US Military Doctrine – Goodbye to Geneva
1 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/us-military-doctrine-goodbye-to-geneva/
Recent developments in the United States of America and the performances of President Trump and his Secretary of War Pete Hegseth should be concerning to us all.
There are indeed reports and analyses indicating that Secretary Hegseth is pursuing a significant overhaul of the U.S. military’s legal framework, with the stated goal of empowering commanders and adopting a more aggressive approach to warfare.
Policy Shifts and International Law
The planned changes have raised concerns among observers about their potential impact on the international rules-based order.
Overhauling Military Lawyers
Reports note that Hegseth has made it a priority to “retrain” military lawyers (the Judge Advocate General’s corps, or JAGs) so they provide advice that allows commanders to “pursue more aggressive tactics” and take a “more lenient approach in charging soldiers with battlefield crimes.” Critics of the JAG corps have argued that their interpretation of rules of engagement, such as the requirement to positively identify an enemy combatant, has been too restrictive.
Historical Context and Criticism
This effort is not happening in a vacuum. During the George W. Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks, JAG lawyers resisted the administration’s view that it could lawfully direct the military to ignore the Geneva Conventions regarding detainees.
A Stated Vision for Warfare
In his writings, Hegseth has been explicit about his philosophy, questioning the value of the Geneva Conventions and suggesting that the U.S. military should fight wars on its own terms, with less regard for the opinions of other countries or international courts. He has publicly argued that modern fighters “face lawyers as much as enemies” and that adversaries should receive “bullets, not lawyers.”
When evaluating these developments, it is helpful to consider the following perspectives:
A Deliberate Agenda
The evidence suggests that the actions of Secretary Hegseth are not ad hoc but part of a coherent, long-held belief system aimed at reducing legal constraints on the battlefield, which he views as detrimental to a “warrior ethos.”
A Contentious Debate
This shift represents one side of a long-standing and profound debate within military and international circles. It pits a view prioritising maximum operational freedom against one that holds that adhering to laws of war is a strategic and moral necessity, a stance historically defended by military lawyers themselves.
The potential consequences of altering the U.S. military’s relationship with international humanitarian law are a significant subject of global concern and analysis.
Democrats alarmed as Trump eyes weapons material to fuel nuclear reactors
The scramble to build new reactors to supply power to AI data centers may include plutonium from the nation’s nuclear deterrent.
Politico, By Zack Colman, 09/29/2025
The Trump administration is considering a proposal to divert plutonium that plays a central role in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile to fuel a new generation of power plants, according to an Energy Department official and previously undisclosed department documents.
The proposal calls for the department to alter the plutonium so it can be used by civilian power companies, including startups pitching advanced reactor designs. It’s part of a broader push by President Donald Trump to convert tons of the Energy Department’s plutonium to civilian use, a notion that some lawmakers argue would undermine the U.S. weapons program for the benefit of untested private companies.
The initiative would involve harvesting plutonium on a large scale: According to a department official and a July 31 DOE memo seen by POLITICO, more than a fifth of the plutonium needed to meet Trump’s mandates would come from the highly radioactive spheres manufactured for the cores of nuclear weapons. DOE already faces a crunch to make more of those spheres, known as plutonium pits — it’s lagging behind Congress’ demands that it boost pit production to modernize the country’s nuclear deterrence.
The department is “not meeting the current pit manufacturing schedule,” said a former DOE official who is familiar with the department’s plutonium reserves. “So to make pit plutonium available would be a huge shift, and I’d be shocked.”
Both the current and former officials were granted anonymity to share sensitive details about national security matters.
Trump didn’t mention the pits in a May executive order in which he directed DOE to draw from another source — its stores of surplus plutonium — to help revive the nuclear power industry and meet the soaring electricity demands of data centers used in artificial intelligence. The U.S. officially halted its program that made weapons-grade plutonium in 1992.
The department declined to confirm or deny any details of its plutonium plans in response to questions from POLITICO.
“The Department of Energy is evaluating a variety of strategies to build and strengthen domestic supply chains for nuclear fuel, including plutonium, as directed by President Trump’s Executive Orders,” the department said in a statement. “We have no announcements to share at this time.”
The White House referred POLITICO’s questions about the plutonium plans to DOE. The Defense Department referred questions to the White House.
Government watchdogs and congressional Democrats have spent weeks objecting to the entire notion of transferring government-owned plutonium to the power sector. Such a move “goes against long-standing, bipartisan U.S. nuclear security policy,” Democratic Sen. Ed Markey and Reps. Don Beyer and John Garamendi wrote in a Sept. 10 letter to Trump. “It raises serious weapons proliferation concerns, makes little economic sense, and may adversely affect the nation’s defense posture.”
In a separate Sept. 23 letter to Trump, Markey said he was concerned that Energy Secretary Chris Wright was pushing the plutonium proposals to help a Californian nuclear power startup named Oklo, on whose board Wright once sat………….
Oklo spokesperson Paul Day declined to comment on Markey’s concerns of a possible conflict of interest. He also declined to comment on how much plutonium the company intends or has agreed to acquire from DOE. He said DOE “has not, as far as we know, established a plutonium fuel program.”
One nuclear safety watchdog echoed many of the Democrats’ concerns in an interview, saying DOE’s proposal could hollow out the nation’s nuclear defenses and compromise the Pentagon’s long-term deterrence strategy. And it appears to be happening without coordination with the Defense Department, said Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit group that focuses on global security.
…………………………………………..U.S. civilian reactors now use only uranium for their nuclear fuel, but some reactors under development are planning to use plutonium. Spent plutonium from reactors is far more radioactive than uranium — and could pose a greater security risk than uranium if it were to fall into the hands of hostile nations or terrorist groups.
………………………………………… The DOE memo called for delivering 18.5 metric tons of the government’s surplus plutonium and an additional 6.5 metric tons pulled from “material in classified form once it has been declassified.” That latter term, the current DOE official who spoke to POLITICO said, refers to the plutonium pits, whose shape and characteristics can reveal information about nuclear weapons.
The company where Wright was once a board member, Oklo, wants to take advantage of the plutonium fuel program. Unlike its competitors, Oklo’s fast-neutron reactors can use plutonium as a “bridge” fuel to get around the bottlenecks that exist in obtaining the more desirable grades of uranium, CEO Jacob DeWitte told POLITICO in an interview.
DeWitte said Oklo has not publicly revealed how much plutonium the company is seeking to run its new reactors, or from where precisely it plans to obtain that plutonium. He also said the Trump administration has not detailed exactly how much plutonium it will make available, noting that “there is disagreement” over how much surplus plutonium the federal government can hand off before harming nuclear deterrence……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/29/trumps-nuclear-power-push-stirs-worries-about-us-weapons-stockpile-00583424
Russian nuclear submarine: Fears as K-159 nuke vessel, that sank over 20 years ago, rusty and resting on seabed with highly radioactive fuel
By Isabella Boneham, Reporter, https://www.nationalworld.com/news/world/russian-nuclear-submarine-fears-as-k-159-nuke-vessel-that-sank-years-ago-resting-on-seabed-5337748
The decommissioned Soviet nuclear submarine K-159 is still at the bottom of the Barents Sea after sinking more than 20 years ago.
In August 2003, the K-159 sank in a storm while being towed for scrapping. The submarine, which had been decommissioned since 1989, was in poor condition and was not defueled.
The submarine lies at a depth of about 246 meters in Russian territorial waters, near the entrance to the Kola Bay. Russia was soon to announce that the sub should be lifted, although it would be challenging due to the outer hull’s rusty conditions.
But nothing happened and Europe-Russia ties turned gradually colder. Researchers have since then monitored the wreck, fearing leakages of radioactivity from the two old nuclear reactors onboard could contaminate the important fishing grounds in the Barents Sea.
The K-159 still contains about 800 kg of spent nuclear fuel in its two reactors, posing a long-term environmental risk. The rusty hull is in a state of advanced corrosion, increasing the chance of future radioactive leaks.
A joint Norwegian-Russian expedition examined the site in 2014 and concluded that no leakage has so far occurred from the reactors to the surrounding marine environment. According to the Barents Observer, Lithuania-based nuclear expert Dmitry Gorchakov with the Bellona Environmental Transparency Center is worried.
He said: “There is a possibility of leaks, of course. Especially since K-159 was not prepared for flooding”. He underlined that so far, to his knowledge, “no leaks have been found.”
Dmitry Gorchakov says it one day eventually will be necessary to bring up the K-159. However, plans have been put on hold due to the Russia-Ukraine war.
He said: “In the current conditions of isolation, it is unlikely Russia will be able to conduct such an operation alone. There is no necessary equipment, and there may not be money for this in the budget. I think in the coming years they will depict preparations for the lift, but nothing more”.
Thomas Nilsen, editor of The Barents Observer online newspaper, previously described the submarines as a “Chernobyl in slow motion on the seabed”. In a BBC report, Ingar Amundsen, head of international nuclear safety at the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, agreed that it is a question of when, not if, the sunken submarines will contaminate the waters if left as they are.
Jane Goodall, the Gentle Disrupter Whose Research on Chimpanzees Redefined What It Meant To Be Human
The Conversation, Mireya Mayor, Director of Exploration and Science Communication, Florida International University, October 2, 2025
Anyone proposing to offer a master class on changing the world for the better, without becoming negative, cynical, angry or narrow-minded in the process, could model their advice on the life and work of pioneering animal behavior scholar Jane Goodall.
Goodall’s life journey stretches from marveling at the somewhat unremarkable creatures – though she would never call them that – in her English backyard as a wide-eyed little girl in the 1930s to challenging the very definition of what it means to be human through her research on chimpanzees in Tanzania. From there, she went on to become a global icon and a United Nations Messenger of Peace.
Until her death on Oct. 1, 2025 at age 91, Goodall retained a charm, open-mindedness, optimism and wide-eyed wonder that are more typical of children. I know this because I have been fortunate to spend time with her and to share insights from my own scientific career. To the public, she was a world-renowned scientist and icon. To me, she was Jane – my inspiring mentor and friend.
Despite the massive changes Goodall wrought in the world of science, upending the study of animal behavior, she was always cheerful, encouraging and inspiring. I think of her as a gentle disrupter. One of her greatest gifts was her ability to make everyone, at any age, feel that they have the power to change the world.
Discovering tool use in animals
In her pioneering studies in the lush rainforest of Tanzania’s Gombe Stream Game Reserve, now a national park, Goodall noted that the most successful chimp leaders were gentle, caring and familial. Males that tried to rule by asserting their dominance through violence, tyranny and threat did not last.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://theconversation.com/jane-goodall-the-gentle-disrupter-whose-research-on-chimpanzees-redefined-what-it-meant-to-be-human-205909
IAEA Races to Restore Power at Besieged Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Plant
Oil Price, By RFE/RL staff – Oct 01, 2025,
- Europe’s largest nuclear plant has been disconnected from the grid for over a week and is running on emergency diesel generators, one of which has already failed.
- Ukrainian President Zelenskyy warned of a “threat to everyone” as shelling prevents the repair of damaged power lines.
- IAEA head Rafael Grossi is mediating between Ukraine and Russia to restore offsite power, stressing that prolonged reliance on generators is unsustainable.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/IAEA-Races-to-Restore-Power-at-Besieged-Zaporizhzhya-Nuclear-Plant.html
Suffolk County Council has no evacuation plan in case of a RAF Lakenheath nukes incident
Suffolk County Council has no evacuation plans in case of an incident
involving the US nuclear weapons which are widely believed to be held at
RAF Lakenheath, a Canary investigation can reveal. RAF Lakenheath nuclear
weapons: council has no evacuation plans in place. The base, which is owned
by the UK’s Royal Air Force (RAF), but operated and managed by the United
States Air Force (USAF), was widely reported to have received a delivery of
US nuclear weapons in July 2025. The UK and US governments have a policy of
neither confirming, nor denying, the alleged locations of deployed nuclear
weapons.
The Canary 30th Sept 2025, https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/09/30/raf-lakenheath-nuclear-weapons-2/
Changing the rules: Ministers may scrap nuke dump Test of Public Support
NFLA 1st Oct 2025
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are dismayed that Government Ministers may be considering scrapping any right of local people to have their say prior to a nuclear waste dump being built in their community.
The Telegraph reported last week that rumours are circulating that officials in the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) are reviewing current government policy guiding the delivery of a Geological Disposal Facility as Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is considering abolishing the promised Test of Public Support.[i]
Sadly once again out-of-touch journalists have sought to besmirch the motivation of opponents to a GDF by branding them ‘nimbies’. This fails to acknowledge the multiple legitimate concerns that residents have about the devastating impact that the construction and operation of a undersea repository for Britain’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste would bring upon their local community for up to 175 years.
The motivation behind the review appears to be the recent decision by Lincolnshire County Council to withdraw its political support, as the last remaining Relevant Local Principal Authority, from plans to develop a GDF in East Lindsey. This was clearly a bodyblow to Nuclear Waste Services as officials recently revealed to a meeting attended by the NFLA Secretary that Lincolnshire was their preferred location because of the favourable geology.
Although the paper stated that a Whitehall source had told Telegraph journalists that no decisions have been made, it has been suggested that the outcome of the review might be that other factors, such as the suitability of local geology and the delivery cost, could take precedence over securing local support.
The current policy is deemed to be ‘consent-based’, because it provides for a Test of Public Support to be conducted amongst the Potential Host Community in the final phase, with only a positive result enabling a GDF to go ahead in a community, and then only if the necessary planning and regulatory approvals are secured.
The exact timing of the test is determined by the Relevant Principal Local Authority, but the nature of the test is agreed by the local Community Partnership.
The policy also requires at least one Relevant Principal Local Authority to remain on-board with the process in every GDF Search Area, but the authority can exercise their Right to Withdraw.
In first South Holderness and then in Lincolnshire, plans to site a GDF were roundly defeated not by adverse Tests of Public Support, but rather by massive and persistent public protests which pressurised responsive local Councillors to exercise their Right to Withdraw ending the process.
It is unclear whether the review will consider ending the Right to Withdraw, as well as the commitment to a Test of Public Support. This is something the NFLAs intend to clarify with DESNZ.
In any case, the existing policy is caveated as ‘since 2008, the Government continues to reserve the right to explore other approaches in the event that, at some point in the future, such an approach does not look likely to work.’
NFLA Secretary Richard Outram said: “Any decision to abandon the established consent-based approach to siting a nuclear waste dump will be an admission by Ministers that no community actually wants to host it.
“Replacing voluntarism with a plan to railroad such a controversial project onto an unwilling community will be a retrograde step and simply lead to more vociferous public resistance.”
Academic and antinuclear activist Dr David Lowry co-wrote a book about previous Conservative Government attempts to impose a nuclear waste dump on English communities[ii].
Commenting on the news, Dr Lowry said:
“The Labour Government will be making a major political error if it tries to impose a nuclear waste dump on a community without its consent.……………………………………………………………………… https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/changing-the-rules-ministers-may-scrap-nuke-dump-test-of-public-support
No to nuclear in the Llynfi valley – Community campaign resists reactors built for data centres
Climate Camp Cymru supported the No Nuclear Llynfi campaign in the Llynfi
valley, South Wales, this summer. The group backs local struggles for
environmental and social justice by resisting ecocidal developments. This
year’s camp squatted land within a mile of the proposed site for four
small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Venture capitalists Last Energy, a
US firm that has never built a reactor, are applying for planning
permission. SMRs have almost no precedent, and Last Energy is currently
suing the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to weaken safety regulations
while lobbying for similar deregulation in the UK.
Freedom 1st Oct 2025, https://freedomnews.org.uk/2025/10/01/no-to-nuclear-in-the-llynfi-valley/
How the media tears up its own rulebook to hide Israel’s atrocities
Jonathon Cook, 30 September 2025 , https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-09-30/media-rulebook-hide-israel-atrocities/
The news cycle has rules every rookie journalist understands. When the media choose to break them, you can be sure it is for entirely non-journalistic reasons
You can tell much from how the media choose to cover a news story – and from the facts they decide to e, mphasise in a headline. And you can tell even more from the fact that, on certain subjects, the media uniformly choose to break the most basic rules of news gathering taught to every young journalist.
Typically, reporters try to extract as much news “value” from a story as they can. That means there is often a formula hiding behind the coverage.
When the news first hits, it is handled as what we call a “breaking story”. It is the first draft of the event, containing essential information as it can best be understood at the time of the report.
Here’s an example of a possible headline on a breaking news story: “Two dead, over 40 injured as London-to-Brighton train derails.”
Later the same news event is repackaged in what is called a “follow-up” – once more information is available and errors can be corrected, or because, with more time to talk to those directly involved, there is the chance to present a different, or more interesting, angle on the same story.
Here’s the headline on a possible follow-up: “Train driver reportedly had heart attack before fatal train derailment.”
But there are cases where the natural order of the news cycle gets disrupted – and when it does, there are invariably likely to be non-journalistic reasons in play.
In the case of Israel, the news-gathering rulebook often gets torn up.
The first lesson taught to every rookie journalist is this: wherever possible, supply the reader with the “who, what, when, where, why and how” of the story.
I would not be the first to note how often news media forget in headlines – the only part of a story most readers see – to mention the first of those points, “Who?”, if the responsible party is Israel and it is committing indisputable war crimes.
We have had two years filled with this kind of rogue reporting, designed to obscure Israel’s role in systematically perpetrating atrocities that amount to genocide:
But I want to highlight a less noticed element to the media’s perverse coverage of Israel. And that is the regular skewing of the traditional news cycle. Too often the media simply skip the breaking stage of a news story and head straight to the follow-up.
By now, you might be able to guess why. Because a breaking story presents only the essential facts, and those facts cannot disguise the nature of Israel’s crimes.
By moving straight to the follow-up, the media get to muddy the water with Israel’s rationale, however preposterous, for its war crimes at the very moment those crimes first come to public attention.
Let us take as an example Israel’s strike last month on Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, the only major hospital still functioning, partially, in Gaza after Israel put out of action dozens of others. The strike killed scores of journalists and rescue workers.
The media uniformly framed Israel’s attack on a protected building – a hospital – and its murder of civilians there as potentially warranted by amplifying an Israeli claim that was patently ridiculous on at least three counts.
First, Israel claimed that it was targeting a camera on an outside balcony – and that the camera was such a threat, and an immediate one, that it needed to hit Nasser hospital with missiles to destroy it.
Second, Israel claimed that the camera was being used by Hamas, even though it belonged to a Reuters journalist and was actually being used by Reuters for a live feed at the time it and the hospital were hit.
And third, Israel claimed that the only way the camera could be disabled was by hitting the hospital with a series of missile strikes that killed journalists and emergency workers who rushed to assist those killed and injured in the initial strike that had destroyed the camera.
The problem with the coverage ran much deeper than the astounding levels of gullibility demonstrated by the entire press corps in reporting Israel’s “Hamas camera” claim.
The media also had to pervert the normal news cycle by failing to report the attack on the hospital as a breaking story. Instead the media moved straight to the follow-up, in which Israel was allowed to foreground its atrocity “denial” with the camera claim.
In large part, the media could do this only because Israel – which understands how to manipulate the news cycle, especially when the media are so ready to spread its disinformation – had its excuses ready from the outset of the attack. That alone should have rung alarm bells with any real journalists.
But further, major media outlets all chose as their follow-up Israel’s ludicrous rationale for an illegal attack on the hospital: the red herring of the “Hamas camera”. Were they doing their jobs properly, these outlets could have chosen an entirely different follow-up. They could have taken testimony from experts and witnesses on the ground to tear apart Israel’s tissue of lies.
The goal here, of course, was to distort the audience’s understanding of a simple news event – Israel’s attack on a hospital in violation of international law to kill journalists and emergency workers, also in violation of international law – to ensure any loss of sympathy with Israel was kept to a minimum.
The media’s role in artificially sustaining support for Israel, in the face of all the evidence of its crimes, has been absolutely essential to smoothing the path, over the past two years, to genocide.
Once you understand how the media pervert the normal news cycle when it serves larger political purposes, the strange presentation of other events starts to make more sense. Such as the minimal coverage of police detaining George Galloway, a former MP and leader of a UK political party, at Gatwick airport at the weekend under draconian terrorism laws. Galloway also had his electronic devices seized.
His detention alone should have been a big news story. But there was also plenty of extra news “value” that could have been extracted from it.
The story was more than ripe for follow-ups, given Galloway’s outspokenness about Israel and its genocide in Gaza; the Starmer government’s efforts to silence dissent on Gaza from journalists, lawyers and now politicians using terrorism laws; and the government’s recent abuses of the terrorism laws to proscribe for the first time in British history the direct-action group Palestine Action, which has been targeting weapons factories in the UK, like the Israeli firm Elbit’s, supplying Israel with the tools to carry out the Gaza genocide.
Were the Russian government to detain and seize the electronic devices of a politician critical of Putin’s policies in Ukraine, we all know how the British media would cover that story. There would be endless follow-ups of Putin’s growing and ruthless authoritarianism, of the struggle of critics to speak openly about events in Ukraine, of the need for more sanctions on Russia, and so on.
Contrast that to the coverage of Galloway’s persecution – which comes in the wake, also largely unreported, of a growing number of arrests and investigations of journalists and lawyers under the same terrorism laws after they have criticised the Starmer government’s complicity in the Gaza genocide.
Notice two days later the lack of follow-ups in the British media on Galloway’s detention. Outlets have reported the breaking story – one in which headlines connect Galloway to “terrorism” – but not issued follow-ups whose headlines might push back against the authoritarian over-reach of the British security state overseen by Starmer.
In this case, the breaking story serves the British establishment’s interests in implicitly vilifying Galloway far better than any follow-up.
A follow-up would either have to “put up” – that is, provide a rationale for detaining Galloway under terrorism laws that, we can infer, doesn’t exist – or interrogate the narrative the government has been manufacturing to justify its persecution of regime dissidents.
Paradoxically, the only outlet that has offered a follow-up – as shown in the screenshot above of a Google search late this afternoon – was from the rightwing Israeli outlet The Jerusalem Post. Uniquely, its headline “‘Politically motivated intimidation’: George Galloway reportedly detained at Gatwick airport” captures the story the British media is carefully avoiding.
The media aren’t reporting the news. They are shaping the news to shape our minds, our perceptions, our sympathies. Until we grasp that simple fact, we will continue cheering those whose only goal is to keep oppressing us and enriching themselves.
UK Government names six decommissioning sites being considered for new nuclear
30 Sep, 2025 By Tom Pashby New Civil Engineer
The government has named UK six nuclear sites currently being decommissioned where there is interest in establishing new nuclear developments.
The SMR ambitions, revealed as part of the US-UK nuclear
deal, named Hartlepool in County Durham, Cottam in Nottinghamshire and
London Gateway port in Kent as potential locations for hosting new small
reactors. The new regulation for nuclear developments, including siting –
National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation (EN-7) – was
published in draft form in February 2025.
This new policy will open up more
potential locations for new nuclear developments beyond the eight sites
stipulated in the former statement. In April, the government said it
planned to publish the final EN-7 policy by the end of 2025.
Great British Energy – Nuclear is already assessing Wylfa on the Isle of Anglesey in
North Wales and Oldbury-on-Severn in Gloucestershire, as potential sites
for hosting three 470MW Rolls-Royce SMR reactors. Both Wylfa and Oldbury
have historic nuclear power plants, which are undergoing decommissioning.
Now the government has named four additional sites where nuclear reactors
are being decommissioned that are being considered for new nuclear
developments. It named them in response to a parliamentary question. “The
government is also aware of developer or community interest in nuclear
projects at several other sites, including those being decommissioned.
These include Pioneer Park (Moorside), Trawsfynydd (via Cwmni Egino),
Hartlepool, and Dungeness.”
Pioneer Park at Moorside in Cumbria is a
project led by Energy Coast West Cumbria (BEC) which is a joint venture
(JV) between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and Cumberland
Council. BEC’s website makes reference to the government having announced
in June 2025 that part of the Moorside site was designated as suitable for
nuclear generation. The JV says Pioneer Park “will be a transformative
project designed to diversify and strengthen the local economy in West
Cumbria, reducing reliance on the Sellafield site while creating new
opportunities in the clean energy sector”.
Kent County Council pursuing
one or more SMR at Dungeness. In June 2023, a report from Kent County
Council updated cabinet members “on the opportunity to secure a nuclear
future for Dungeness and seeks support for a coordinated campaign of
action”. The report from Kent County Council cabinet member for economic
development Derek Murphy said: “We believe Dungeness is a perfect
location for one (or more) of the new breed of SMRs safely producing green,
low carbon energy and retaining high-quality jobs and skills in the area
while helping to power local growth.”
It went on to say that the council
would continue to conduct discussions about potential reactors which could
be deployed at the site with vendors, and committed to undertake “soft
market testing to develop a small number of high-level proposals for the
site”.
Cwmni Egino was set up by the Welsh Government in 2021 to explore
opportunities to develop new nuclear projects in Wales at Wylfa and
Trawsfynydd – both of which host nuclear power stations that are being
decommissioned. The organisation says it has confirmed the “viability of
small scale nuclear at Trawsfynydd”. Small scale nuclear could mean small
modular reactors (SMRs), advanced modular reactors (AMRs) or micro-modular
reactors (MMRs). The Trawsfynydd, however, also appears to be being
considered as a potential host for a medical research reactor, under the
Welsh Government’s Project Arthur, according to Cwmni Egino.
New Civil Engineer 30th Sept 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/government-names-six-decommissioning-sites-being-considered-for-new-nuclear-30-09-2025/
Theatre of the absurd
Roswell, 2 Oct 25 https://theaimn.net/theatre-of-the-absurd/
The headliner, of course, was the Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump. But this was not a presidential address; it was a campaign rally in search of an enemy. Instead of a coherent strategy, the assembled warriors were treated to the familiar Trumpian symphony of digressions, personal boasts, and factual free-association. While the apocryphal tale of a president explaining the melting point of aluminum is a perfect metaphor, the reality was often just as bewildering. This is the man who once claimed that fallen soldiers were “suckers” and “losers” – an hallucination that surely left the Army Chief of Staff staring blankly at his shoes.
The spectacle of the world’s most powerful military being led by a man who treats complex briefings like open-mic night is comedy enough. But every great act needs a sidekick. Enter Pete Hegseth, the cable news warrior turned unofficial advisor, who stepped in to provide the second act of this two-part farce.
If Trump was the master of ceremonial confusion, Hegseth was the sergeant of petty discipline. His message to these titans of modern warfare? Shave.
Yes, shave. While the world smoldered, the sage counsel from the sidelines was that the solution to modern warfare’s challenges lay not in advanced cyber strategy or diplomatic finesse, but in a closer shave. Draped in the language of “warrior culture” and a fight against “wokeness,” Hegseth’s prescription was the ultimate reduction of military virtue to a matter of grooming. It was a disrespect so profound it looped back into comedy. These are men and women who have borne the unimaginable weight of sending troops into battle; to imply they lacked the basic discipline to manage their own facial hair was not just an insult – it was a joke.
The true comedy of this entire spectacle was not in any single gaffe or ridiculous order. It was in the devastating contrast. It was the sight of a room filled with the heirs to Patton and Nimitz being lectured on reality by a man who seemed to have learned his history from a cereal box, and then being scolded on personal hygiene by a commentator playing soldier.
They were called to Washington to confront the nation’s enemies, only to find that the real absurdity was already in the room. The mission, it turned out, wasn’t in some distant desert or contested sea lane. The mission was to survive an administration that confused the Situation Room for a green room and treated its most decorated leaders like unruly recruits. It wasn’t just a failure of policy; it was a masterpiece of political theatre, a comedy of errors where the stakes just happened to be the security of a nation.
(Meanwhile, on another planet):
“The generals in the audience today praised my speech and said they haven’t heard anything better since General Patton, but said mine was more inspiring”
Trump says Israel can ‘finish the job’ in Gaza if Hamas rejects latest ceasefire plan
If Hamas rejects the deal, Trump said Israel “would have my full backing to finish the job” of destroying the group. Netanyahu said Hamas could choose the “easy way or hard way” going forward.
Donald Trump says Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the latest U.S.-backed “peace plan” in Gaza and threatened Hamas that if it rejects the proposal, Israel would have his “full backing to finish the job” of destroying the group.
By Michael Arria September 29, 2025, https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/trump-says-israel-can-finish-the-job-in-gaza-if-hamas-rejects-latest-ceasefire-plan/
President Donald Trump says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted the latest U.S.-backed “peace plan,” which is ostensibly aimed at securing a ceasefire in Gaza.
Trump made the announcement during a joint press conference with Netanyahu, which followed a White House meeting between the two leaders. It’s Netanyahu’s fourth trip to Washington since Trump began his term in January.
During the meeting, Trump facilitated an Oval Office phone call between Netanyahu and Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani, in which the Israeli leader apologized for the September 9 attack on Doha.
Netanyahu expressed regret about the strikes and, specifically, “that, in targeting Hamas leadership during hostage negotiations, Israel violated Qatari sovereignty,” according to a White House readout of the phone call.
Despite being touted as a diplomatic breakthrough, the 20-point plan recycles a number of previous White House declarations.
The plan would include a prisoner swap, complete Hamas disarmament, and the formulation of a transitional government led by an international body. Additionaly, it requires Gaza to become “deradicalized terror-free zone.”
Trump would chair a “board of peace” to reconstruct the Gaza Strip as part of the program, while Jordan and Egypt would train new Palestinian security forces.
Trump told reporters that it was an “extremely fair” proposal and claimed that Hamas “wants to get this done too,” despite reports that Hamas has yet to receive the plan.
“I also want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for agreeing to the plan and for trusting that if we work together, we can bring an end to the death and destruction that we’ve seen for so many years, decades, even centuries and begin a new chapter of security, peace and prosperity for the entire region,” said Trump.
If Hamas rejects the deal, Trump said Israel “would have my full backing to finish the job” of destroying the group. Netanyahu said Hamas could choose the “easy way or hard way” going forward.
“Everyone understands that the ultimate result must be the elimination of any danger posed in the region, and that danger is caused by Hamas,” explained Trump.
Neither leader took questions after the press conference.
Shortly before the meeting, Axios published a report by Marc Caputo and Barak Ravid, which claimed Trump is “willing to break with him over Gaza for the first time since returning to office.” It quoted an anonymous Trump official who insisted that “everyone — and I mean everyone — is exasperated with Bibi.”
Despite such assertions, the Trump administration has continued to support the assault on Gaza without conditions of any kind.
Earlier this month, in a 72-page report, the UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and called for an arms embargo on the country.
“What does this mean for the international community?,” wrote UN human rights chief and commission member Navi Pillay after the report was released. “It means its obligations are not optional. Every state has an obligation to prevent genocide wherever it occurs,” she continued. “That obligation requires action: halting the transfer of weapons and military support used in genocidal acts, ensuring unimpeded humanitarian assistance, stopping the mass displacement and destruction, and using all available diplomatic and legal means to stop the killing. To do nothing is not neutrality. It is complicity.”
As UN Turns 80, Trump Continues US Violation of Charter’s Limits on Use of Force.
Donald Trump has ignored UN rules about attacking other nations, but he is not the first US president to do so
By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout, September 29, 2025
n his inflammatory September 23 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Donald Trump expressed contempt for the UN, falsely claiming he had ended seven wars and stating, “I realized that the United Nations wasn’t there for us. I thought of it really after the fact … that being the case, what is the purpose of the United Nations?”
If Trump studied history, he would know the answer to that question.
Eighty years ago, after two world wars claimed millions of lives, nations around the world — including the United States — came together and established the UN system “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”
The UN Charter requires that all states settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of armed force except in self-defense under Article 51, after an armed attack against a UN state by another state, or when the Security Council authorizes it.
But, motivated by American exceptionalism — the notion that the U.S. is unique and morally superior and thus not bound by the rules — successive elected U.S. governments have violated the commands of the UN Charter and illegally attacked other countries with impunity.
Violation of UN Charter by Last Five U.S. Presidents
Trump has ignored the straightforward rules about the lawful use of force, but he is not the first U.S. president to do so. We need look no further than the last five presidents, who have launched armed attacks without Security Council approval against countries that had not carried out armed attacks on the United States or other UN member countries.
Bill Clinton could have helped prevent the genocide in Rwanda. But instead, he precluded the UN from acting to stop the killing of 800,000 people. In 1993, Clinton bombed Iraq to retaliate for an assassination attempt against George H. W. Bush. In 1998, on the eve of his impeachment, Clinton once again bombed Iraq, ostensibly to enforce Security Council resolutions, even though only the Council has the power to enforce its resolutions. Both bombings violated the UN Charter. The 1999 U.S.-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia also violated the Charter, killing roughly 500 civilians. Madeline Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, labeled the UN “a tool of American foreign policy.”
In 2001, George W. Bush’s administration illegally invaded Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan had not attacked the United States. On September 11, 2001, 19 men (15 of whom hailed from Saudi Arabia) committed crimes against humanity in the United States. But that was not an armed attack by another state sufficient to trigger the Charter’s Article 51 self-defense provision. Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan was not lawful self-defense, and the Security Council had not approved it.
Two years later, before he illegally invaded Iraq and changed its regime, Bush tried to obtain the consent of the Security Council, but the Council refused to authorize the invasion. Then Bush cobbled together prior Security Council resolutions from the first Gulf War, none of which authorized him to attack Iraq in 2003, in a vain attempt to legitimize his illegitimate war.
John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the UN during George W. Bush’s second term, and national security adviser during Trump’s first term, was a strong advocate for Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 1994, Bolton displayed his hatred for the UN when he stated that “there is no such thing as the United Nations,” cynically adding, “If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
Barack Obama launched illegal drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. None of those seven states had mounted an armed attack against the U.S. or any other UN member country, and the Security Council did not authorize the strikes. Moreover, the Obama administration provided no evidence that any of those states were about to launch an imminent attack on the United States. Even if the U.S. Congress had authorized Obama’s wars, they still would not have been in compliance with the Charter.
During Trump’s first regime, he ordered the illegal bombing of Syria. In 2017, he sent 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to attack Syria in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons in a Damascus suburb. Syria had not attacked the United States or any other UN state before Trump’s missile strike. The use of chemical weapons by Syria did not constitute an armed attack to trigger the right of self-defense. And the Security Council had not approved Trump’s use of force. It therefore violated the Charter.
In 2020, Trump ordered the illegal drone assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani who was present in Iraq. Neither Iran nor Iraq had attacked the United States and the Council had not authorized Trump’s drone attack. It was therefore illegal under the Charter.
One month after Joe Biden was inaugurated, he authorized airstrikes in Syria on buildings that purportedly belonged to Iran-backed militias who were allegedly responsible for attacks against U.S. and allied personnel in Iraq. Syria, however, had not undertaken an armed attack on the U.S. or another country, and the Security Council had not approved the attack. Biden also authorized illegal drone strikes in Afghanistan in 2021 and 2022, and in Yemen in 2024.
Trump Renames “Department of Defense” the “Department of War”
Trump signed an executive order attempting to rename the “Department of Defense” as the “Department of War.” Permanently renaming the department would require congressional approval, but the move is indicative of his explicit rejection of the Charter’s fundamental precept of self-defense. And his actions since assuming office for his second term are consistent with that rejection.
After Israel illegally attacked Iran in June, Trump conducted a series of military strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities. Although he claimed his objective was to put “a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror,” Iran did not constitute an imminent threat. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, affirmed at the time that Iran did not even have nuclear weapons capability. The U.S. strikes were not mounted in self-defense, and the Council had not given its imprimatur for the attacks.
Earlier this month, Trump illegally ordered armed attacks on at least three Venezuelan fishing vessels under the guise of fighting the drug war, killing at least 11 people, in direct violation of the Charter. He was apparently testing the waters. Now NBC News is reporting that Trump is considering mounting drone strikes within Venezuela in the next few weeks.
Since October 7, 2023, when Israel began its genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in Gaza, the United States — under both Biden and Trump — has six times vetoed Security Council resolutions to end the fighting, despite the UN Charter’s command that international disputes be settled peacefully. The Trump administration filed the most recent U.S. veto on September 18.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has issued an unprecedented order summoning high-ranking military officials to attend a meeting in Quantico, Virginia, on September 30, reportedly to deliver a message about upholding a “warrior ethos.” Whether this signals a new aggressive approach or remains a mere photo op, the Trump administration is likely to continue the foreign policy tradition of disregarding the UN Charter, thanks to decades of impunity enjoyed by previous administrations.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Veterans For Peace and Assange Defense, and is a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.
‘Deeply Un-American’: Trump Tells Generals to Use US Cities as Military ‘Training Grounds’
Brett Wilkins, Sep 30, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-us-cities-training-grounds
President Donald Trump told hundreds of senior military commanders Tuesday that the country is “under invasion from within” and that they should use American cities as “training grounds” to target domestic “enemies”—remarks that drew warnings of encroaching fascism as the president expands his invasion and occupation of US communities.
Speaking to nearly 800 US generals and admirals stationed around the world who were summoned to Quantico, Virginia by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for a highly unusual assembly, Trump told military leaders they would be used against the American people.
“Just like you have to fight vicious people, mine are a different kind of vicious,” he added.
Trump then said that cities “run by the radical left Democrats… San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles” are “very unsafe places, and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one.”
“And this is gonna be a major part for some of the people in this room,” he continued. “This is a war too. It’s a war from within.”
Referring to Hegseth, Trump said, “and I told Pete, “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”
Responding to this, Naureen Shah, director of government affairs at the ACLU’s Equality Division, told Common Dreams that when Trump said “the enemy within,” he meant “those who disagree with him.”
“We don’t need to spell out how dangerous the president’s message is, but here goes: Military troops must not police us, let alone be used as a tool to suppress the president’s critics,” Shah said. “In cities across the country, the president’s federal deployments are already creating conflict where there is none and instilling profound fear in people who are simply trying to live their lives and exercise their constitutional rights. Our country and democracy deserve far better than this.”
Trump also said during his Tuesday speech that “only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia while America is under invasion from within,” a false assertion given centuries of US imperialism and colonization, first in the Americas and then around the globe.
“We’re under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways, because they don’t wear uniforms—at least when they’re wearing a uniform you can take them out; these people don’t have uniforms,” Trump said. “But we are under invasion from within; we’re stopping it very quickly.”
He then turned his attention to “radical left lunatics, that are brilliant people but dumb as hell when it comes to common sense,” falsely accusing the previous administration of opening US borders to Venezuelans after that country’s government “emptied its prison population into our country.”
In another lie, Trump said that “Washington, DC was the most unsafe, the most dangerous city in the United States of America, and to a large extent, beyond.”
The president claimed that “we took out 1,700 career criminals” during his recently launched takeover of DC—almost certainly another false statement given that more than 80% of arrests made in the capital were for misdemeanor offenses, many of them immigration-related.
Trump said US troops are “following in a great and storied military tradition” of presidents who have deployed military forces against “domestic” enemies.
“Today, I want to thank every service member from general to private who’s helped secure the nation’s capital and make America safe for the American people,” he said, adding in another blatant lie that “we haven’t had a crime in Washington in so long.”
We’re going into Chicago very soon,” he said, although Operation Midway Blitz is already underway in the city.
“How about Portland?” he asked, adding in a comment utterly divorced from reality that the laconic Oregon city “looks like a war zone.”
Trump ordered troops to invade Portland despite the city ranking 72nd in violent crime in the US, according to FBI data.
In an apparent moment of doubt, Trump asked during a Sunday NBC News interview, “Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening?”
Recounting how Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek asked Trump to not deploy federal forces to Portland, Trump said during Tuesday’s speech that “unless they’re playing false tapes, this looked like World War II. Your place is burning down.”
Amid small-scale protests in Portland over Trump’s authoritarian Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crackdown, Fox News aired a report conflating video footage from 2020 protests against the police murder of George Floyd with the recent images. Anti-ICE protesters have burned an American flag and set small street fires in Portland, but no structures have been burned down.
Trump also said that any anti-ICE protesters who throw objects at federal vehicles or agents can be met with unlimited force.
“You get out of that car, and you can do whatever the hell you want to do,” the president said.
Critics swiftly pushed back on Trump’s suggestion of using American cities as military “training grounds.”
Congressman Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a former Marine Corps combat veteran who served multiple tours during the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, said on the social media site X that “today’s speeches by Trump and Hegseth were weak portrayals of ‘leadership’ by two small, insecure men.”
“US cities should never be ‘training grounds’ for the military,” Moulton added. “There is no ‘enemy from within.’ The reputational and operational damage being done to our military will take years to undo.”
The Democratic Association of Secretaries of State said on social media, “This is authoritarian, unconstitutional, and a direct threat to our democracy.”
Chris Rilling, a former senior official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said on X: “Trump should be impeached for this statement alone. Period.”
Some legal experts noted that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits use of the military for domestic law enforcement.
Leaders of the Not Above the Law Coalition—which includes progressive groups such as Public Citizen, MoveOn, and Stand Up America—called Trump’s remarks “deeply un-American.”
“This dangerous rhetoric delivered during an unprecedented gathering reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of our military’s purpose and the people it serves,” the coalition co-chairs said. “Make no mistake: This isn’t about public safety—it’s about turning our own military into a force to be used against Trump’s perceived political opponents or anyone who questions his administration.”
“Americans cannot stay silent when our leaders express plans to use our military against us,” they added. “We must reject any attempt to normalize this outrageous and unlawful directive.”
Observers abroad also expressed shock at Trump’s remarks.
“In Trump’s speech today, Trump mentioned something very dangerous: using US cities (Democrat-run, I bet) as US troops training ground,” said José Antonio Salcedo, a professor at University of Porto in Portugal. “This is definitely contrary to the US Constitution.”
“It comes right out of the fascism playbook that Project 2025 and its fringe lunatic authors have been advocating and planning,” he added. “Wake up, people, the US is fast approaching a point of no return.”
Exposing JFK Airport’s hidden arms pipeline to Israel
Shipping records obtained by Mondoweiss show New York’s JFK Airport is a key transit hub for U.S. weapons parts headed to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
By Shaniyat Turani-Chowdhury September 30, 2025, https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/exposing-jfk-airports-hidden-arms-pipeline-to-israel/
On July 16, 2025, a Boeing 747 operated by Challenge Airlines lifted off from JFK Airport in New York. The cargo manifest listed a 347-kilogram shipment from Lockheed Martin. Inside was a BRU-68 bomb release unit, a mechanism that allows an F-35 fighter jet to drop 2,000-pound bombs.
The flight’s final stop was Nevatim Air Base in southern Israel, home to the F-35I fleet bombing Gaza.
This was not an isolated transfer. Internal shipping records shared by the Palestinian Youth Movement, and cross-referenced with public flight-tracking data, reveal a steady flow of U.S.-made weapons components moving from New York to Israel. Parts for fighter jets, missile launchers, and ammunition have routinely left JFK on commercial cargo flights while Israel’s air campaign destroys homes, schools, and hospitals.
These shipments started before the current genocide, but have increased greatly since October 7, 2023. They continue now despite mounting evidence of war crimes and calls for an arms embargo. What they reveal is that New York City is a crucial logistical hub in the supply chain arming Israel’s assault.
Between July 2 and July 23, at least six arms shipments from JFK to Israel were verified through waybills, flight data, and internal records provided to Mondoweiss.
These findings add new depth to earlier reporting in The Intercept and The Ditch, showing how JFK Airport has become a critical link in Israel’s military supply chain.
“What these records show is that the genocide in Gaza isn’t only manufactured in Washington—it’s facilitated right here in New York,” said Kaleem Hawa of the Palestinian Youth Movement. “JFK has become a gateway for the weapons that are killing our people.”
These flights and their deadly cargo reveal the logistics networks arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza that, for many in the U.S., is hiding in plain sight.
A civilian airport moving weapons to genocide
Challenge Airlines flight ICL982 departs JFK for Tel Aviv on a near-routine schedule, often before sunrise. Cargo bays handle electronics, produce, and mail. Mixed in are crates labeled “aircraft components” or “hazardous materials,” terms that hide their military use.
Among the shipments traced in July were:
- Aircraft structural parts and missile launcher struts from Lockheed Martin
- Fuel selector valves used in Elbit Systems aircraft
- Ammunition link containers for Israel Military Industries
- A BRU-68 ejector unit for the F-35
- Wingtip protective lenses for fighter jets
Each part is essential to the maintenance and repair of larger weapons systems, and they are moved under the cover of civilian logistics.
“Most of us just scan the cargo tags—we’re not told what’s inside,” a JFK cargo worker who asked to remain anonymous told Mondoweiss. “When pallets show up wrapped and labeled ‘confidential’ or ‘secret,’ we know not to ask questions. They bypass normal screening. We just load them.”
A second cargo handler recalled the difference on days when major military shipments arrive. “The pallets are heavier, wrapped tight, and marked with tags you don’t see on normal freight. Security is always hovering nearby. We’re told nothing and only given the signal to load.”
Why JFK? Geography, logistics, and loopholes
JFK’s east coast location shortens routes to Europe and the Middle East. Explosives depots along the coast allow rapid transport from factory to plane.
Jack Cinamon of Shadow World Investigations, an international research group that tracks the global arms trade and corruption, who studies U.S.-Israel weapons transfers, points to two reasons JFK is such a strategic node in the supply chain. The first is proximity to suppliers. “Along the East Coast are multiple explosives and ammunition depots,” he explained to Mondoweiss. “Being close to those locations makes JFK much more advantageous.”
Cinamon also says the abundance of established cargo carriers, like Challenge and FedEx, which operate full logistics hubs inside JFK, provides cover for defense contractors.
The airport also stores hazardous and explosive materials, a capability not available everywhere. This combination lets military cargo move in the same space as ordinary freight, hidden by commercial operations.
JFK is not the only American airport feeding the supply lines into Israel’s war machine. Dallas-Fort Worth, Memphis International, and Oakland also serve as key transit points in this network.
The endpoint: Nevatim Air Base
The end of the line is Nevatim Air Base, carved into the Negev desert southeast of Be’er Sheva. It’s here that Israel stations its fleet of F-35I “Adir” jets, the U.S.-built fighters engineered for precision bombing runs.
Among the cargo routed from New York City are BRU-68 ejector units, the hardware that allows these jets to release heavy munitions. The Pentagon itself places the BRU-68 under “Category VIII – Aircraft and Related Articles” on the U.S. Munitions List, noting its use in deploying precision weapons like the 2,000-pound GBU-31. These ejectors wear down quickly and must be replaced often, making the shipments routine. Alongside them are fuel valves, targeting consoles, and protective lenses—the pieces that keep the F-35Is in the sky and combat-ready.
The path is seamless. Parts are made from a Lockheed Martin assembly line, to a cargo bay at JFK, to the blast craters in Rafah. It is this steady pipeline between New York and Nevatim that enables Israel to sustain its air campaign over Gaza.
Law, policy, and complicity
Under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Israel receives exemptions that speed licensing for some weapons components. The Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Law bar U.S. assistance to military units committing human rights abuses, yet exports have continued throughout the bombing of Gaza.
Patrick Wilcken, Amnesty International’s head of military, security, and policing work, told Mondoweiss any state transferring arms to Israel “risks complicity in genocide and war crimes” and violates its obligation under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide. States that knowingly continue transfers, he added, risk “aiding and assisting” in crimes under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
Wilcken noted that Israel’s preferential treatment under U.S. export rules does not override international obligations. “International humanitarian law prohibits all states—including the U.S.—from transferring weapons to a party to an armed conflict where there is a clear risk that doing so would contribute to the commission of war crimes,” he said. Amnesty has long called for a total arms embargo, citing extensive evidence of repeated violations in Gaza.
The risk extends to private industry. “Companies, their executives, and employees risk being accomplices in crimes under international law if the products and services they provide contribute substantively in the commission of those crimes,” Wilcken explained. If they know their cargo will likely be used unlawfully, “they could be found legally liable.”
Amnesty says the threshold for halting arms transfers has already been met. Court challenges in Belgium and the Netherlands have successfully blocked shipments to Israel, even as similar efforts in France and the UK have failed.
In Belgium, regional governments suspended licenses for military goods bound for Israel following legal pressure and public outcry, while in Ireland, parliamentarians have raised questions over flights carrying Israeli explosives through Shannon Airport. Reporting from The Ditch revealed that shipments tied to Israel’s Ministry of Defense were routed through Europe, sparking scrutiny of how states may be complicit in the transfer of arms used in Gaza.
Congressional oversight
JFK Airport sits within the district of Congress member Gregory Meeks, who, as a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, holds one of the key positions in Congress responsible for reviewing and overseeing arms sales. Under the Arms Export Control Act, his committee can delay, question, or block transfers, and Meeks has made use of that authority in the past. In 2021, he sought a temporary pause on a $735 million sale of precision-guided munitions to Israel to allow more time to review, and in 2024, he pressed the State Department for further assurances on a multibillion-dollar package of F-15s. These episodes highlight that he is not only aware of the stakes but is willing, at least in certain cases, to assert the committee’s oversight powers.
At the same time, Meeks has long been supported by pro-Israel advocacy networks, including AIPAC, whose lobbying efforts consistently push for expedited transfers and minimal restrictions on U.S. defense exports to Israel. Meeks has received more than $400,000 from AIPAC as of the most recent federal elections filings. Those ties place him at the center of competing pressures: on one side, his formal role as a gatekeeper tasked with scrutinizing foreign military sales, and on the other, the political influence of a lobby that has made the uninterrupted flow of weapons a top priority.
Mondoweiss contacted Representative Meeks for a comment on the fact that these shipments leave directly from his district through JFK. His office did not respond.
Protest and suppression
On July 9, protesters gathered outside JFK to stop a shipment of Elbit Systems parts. Authorities responded with a coordinated lock down. The Port Authority, MTA, and NYPD restricted access to all terminals, barring the press from the grounds. Protesters were pushed out of sight.
“We were blocked from every angle,” said a protester who asked to remain anonymous. “Police set up barricades so far back you couldn’t see the cargo area—not the planes, not the loading trucks, nothing. Anyone without a boarding pass was turned away. From where we were pushed, it was impossible to tell if anything was being moved. It felt deliberate.”
“They shut down the public’s right to witness it,” added another organizer.
The flight left on schedule.
1 This Month
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (172)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 