatic pressure, public engagement, and policy innovation are essential to prevent normalization of the unacceptable. The defense of global norms must not be reactive or selective. Rather, it must be proactive, persistent, and principled.

If international society won’t defend longstanding rules at Zaporizhzhia, it may find itself unprepared when those rules collapse everywhere else.

Robert Schuett is co-founder and managing partner at STK Powerhouse, a global risk advisory firm. A former Defence civil servant, he also serves as Chairman of the Austrian Political Science Association and is a long-standing Honorary Fellow at Durham University.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Iran’s uranium enrichment: myths, realities, and what Canada should understand

Canadians deserve an informed debate about the potential proliferation dangers of these new reactor designs, especially as the intention is to export them around the world.

BY ERIKA SIMPSON, GORDON EDWARDS | June 29, 2025, https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2025/06/29/irans-uranium-enrichment-myths-realities-and-what-canada-should-understand/465192/

Confusion and misinformation continue to shape public discussion about uranium enrichment in Iran. As tensions rise in the Middle East and the fear of nuclear weapons proliferation returns to the headlines, it is important for Canadians to understand the basic scientific facts, the real risks, and the broader international implications.

Uranium enrichment sounds mysterious, but is a well-understood process. Natural uranium contains only 0.7 per cent uranium-235, the rare variety of uranium that can undergo the kind of nuclear chain reaction needed for nuclear power or nuclear bombs. The other 99.3 per cent is uranium-238, a heavier variety of uranium that  cannot sustain such a chain reaction. Enrichment is simply the process of raising the percentage of uranium-235.

It is often reported that 90 per cent uranium enrichment is “needed” to have a nuclear weapon. This is not true. The Hiroshima bomb had only 80 per cent enrichment. Iran has a good deal of 60 per cent enriched uranium, and one can make a powerful bomb from 60 per cent enriched uranium. It would be larger in size than a bomb with 90 per cent enrichment, and so more challenging to deliver, but not much more so. The recent bombings are unlikely to have destroyed the hundreds of kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium already in Iran.

The mechanism needed for making an atomic bomb from uranium is much simpler than that needed for a plutonium bomb. It’s called a “gun-type” atomic bomb rather than an “implosion-type” atomic bomb. 

The gun-type bomb just fires one chunk of uranium into another chunk (the target) so that the two chunks add up to more than a “critical mass.” It is so simple it cannot possibly fail. The United States never tried out this type of bomb before using it; it was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, with no prior testing. Such a bomb needs a precision-timed “neutron source,” but that is old technology, well known for a long time.

The implosion-type bomb is needed when plutonium is the nuclear explosive. Implosion is much more demanding. It requires a perfectly spherical mass of plutonium metal surrounded by concentric plastic explosives to drive the sphere inward toward the centre—an “ implosion.”  It is so tricky it’s pretty well got to be tested first. The U.S. detonated one such plutonium bomb at Alamagordo, New Mexico, three weeks before dropping another one on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

Nuclear authorities maintain that a powerful nuclear explosive device (gun-type) could be made with any uranium enriched to 20 per cent or more. At the 20-per-cent level such a device would be a lot bulkier; it could not easily be carried by rocket or aeroplane, but could be delivered in the hull of a ship, in a truck or cargo container, or even in the trunk of a car, and detonated by remote control. 

For this reason, highly enriched uranium—which is uranium with 20 per cent enriched or more—is increasingly being prohibited from most civilian use.

Up to now, all operating power reactors fuelled with uranium use an enrichment level of no more than five per cent. Fuel at that level of enrichment is not weapons-usable material. But some new reactors proposed in Canada and elsewhere demand fuel that is a lot more enriched. The ARC sodium-cooled reactor planned for New Brunswick uses uranium fuel enriched to more than 13 per cent, while the eVinci reactor being studied in Saskatchewan is designed to use 19.9 per cent enriched uranium.

Independent experts have pointed out that uranium enriched to such high levels—between 12 per cent and 20 per cent—could also be used (like highly enriched uranium) to make an enormously destructive nuclear explosive device. This danger is not officially acknowledged by regulators, and is generally not recognized by politicians and other decision-makers in Canada. The nuclear fuel needed for some of the “fast” or “advanced” SMNRs being proposed in this country is weapons-usable material even though it is below the 20 per per cent enrichment level, and is, therefore, not classified as highly enriched uranium.

Canadians deserve an informed debate about the potential proliferation dangers of these new reactor designs, especially as the intention is to export them around the world.

Gordon Edwards is a nuclear safety consultant and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. Erika Simpson is an associate professor of international politics at the University of Western Ontario.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Uranium | Leave a comment

Israel ‘not an ally’, says former British ambassador

Sir Richard Dalton tells Declassified the US and Israel pose greater threat to Middle East peace than Iran.

MARK CURTIS, 26 June 2025, Declassified UK,

  • Keir Starmer’s flouting of international law over Gaza and Iran does a “disservice” to Britain
  • “Intense” lobbying by Israel exerts undue influence over UK foreign policy
  • “Majority” of Iranians may support their country acquiring nuclear arms after Israeli/US attacks

“Israel is not an ally” of Britain, former UK ambassador Sir Richard Dalton has told Declassified in a wide-ranging interview.  

He also warns that Britain’s Israel lobby is getting “stronger” and exerts “a very powerful force in our society” including over politicians and political parties.

In a discussion on the current conflicts in the Middle East, Dalton, who served as Britain’s top official in Tehran from 2003-06, said that the United States and Israel together constituted “a greater threat to the stability of the region than Iran”. 

He added that prime minister Keir Starmer’s backing of Israeli and American air strikes on Iran this month does “a disservice to Britain, and a disservice to the cause of preserving international law as guidance for nations in their interactions with each other”.

Dalton told Declassified that the contention that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear arms is “false” and that “no such threat existed”.

The seasoned diplomat, who served as Britain’s Consul-General in Jerusalem from 1993-7, observed, “I think that Israel cannot be regarded as an ally because their objectives in resolving the central problems of the Near East are so different from ours”.

“We believe in the self-determination of the Palestinian people. The Israelis do not. We believe in a two state solution. The Israelis, not all of them, but the dominant ones, do not.

“We believe that the state of Israel should be based on its 1948 borders. The Israelis do not. We believe that settlements across the Green Line are illegal and an obstacle to peace, the Israelis are bent on expanding them and, we believe that the Palestinians have a right to a peaceful existence on their own land”.

Dalton acknowledged that Israel does provide intelligence cooperation with Britain about extremist movements. 

But he felt the idea that Israel is an ally because it is “the only democracy in the Middle East” is undermined since it “constantly oppresses its neighbouring people and subjects them to inhuman circumstances” such as in Gaza.

“It’s forfeited its right to be regarded as an ally just because it has an internal democracy”, Dalton said.

Condemning the “appalling and grossly illegal” Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023, the former ambassador added that “the balance indicates that this [Israel] is not a country with a similar set of values to us”. 

‘Pro-Israel lobby in British foreign policy making’

Dalton, who held a range of positions in the Foreign Office until leaving in 2006, believes the UK has not taken a clear position on international legal issues over Gaza due to “the desire not to open up a wide gulf with the United States as a matter of principle”.  

“I find it shocking”, he says. “There are European countries that have taken a much more robust and intelligent and humane and legal stance.”

Dalton added: “The reason we have never developed an independent policy on the turmoils and travails of the Middle East is because we are always looking over our shoulders at what the Americans want, what the Americans are saying”.

The second reason explaining UK support for Israel over Gaza is the Israel lobby, the former ambassador reasoned. 

The “balance of opinion in parliament” is such that “those willing to uphold the Palestinian right to self-determination and to be free from gross human rights abuses are relatively weak”.

There’s also “the effect of intense Israeli lobbying and the linkage of Israeli lobbying to financial interests. It is a very powerful force in our society. Those who support the Israeli government through thick and thin, have traditionally been very influential”, Dalton added.

‘Powerful allies’

The Israel lobby has “powerful political allies in some political parties, and in some sections of the media. So a desire for a quiet life and a good career, means that many politicians swallow potential dislike of aspects of Israeli policy in order to toe the Israeli line”.

Asked if he sees evidence of the strength of the pro-Israel lobby in Britain’s Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, Dalton replied: “Oh, yes. There’s no doubt that the Israeli public have a right to be proud of their diplomatic service and the ability of the State of Israel to leverage sources of influence within British society”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-not-an-ally-says-former-british-ambassador/

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Israel, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

In Gaza, survivors accuse Britain of complicity

“This massacre was not random. Everything was calculated precisely, as if they were tracking every move. 

“When I learned that the US and Britain provided Israel with intelligence from reconnaissance planes, I felt betrayed from above. 

Eye witnesses to an Israeli massacre believe British intelligence contributed to the slaughter.

SHAIMAA EID, 29 June 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/in-gaza-survivors-accuse-britain-of-complicity/

The smell of blood and smoke still lingers in the memory of those who lived through the Nuseirat massacre in the heart of the Gaza Strip. 

One year has passed since the slaughter on 8 June 2024, when Israeli forces launched a “hostage rescue” operation against Hamas. 

However, that military raid – which killed more than 270 Palestinians, the vast majority of them civilians – left behind nothing in Nuseirat but devastation and collective loss.

As families continue to mourn, media reports, including by the New York Times, have added another layer of pain. 

They revealed that Western countries, including the US and UK, provided intelligence ahead of the operation through surveillance flights and advanced monitoring technology.

Today, survivors of the massacre hold those countries responsible, saying that surveillance planes which filled the skies over the camp in the days leading up to the operation may have been “British and American eyes directing the fire from above.”

‘Unforgivable’

Raed Abdel Fattah, 38, is still unable to return to normal life after what he experienced that bloody morning.

“I was with my wife and our three children in the market when the airstrikes began. We ran aimlessly through the street, just trying to survive. 

“We tried to take cover in a parked car on the side of the road. We passed it just seconds before it was struck by a missile and went up in flames. Had we been a moment later, we would have been buried under the rubble.”

Raed pauses, then continues in a tense voice: “We ran into the Nuseirat market as bullets rained down around us, with bodies and the wounded filling the streets. 

“There was no safe place. In front of us was a young man selling sweets – suddenly, a quadcopter drone shot him in the head. 

“His brain spilled out before my eyes. I couldn’t hold myself together. It was a moment of human collapse I haven’t recovered from to this day.”

He adds: “This massacre was not random. Everything was calculated precisely, as if they were tracking every move. 

“When I learned that the US and Britain provided Israel with intelligence from reconnaissance planes, I felt betrayed from above. 

“These planes were not only Israeli. If they supplied images or data, they are part of the decision – and partners in the outcome.”

Raed is not seeking sympathy: “We do not want diplomatic apologies. Whoever provided the information opened the door to the massacre, even from afar. This is unforgivable and cannot be forgotten.”

Britain has sent more than 500 surveillance flights over Gaza since the war began, supposedly to help Israel locate hostages.

The raid on Nuseirat is one of the only examples where Israel freed captives through military force, increasing the likelihood that British intelligence contributed in some way.

British pilots conducted 24 flights over Gaza in the two weeks leading up to and including the day of the massacre.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, UK | Leave a comment

UN expert urges criminalizing fossil fuel disinformation, banning lobbying

Rapporteur calls for defossilization of economies and urgent reparations to avert ‘catastrophic’ rights and climate harms.

Nina Lakhani Climate justice reporter, Mon 30 Jun 2025 , https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/30/un-expert-urges-criminalizing-fossil-fuel-disinformation-banning-lobbying

A leading UN expert is calling for criminal penalties against those peddling disinformation about the climate crisis and a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising, as part of a radical shake-up to safeguard human rights and curtail planetary catastrophe.

Elisa Morgera, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change who presents her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday, argues that the US, UK, Canada, Australia and other wealthy fossil fuel nations are legally obliged under international law to fully phase out oil, gas and coal by 2030 – and compensate communities for harms caused.

Fracking, oil sands and gas flaring should be banned, as should fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments and false tech solutions that will lock in future generations to polluting and increasingly costly oil, gas and coal.

“Despite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle … these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,” said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.

“These countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing – biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities – caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.”

Island nations, Indigenous and other vulnerable communities – who have benefited least from fossil fuels – now face the worst and compounding harms caused by the climate crisis and other environmental harms linked to their extraction, transport and use for energy, fuel, plastics and synthetic fertilizers.

The report points to a mountain of evidence on the severe, far-reaching and cumulative damage caused by the fossil fuel industry – oil, gas, coal, fertilizers and plastics – on almost every human right including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information and livelihoods.

Morgera makes the case for the “defossilization” of our entire economies – in other words the eradication of fossil fuels from all sectors including politics, finance, food, media, tech and knowledge. The transition to clean energy is not enough to tackle the widespread and mounting harms caused by the fossil fuels, she argues.

In order to comply with existing international human rights law, states are obliged to inform their citizens about the widespread harms caused by fossil fuels and that phasing out oil, gas and coal is the most effective way to fight the climate crisis.

People also have the right to know how the industry – and its allies – has for 60 years systematically obstructed access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action by peddling disinformation and misinformation, attacks on climate scientists and activists, and by capturing democratic decision-making spaces including the annual UN climate negotiations.

“The fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,” said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.

States must ban fossil fuel ads and lobbying, criminalize greenwashing (misinformation and misrepresentation) by the fossil fuel industry, media and advertising firms, and enforce harsh penalties for attacks on climate advocates who are facing a rise in malicious lawsuits, online harassment and physical violence.

Communities across the world are facing growing threats from sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, extreme heat, floods, and other climate-related impacts. This is on top of the deadly air pollution, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and forced displacement of Indigenous and rural peoples associated with every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle.

Meanwhile, fossil fuel and petrochemical companies have benefited from huge profits, taxpayer subsidies, tax avoidance schemes and undue protection under international investment law – without ever reducing energy poverty and economic inequalities. In 2023, oil and gas companies globally earned $2.4tn, while coal companies pocketed $2.5tn, according to the report.

Removing fossil fuel subsidies, estimated to have topped $1.4tn for OECD members and 48 other countries in 2023, would alone reduce emissions by up to 10% by 2030.

Redirecting these subsidies would help wealthy fossil fuel-producing states fulfill their legal obligations to aid developing countries to phase out fossil fuels – and provide financial and other remedies for the widespread human rights violations and environmental damage they have caused – and continue to cause.

The compensation could also be funded by enforcing penalties for damages caused by fossil fuel companies, and cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance by the industry, as well as introducing wealth and windfall taxes. States could – and should – require the industry to finance climate adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage through climate superfunds or other mechanisms that are directly accessible to affected communities.

Land unjustly appropriated for fossil fuel operations should be cleaned up, remediated and returned to Indigenous communities, people of African descent and peasants, if they want it back, or they should be fairly compensated, Morgera argues.

The report lays out the human rights case for decisive and transformative political action to limit the pain and suffering from the climate crisis. The recommendations offer a glimpse at a world in which the basic rights of all people are prioritized above the profits and benefits enjoyed by a few, but will probably be dismissed by some as radical and untenable.

“Paradoxically what may seem radical or unrealistic – a transition to a renewable energy-based economy – is now cheaper and safer for our economics and a healthier option for our societies,” Morgera told the Guardian.

“The transition can also lead to significant savings of taxpayers’ money that is currently going into responding to climate change impacts, saving health costs, and also recouping lost tax revenue from fossil fuel companies. This could be the single most impactful health contribution we could ever make. The transition seems radical and unrealistic because fossil fuel companies have been so good at making it seem so.”

July 2, 2025 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

The Five Percenters: NATO’s Promise of War

Another misleading element in the declaration is the claimed unanimity of member states. 

28 June 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-five-percenters-natos-promise-of-war/

The confidence trickster was at it again on his visit to The Hague, reluctantly meeting members of the overly large family that is NATO. President Donald Trump was hoping to impress upon all present that allies of the United States, whatever inclination and whatever their domestic policy, should spend mightily on defence, inflating the margins of sense and sensibility against marginal threats. Never mind the strain placed on the national budget over such absurd priorities as welfare, health or education.  

The marvellous irony in this is that much of the budget increases have been prompted byTrump’s perceived unreliability and capriciousness when it comes to European affairs. Would he, for instance, treat obligations of collective defence outlined in Article 5 of the organisation’s governing treaty with utmost seriousness? Since Washington cannot be relied upon to hold the fort against the satanic savages from the East, various European countries have been encouraging a spike in defence spending to fight the sprites and hobgoblins troubling their consciences at night.  

The European Union, for instance, has put in place initiatives that will make getting more weaponry and investing in the military industrial complex easier than ever, raising the threshold of defence expenditure across all member countries to 3.5% of GDP by the end of the decade. And then there is the Ukraine conflict, a war Brussels cannot bear to see end on terms that might be remotely favourable to Russia.  

The promised pecuniary spray made at the NATO summit was seen by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as utterly natural if not eminently sensible. Not much else was. It was Rutte who remarked with infantile fawning that “Sometimes Daddy has to use tough language” when it came to sorting out the murderous bickering between Israel and Iran. Daddy Trump approved. “He likes me, I think he likes me,” the US president crowed with glowing satisfaction.

Rutte’s behaviour has been viewed with suspicion, as well it should. Under his direction, NATO headquarters have made a point of diminishing any focus on climate change and its Women, Peace, and Security agenda. He has failed to make much of Trump’s mania for the annexation of Greenland, or the President’s gladiatorial abuse of certain leaders when visiting the White House – Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa come to mind. “He is not paid to implement MAGA policy,” grumbled a European NATO diplomat to Euroactive.

In his doorstep statement of June 25, Rutte made his wish known that the NATO collective possess both the money and capabilities to cope, not just with Russia “but also the massive build-up of military in China, and the fact that North Korea, China and Iran, are supporting the war effort in Ukraine.” Lashings of butter were also added to the Trump ego when responding to questions. “Would you really think that the seven or eight countries not at 2% [of GDP expenditure on defence] at the beginning of this year would have reached the 2% if Trump would not have been elected President of the United States?” It was only appropriate, given the contributions of the US (“over 50% of the total NATO economy”), that things had to change for the Europeans and Canadians.

The centrepiece of the Hague Summit Declaration is a promise that 5% of member countries’ gross GDP will go to “core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations.” Traditional bogeyman Russia is the predictable antagonist, posing a “long-term threat […] to Euro-Atlantic security”, but so was “the persistent threat of terrorism.” The target is optimistic, given NATO’s own recent estimates that nine members spend less than the current target of 2% of GDP.

What is misleading in the declaration is the accounting process: the 3.5% of annual GDP that will be spent “on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure by 2035 to resource core defence requirements, and to meet NATO Capability Targets” is one component. The other 1.5%, a figure based on a creative management of accounts, is intended to “protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.”

Another misleading element in the declaration is the claimed unanimity of member states. The Baltic countries and Poland are forever engaged in increasing their defence budgets in anticipation of a Russian attack, but the same cannot be said of other countries less disposed to the issue. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico, for instance, declared on the eve of the summit that his country had “better things to spend money on.” Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has also called the 5% target “incompatible with our world view,” preferring to focus on a policy of prudent procurement.

Rutte seemed to revel in his role as wallah and jesting sycophant, making sure Trump was not only placated but massaged into a state of satisfaction. It was a sight all the stranger for the fact that Trump’s view of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a warm one. Unfortunately for the secretary general, his role will be forever etched in the context of European history as an aspiring warmonger, one valued at 5% of the GDP of any of the NATO member states. Hardly a flattering epitaph.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump reiterates Iran nuclear talking points despite swirling questions.

US president denies multiple reports and accounts that say US strikes did not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Aljazeera, 29 Jun 2025

United States President Donald Trump has reiterated a vow not to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons following the end of Iran and Israel’s recent 12-day conflict, in which the US militarily intervened, and has stuck closely to his narrative as questions remain about the impact of US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

On the Fox News programme Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, Trump repeated his claim that Iran was “weeks away” from making the weapons before Israel attacked on June 13. Nine days later, the US targeted Iran’s top three nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Both US intelligence and the United Nations nuclear watchdog have ascertained that Tehran was not building a nuclear arsenal. Iran has long insisted that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only.

While Trump has said that the sites were “obliterated” by the US bombers, in the wake of the attacks, several major news organisations, citing intelligence sources, have reported that the US strikes did not destroy the facilities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Monday that it was unclear what damage had been sustained at the Fordow plant, which houses the bulk of Iran’s most highly enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear weapon.

On Sunday, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran could restart uranium enrichment in a matter of months, while Trump insisted over the weekend that the attacks had set Iran’s nuclear ambitions back “by decades”.

According to an IAEA report last month, Iran has more than 400kg (880lb) of uranium enriched to up to 60 per cent purity, close to the roughly 90 per cent weapons grade – which is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons.

Trump told Fox News that the news outlets questioning the efficacy of the attacks he ordered and lauded were spreading “fake news”.

“It’s just horrible and I could see it happening, and they [news outlets] tried to build that into a story, but then it turned out, no, it was obliterated like nobody has ever seen before and that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions at least for a period of time,” Trump said.

On whether or not Iran would restart its nuclear programme following the end of the conflict, Trump said, “The last thing they want to do right now is think about nuclear.”

During the attack on the sites, reports emerged that Iran had removed the enriched uranium from Fordow, but Trump claimed that was false.

“It’s a very hard thing to do, plus we didn’t give them much notice because they didn’t know we were coming until just then and nobody thought we would go after that site because everybody said that site was impenetrable… it’s at the bottom of a mountain and it’s granite,” he said.

“[But] the bomb went through it like butter, like it was absolute butter,” he said…………………………….. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/29/trump-reiterates-iran-nuclear-talking-points-despite-swirling-questions

July 1, 2025 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Flamanville EPR shut down, no restart date announced

Having just exceeded the 60% power threshold, the Flamanville EPR was shut down as part of its tests but must remain so following a problem.

By Chrismaël Marchand, June 25, 2025, https://actu.fr/normandie/flamanville_50184/lepr-de-flamanville-est-a-larret-pas-de-date-de-redemarrage-annoncee_62823385.html

The Flamanville EPR (Manche) entered the operating phase in May 2024, with the loading of its fuel . Since then, it has validated its first divergence in September 2024 and the coupling to the electricity grid in December 2024. In 2025, it continues this intense start-up phase with a target of full power during the summer of 2025 .

It is even on schedule, it seems, since it reached 60% of its power , at the beginning of June 2025. It is now aiming for the 80% level where it will have to benefit from the approval of the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Authority (ASNR).

However, he will have to wait a little longer because unit number 3 of the Flamanville Nuclear Power Production Centre (CNPE) is no longer operating.

Investigation and repair on the agenda

On June 19, 2025, at 7:05 p.m., it was shut down as part of the reactor commissioning tests, which require the reactor to undergo numerous and significant power variations.

Reactor No. 2 is also delayed

On Monday, June 16, reactor No. 2 was disconnected from the power grid, “following the activation of the turbine’s automatic protections,” located in the non-nuclear part of the facility. “We detected an oil leak on a component,” EDF confirmed. “The reactor therefore went into automatic protection mode.” Initially, unit No. 2 was scheduled to restart on the evening of Sunday, June 22. However, repairs are taking longer than expected. A new date has therefore been set for Saturday, June 28. However, there is no guarantee.

“This shutdown allowed adjustment operations to be carried out in the engine room, a non-nuclear part of the facilities,” EDF explained . However, the production unit has still not restarted.

It is kept at a standstill to carry out investigations and adjustments on a protection valve of the main primary circuit.EDF, communications department

No official date has been announced yet. ” We are investigating and making repairs to continue the test session,” EDF concluded

July 1, 2025 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

What is an EMP?

  by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/06/29/what-is-an-emp/

A nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation could affect billions explains Carlos Umaña in an interview

As a companion piece to Umaña’s article about the April 2025 blackout in Europe and his first fears that nuclear war had begun, we republish this interview from Tendencia in 2019.

In 2017, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its decade-long work to ban the atomic bomb.

ICAN is a global alliance whose goal is to raise awareness among people in all countries to pressure their governments to sign a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The campaign was launched in 2007 and is now active in more than 60 countries.

Carlos Umaña, from Costa Rica, is a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), and a member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

What is a nuclear electromagnetic pulse?

A nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a brief, intense pulse of radio wave that is produced by a nuclear detonation.

Its radius is much greater than the destruction caused by the heat and shock wave of the nuclear weapon. For example, the pulse from an explosion about 100 km high would cover an area of 4 million km2. An explosion about 350 km high could, for example, cover most of North America, with a voltage of a power that is a million times greater than that of a lightning bolt from a thunderstorm. That is, if the detonation of a nuclear bomb is made from a sufficient height, even if there is no such great physical destruction, it could affect the lives of the inhabitants of an entire country or of several countries.

What would be the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb from a sufficient height?

It would cause extensive disruption of all electrical equipment. Everything within the radius of the EMP wave would cease to function and would literally go dark.

The EMP energy would be absorbed by a large number of metallic objects, including power cables, telephone lines, railroads and antennas. It would be transmitted to computers and electronic equipment. This would directly affect essential circuits for telecommunications, computer systems, transportation networks, etc. In other words, it would affect practically everything to do with technology.

Why talk about humanitarian consequences, if we are talking about technology, not people?

Recently there has been an impetus for the humanitarian nuclear disarmament movement, where there has been talk about how weapons affect people. There is a lot of talk about the direct effects of destruction by heat, blast wave and radiation, the effects of which last for generations and cause a lot of suffering even today.

Today, this issue has become extremely relevant because civilization depends on technology for so many things, including health systems, and so many people would be affected both directly and indirectly, far beyond the catastrophic damage caused by the direct physical elements.

Nuclear bombs have been detonated before, why hasn’t this happened?

Yes, it has. This is known from the havoc they have wreaked at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) and the 2056 nuclear tests that have been done since then.

The difference between then and now is that our dependence on technology is virtually absolute. If we think about it, almost every aspect of our lives, especially in the urban environment, is tied to technology, both in terms of the electrical devices that take care of more and more of the details of our daily lives, and the global communication and information network that we depend on to function as a society. We’re talking about things from basic telecommunication, to data in the cloud, to the stock market, to digital maps for international flights, and so on.

All cars and planes would be disabled. Police, ambulances and firefighters could not be called. Food could not be distributed, especially in urban centers, nor water. Imagine entire cities without electricity, lights, transportation and food. It would be the end of civilization itself. Modern life as we know it would simply cease to exist.

To what extent are the threats of this happening real?

While North Korea’s arsenal is much smaller than that of the United States, at times of tension between the two countries, the North Korean threat was to detonate a bomb in the U.S. atmosphere to disable a large part of the country.

Read the original interview in Spanish here.

July 1, 2025 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?’: trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets

Some in Marham are troubled by news that its airbase could host nuclear warplanes, but others are relaxed

Matthew Weaver, Guardian, Sat 28 Jun 2025

The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain’s military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo.

“It’s a lovely, quiet little village,” says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham.

Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK’s nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation.

Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Bourne said: “When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we’re going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.”

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. “I might join in,” she says. “My daughter says we’ve always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I’d think about moving, but I’m 83, I’m not going anywhere.”

Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend’s house for a plunge in their hot tub. “I read about the weapons on Facebook,” says Becky. “It’s strange to think they’ll be here in little old Marham.”

Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: “Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.”

Katherine, a medical student, says: “It makes you think, ‘Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?’”

At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village.

“Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,” says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. “We’d be obliterated here.”

She adds: “And with Donald Trump’s finger on the button, does it matter that we’ve got nuclear weapons or not?”…………………………………………………………https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/28/are-we-safe-nuclear-weapons-trepidation-norfolk-village-jets-marham

July 1, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »