Retired rear admiral Philip Mathias, a former director of nuclear policy with the UK Ministry of Defence, told this masthead last month he feared Australians were not adequately informed about how the troubles plaguing the British navy could scuttle the SSN-AUKUS plan.
“ there is a high probability that the UK element of AUKUS will fail,”
“Australia has shown a great deal of naivety and did not conduct sufficient due diligence on the parlous state of the UK’s nuclear submarine program before signing up to AUKUS – and parting with billions of dollars,”
A British nuclear-powered submarine has arrived in Australia for an unprecedented month-long visit despite the well-chronicled problems plaguing the British navy’s ability to send its vessels to sea.
The British and Australian governments are holding up the visit as a sign of the countries’ commitment to the AUKUS pact, even as the United Kingdom views Russia as its most pressing security threat.
HMS Anson, an Astute-class nuclear-powered submarine, arrived on Sunday at the HMAS Stirling naval base in Perth for a month-long maintenance visit.
described the first such visit by a UK nuclear‑powered submarine in Australia as a “historic step in our nation’s readiness to operate and maintain conventionally armed, nuclear‑powered submarines”.
HMS Anson, which was commissioned in 2022, is reportedly the only available submarine in the British navy’s fleet of five Astute-class boats, highlighting the significance of the extended deployment to Australia.
British defence publication Navy Lookout has written that the “timing of the deployment seems extraordinary” as the British navy does not have any other Astute-class submarines available.
“The UK must continue to play its part in AUKUS, but in the short term, perhaps more local concerns should be the priority,” the publication argued this month.
“Placing the sole attack submarine on the other side of the globe appears to be at odds with vigorous official warnings to Russia that ‘any threat will be met with strength and resolve’.”
Navy Lookout said the British navy’s other four Astute-class submarines were “all at low or very low readiness”…………………………………………………………………………………
The plan involves the US selling Australia at least three Virginia-class submarines while the UK and Australia partner on the development of a new class of submarine known as the SSN-AUKUS………….
Retired rear admiral Philip Mathias, a former director of nuclear policy with the UK Ministry of Defence, told this masthead last month he feared Australians were not adequately informed about how the troubles plaguing the British navy could scuttle the SSN-AUKUS plan.
“Whilst the United States may sell some [nuclear-powered submarines] to Australia, there is a high probability that the UK element of AUKUS will fail,” he said
Mathias, who led a 2010 review of the UK Trident nuclear-weapons system, said: “It is clear that Australia has shown a great deal of naivety and did not conduct sufficient due diligence on the parlous state of the UK’s nuclear submarine program before signing up to AUKUS – and parting with billions of dollars, which it has already started to do.”
The head of the British navy, First Sea Lord Gwyn Jenkins, ordered an urgent 100-day drive to tackle systemic delays in the UK submarine program in October.
Washington still reportedly owes the intergovernmental organization billions of dollars in mandatory funding
The US has paid $160 million towards the more than $4 billion it owes the UN in the first payment since President Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The UN faces a mounting financial crisis, while the US president positions his Gaza Board of Peace to “oversee” the global body. Some experts have already warned that the initiative could undermine the UN.
Washington’s latest contribution is a “partial payment of its past dues,” Reuters cited a UN spokesperson as saying on Thursday.
The money is a small fraction of the $2.19 billion the US reportedly owes for the UN regular budget and $2.4 it owes for current and past peacekeeping missions. The US is responsible for around 95% of the overdue payments to the UN’s regular budget, Reuters quoted the organization’s spokesperson as saying.
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that the UN is facing a looming crisis which could end in “imminent financial collapse,” unless member states started making mandatory payments or the organization overhauled its financial rules.
The US, the organization’s biggest contributor, cut voluntary funding to multiple UN programs and cut aid spending last year, as part of Trump’s ‘America First’ policy pivot. In December, Washington pledged $2 billion for the UN’s humanitarian programs, warning it to “adapt or die.” By comparison, the US had contributed $14.1 billion in 2024.
In a speech on Thursday, Trump again criticized the UN as ineffective.
“The United Nations… is going to be much stronger and the ‘Board of Peace’ is going to almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly,” he said at the inaugural Board of Peace event in Washington.
The board would help the struggling UN “money-wise” and make sure it’s “viable,” he said.
The Board of Peace was established to guide the stabilization of Gaza following the Israel-Hamas war. UN experts, however, have argued that oversight by such a body is “reminiscent of colonial practices,” due to it being chaired by Trump, rather than being under transparent multilateral or UN control.
Comment: The US behaves like a customer who goes into a restaurant, orders the most expensive meal and after gorging itself, complains about the food while commanding the staff around and growling at the other guests in the restaurant. When presented with the bill it throws a $5 dollar note to the waiter while leaving the restaurant in a huff without paying the main bill while yelling loudly how ungrateful the restaurant was for the honor to have their visit.
A few comments about why China is like it is – first of all, in the last 45 years, there has been no invasions, despite what people like little Marco Rubio of the US and Richard Marles the Australian Defence Minister might say, China is not and does not pose a threat to any of these countries – Japan might think there is a threat, China does not agree, in fact the opposite is true, Japan poses a much larger threat to China than China has ever posed to Japan.
China is concerned about, and in fact does feel threatened by Japan’s military expansion because the last time it happened literally millions of Chinese were murdered by the Japanese. Australia’s defence minister, Marles, asks us to consider why China has the world’s largest military expansion but he’s wrong – we have to hope he’s wrong because he’s been misinformed and is too dim to check out for himself, but more likely he knows he’s lying about this as China spends considerably less money than the US, in terms of not only its population but its geographical size, it’s quite entitled to spend more cash, when on a per capita basis, the amount is tiny compared to the US, on a ratio to GDP, it’s smaller than the US, it’s one third or less than NATO has been required to spend in terms of percentage of GDP and there’s one more very important factor that the US with only two neighbouring countries doesn’t have – that is 14 neighbouring countries with a shared land border.
Here’s another thing. China was invaded when they were weak, the British did it, the Americans did it, the eight nations alliance did it, Britain carved up part of Burma and took away some of China, it carved up India and took away parts of China, the Russians carved up Mongolia and Heilongjiang, taking away parts of China, the Japanese invaded and occupied China for 14 years. The classic twists and mental gymnastics people like Marles make would have us believe that the hundreds of US bases around China are to prevent China from doing what they’ve NEVER done – going out to invade other countries.
He, and several pundits would like us all to believe is that the US is keeping the world safe from China by arming their neighbours, interfering in the Provinces, Regions and the SARs but the reality is, China is building a military that will defend Chinese people inside China and Chinese land that belongs to China now – it’s not looking to reclaim land back, except in disputed regions.
Those disputed regions include parts of Tibet that the British took away and gave to India, parts of the South China Seas that the Japanese took away and both the US and UK, at the end of the Second World War, agreed would come back to China. There’s one military base in Africa, which is in a region shared with many other countries, including the USA, Japan, France, Italy, Germany Spain and even Saudi Arabia. Taiwan is NOT one of these disputed regions – the entire world whether they recognise Beijing or Taipei as the capital, recognises that there is one China and Taiwan is part of it – anyone who suggests that Taiwan is a country is either a liar, deliberately misleading us, or is far too dim to read the Constitution of the Republic of China, which not only claims all of the Chinese Mainland, it also wants those disputed regions back too.
China has something else which its detractors hate to admit and will lie about – that’s a policy of non-interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation – when it invests in another nation, it doesn’t call for democracy or elections, it doesn’t even ask that Communism or Socialism are accepted, it doesn’t send military to protect its assets, it won’t send missionaries to convert their subjects and it won’t impose conditions that force countries to give up their national assets or utilities if they can’t make the payments – if that sounds familiar and if it’s because you’ve been hearing that China will do all of those things and, if you think they have, I’d implore you to find me an example of where it’s happened, outside of opinion pieces written by people who want you to believe they have, almost every incident where we can find any of these things alleged, will be speculative – they’ll tell us what China might do, what China could do, what China may be doing, is alleged to have done or suspected to be involved in.
We might find individual cases of rogue Chinese people, Chinese criminals even and they use these tiny individual examples to tell you that this is “what China does” when that person who has broken the law has usually already been punished by the time they report it in western media and, if they mention that at all, it’ll be after the third paragraph where most of us have stopped reading.
On the other hand, I can find literally hundreds of examples where the USA is doing these things, where the UK and France have done these things, where Germany, Belgium, even Spain and Portugal have done them.
So then some of the comments I have been getting relate to the Port in Darwin, the ports in Panama and the Pirelli saga in Italy. Just for some background here, Sinochem owns 37% of Pirelli, the big Italian tyre company which wants to expand into the USA, of course the US won’t allow that while China has such a controlling interest. The share of Sinochem hasn’t changed, the only change is that the board, and remember Sinochem had controlling interest being the largest single shareholder, has declared that Sinochem no longer has control, giving the board more autonomy, – Sinochem agreed to this, so this isn’t a situation where anything has been taken from China, merely an agreement that the board retains control which a Chinese corporation retains more shares.
Erich, one of my followers said this: “if China doesn’t protect its assets it will lose them like Pirelli in Italy, the Ports in Panama, etc. Maybe at some point China will start caring about these things.”
My response is that it’s not just Erich, it’s literally hundreds of people, probably thousands but many in my responses who are misunderstanding China. China cares very deeply about the assets its people and corporations invest in, particularly overseas, but it will not break international laws, or contractual Agreements in order to protect them from people or governments which do break laws.
China will react to this in the same way it reacts to every other illegal action against it, by negotiations, and where they fail, arbitration, it will, when all else fails, take the appropriate legal action, which might be appeals to the WTO and perhaps even the UN or more likely the local courts – it knows there will be no satisfaction from those appeals but they are the legal mechanisms open to Chinese corporation. China as a government participates in legal and lawful bodies and does not want to overthrow them, to do so, makes China another USA – so the actions China takes, which will definitely be retaliatory, will be legal, they can, and probably will reduce purchases from offending countries, and of course, they will be much more careful in the decisions when investing in those countries both of which are well within their legal rights.
What China will not do is: unilaterally sanction anyone, any country or even any organisation within the country, it will not militarily defend its assets, it will not interfere in the internal affairs of another country but there is no doubt in my mind that if any country persists and acts on threats to China’s investments, there will be repercussions, probably it’s best not to call them retaliations, they are simply normal responses to a situation of risk.
In Australia for example, if they persist with this challenge to the legal investments Landbridge has made, investments that are compliant in every way and even beneficial to the people of the Northern Territory in jobs and payroll taxes, as well as increased business going through it’s port and beneficial to the people of Australia in 4.5 million income tax paid last year, those are the people who will suffer – China will find other suppliers for the things Australia sends – so far, the only one which is not directly sourced elsewhere is iron ore and, if China stops buying that in any great quantity, it will kill Australia’s economy.
Just continuing to use Darwin Port as an example, it is a critical trade hub in Northern Australia, handling minerals, agriculture, and livestock, with 2,295 vessel visits recorded in 2024-25, marking a 31.07% increase on the previous year. Darwin serves as a key gateway to Asia, managing significant exports of manganese, titanium, iron ore, and livestock. Given that China is the major trading partner of Australia, a huge proportion, unfortunately, there’s no way I can find out, would be Chinese owned, flagged, operated or destined ships, they would be travelling between China and Darwin – that’s 44 ships a week, many of which will simply divert to other ports, or, if the asset has been seized they’re more likely to simply stop coming altogether – how can that possibly benefit the warehouses, the truckers, the waste management, the catering and hospitality venues that the sailors use, the customs brokers, the security and surveillance companies – there’s an entire eco-system of industries deriving their income from a well-operated port and Darwin, which is a small city will feel a very heavy impact from no Chinese ships arriving and departing there. There will also be a lot of farmers, miners and other suppliers using that port to ship to China – it will all stop.
So, to think China will just sit back and do nothing is wrong, they are very mindful that their investments are not just at risk but under threat – business leaders in China understand this and are already taking action – there’s an April 2024 KPMG report, that’s almost 2 years old now showing that China’s investments in Australia have declined from a peak in 2016, just after the Free Trade Agreement was signed to the lowest level since 2006. It’s well worth a read if you’re interested, the report defines all kinds of factors but fails to mention the obvious one – Australia simply doesn’t want Chinese investment, they feel threatened by perceptions given to them by media which are completely false.
In keeping with the maxim that one person’s loss is another’s gain, the vast majority of China’s Overseas Direct Investment is now going to One Belt One Road countries – these are safe destinations, they are countries that welcome trade with and investments from China. In the Western world, that’s not many countries. Leaders of Canada and the UK were recently in China seeking investment opportunities, in both cases, they returned to their home countries to media criticism. It remains to be seen how they will handle this but they, as leaders, and their business leaders all know the truth – the media is lying, a few politicians who are actually paid by Washington to further lie about China are losing influence. Some people will assume that I’m either exaggerating about this but the reality is there for all to see, if you don’t believe me, go look up who are the main funders of the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). It states clearly on its website that it does not accept funds from governments. But then lists the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican movement, Hello Taiwan the National Democratic Institute and others, all of which are government funded and almost all of which can trace their funds back to Washington DC and congressionally approved expenditure.
The vast majority of the Non-US aligned world realises – there is no threat from China and, once again I reiterate something I’ve said many times, the people telling you China is a threat are more likely to damage your economy and your global standing than China ever will – China isn’t a threat, it’s those people telling you it is, who are.
Old-school, white-man’s-burden colonialism is unapologetically back
Rubio used the Munich conference to lay bare the new reality: Washington will no longer pay lip service to being the nice guy or abiding by any red lines
In Munich, the US announced its intent to crush all opposition to its permanent status as imperial top dog, even if that means destroying everything, and all of us, in the process.
S Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last weekend was another troubling declaration of intent by the Trump administration.
The explicit goal of US foreign policy, according to Rubio, is to resurrect the western colonial order that persisted for some five centuries until the Second World War.
Old-school, white-man’s-burden colonialism is unapologetically back.
In Rubio’s preposterous retelling, Europe’s colonisation of much of the planet, and the rape and pillage of its resources, was a glorious era of western exploration, innovation and creativity. The West brought a “superior” civilisation to backward peoples while maintaining global order.
Reflecting on the era before 1945, he observed: “The West had been expanding – its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe.”
That course went into reverse 80 years ago: “The great western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come.”
According to Rubio, that decline was accelerated by what he dismissed as the “abstractions of international law”, established by the United Nations in the immediate postwar period. In the pursuit of what he derisively termed “a perfect world”, these new universal laws – ones that treated all humans as equal – served only to hamstring western colonialism.
Rubio neglected to mention that the purpose of international law was to prevent a return to the horrors of the Second World War: the extermination of civilians in death camps and the firebombing of European and Japanese cities.
During his speech, Rubio offered Europe the chance to join the Trump administration in reviving “The West’s age of dominance” to “Renew the greatest civilisation in human history.”
“What we want is a reinvigorated alliance that recognises that what has ailed our societies is not just a set of bad policies but a malaise of hopelessness and complacency. An alliance – the alliance that we want is one that is not paralysed into inaction by fear – fear of climate change, fear of war, fear of technology,” he said.
No peace, no order
Quite astonishingly, Rubio was greeted with enthusiastic applause throughout his speech from an audience comprising heads of state, politicians, diplomats and military officials. He is reported to have received a standing ovation from half of the attendees.
They seemed swept up in Rubio’s triumphalist account of empire, one utterly oblivious to the well-documented realities of “western domination” – not least its brutal colonial tyrannies, its industrial-scale genocides and the mass enslavement of native populations.
These were not unfortunate episodes or mistakes in the West’s imperial past. They were integral to it. They were the coercive means by which colonised peoples were stripped of their assets and labour to finance empire.
He also appeared blind to another downside of the colonial West, which was all too evident over those five centuries. Ruthless competition between European states, vying to be first to pillage resources in the Global South, led to endless wars in which Europeans, as well as the people they colonised, were killed.
Empire did not ensure order, let alone peace. Colonialism was about systematised theft – and, as the saying goes, there is rarely honour among thieves.
In the dog-eat-dog world that preceded international law, each colonial power was out for its own advancement against rivals. That culminated in two terrible wars in the first half of the 20th century that decimated Europe itself.
Because Rubio does not understand the past, his vision of the future is inevitably defective as well. Any attempt by the Trump administration to restore overt western colonial rule will prove suicidal. As we shall see, such a venture would spell doom for us all. In fact, we may already be well advanced on that path.
Imperial muscles
There are a number of glaring flaws in Rubio and the Trump administration’s thinking.
First, Rubio’s assertion that the West gave up colonialism some 80 years ago is flatly wrong. At the end of the Second World War, Europe’s physically battered and economically exhausted colonial powers passed the baton of empire to the US. Washington did not end colonialism. It rationalised and streamlined it.
Washington continued the European tradition of overthrowing nationalist leaders and installing weak, obedient clients in their stead.
It also seeded the globe with hundreds of US military bases to project hard power, while exploiting new globalising technologies to project soft power. Economic carrots and sticks, wielded largely out of view through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, incentivised submission to its diktats by non-western leaders.
The biggest misdirection in Rubio’s remarks was his omission of the real reason the West abandoned overt colonialism after the Second World War and built international institutions such as the United Nations.
It was not an acceptance of defeat or decline by the US, but rather a recognition that, with the rapid development of nuclear arsenals by the superpowers in the wake of the war, a system capable of mediating the worst excesses of power had become a necessity.
It was the only hope of preventing reckless colonial competition and confrontation that could trigger a Third World War likely to spiral quickly into nuclear armageddon.
Nothing has changed over the past eight decades.
Russia and China still have large nuclear arsenals, and Moscow now has hypersonic missiles capable of carrying these warheads at unprecedented speeds.
There is still no failsafe mechanism to prevent misunderstandings from rapidly escalating into mutual attack.
Human nature has not changed since the 1940s – only the arrogance of a superpower determined to prevent great powers like China or Russia from ever ousting it from its imperial perch.
The threat of nuclear annihilation has not diminished. It has grown exponentially as limitations on global resources – those needed to sustain western consumption and endless “economic growth” – put ever greater pressure on the US to discard its mask as the guardian of superior values.
Rubio used the Munich conference to lay bare the new reality: Washington will no longer pay lip service to being the nice guy or abiding by any red lines.
The Trump administration is planning to build a 5,000-person military base in Gaza, sprawling more than 350 acres, according to Board of Peace contracting records reviewed by the Guardian.
The site is envisioned as a military operating base for a future International Stabilization Force (ISF), planned as a multinational military force composed of pledged troops. The ISF is part of the newly created Board of Peace which is meant to govern Gaza. The Board of Peace is chaired by Donald Trump and led in part by his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
The plans reviewed by the Guardian call for the phased construction of a military outpost that will eventually have a footprint of 1,400 metres by 1,100 metres, ringed by 26 trailer-mounted armored watch towers, a small arms range, bunkers, and a warehouse for military equipment for operations. The entire base will be encircled with barbed wire.
The fortification is planned for an arid stretch of flatlands in southern Gaza strewn with saltbush and white broom shrubs, and littered with twisted metal from years of Israeli bombardment. The Guardian has reviewed video of the area. A source close to the planning tells the Guardian that a small group of bidders – international construction companies with experience in war zones – have already been shown the area in a site visit.
The Indonesian government has reportedly offered to send up to 8,000 troops. Indonesia’s president was one of four south-east Asian leaders scheduled to attend an inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington DC on Thursday.
The UN security council authorized the Board of Peace to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force in Gaza. The ISF, according to the UN, will be tasked with securing Gaza’s border and maintaining peace within the area. It is also supposed to protect civilians, and train and support “vetted Palestinian police forces”.
It is unclear what the ISF’s rules of engagement would be if there is combat, renewed bombing by Israel, or attacks by Hamas. Nor is it clear what role the ISF is meant to play in disarming Hamas, an Israeli condition to proceed with Gaza’s reconstruction.
While more than 20 countries have signed up as members of the Board of Peace, much of the world has stayed away. Although it was set up with the UN’s approval, the organization’s charter appears to grant Trump permanent leadership and control.
“The Board of Peace is a kind of legal fiction, nominally with its own international legal personality separate from both the UN and the United States, but in reality it’s just an empty shell for the United States to use as it sees fit,” said Adil Haque, a professor of law at Rutgers University.
Experts say the funding and governance structures are murky, and several contractors have told the Guardian that conversations with US officials are often conducted on Signal rather than over government email.
The military base contracting document was issued by the Board of Peace, according to a person familiar with the process, and prepared with the help of US contracting officials.
The plans say there is to be a network of bunkers each 6 metres by 4 metres and 2.5 metres tall, with elaborate ventilation systems where soldiers can go for protection.
“The Contractor,” says the document, “shallconduct a geophysical survey of the site to identify any subterranean voids, tunnels, or large cavities per phase.” This provision is likely referencing the large network of tunnels Hamas has built in Gaza.
One section of the document describes a “Human Remains Protocol”. “If suspected human remains or cultural artifacts are discovered, all work in the immediate area must cease immediately, the area must be secured, and the Contracting Officer must be notified immediately for direction,” it says. The bodies of about 10,000 Palestinians are believed to be buried under the rubble in Gaza, according to Gaza’s civil defense agency.
It is unclear who owns the land where the military compound is set to be built, but much of the south Gaza area is currently under Israeli control. The UN estimates that at least 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced during the war.
Diana Buttu, a Palestinian-Canadian lawyer and former peace negotiator, called building a military base on Palestinian land without the government’s approval an act of occupation. “Whose permission did they get to build that military base?”
Officials from US Central Command referred all questions about the military base to the Board of Peace.
A Trump administration official declined to discuss the military base contract: “As the President has said, no US boots will be on the ground. We’re not going to discuss leaked documents.”
the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) – As the campaign for the next Secretary-General gathers momentum – at a relatively slow pace – there is widespread speculation that any candidate running for the post of UN chief will have to abide by the dictates of a politically hostile White House or face a veto in the Security Council.
So far, there are only two declared candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi from Argentina—with more candidates expected to join the race.
The winning candidate, who will take office in January 2027, will be elected by the 15-member Security Council and subsequently ratified by the 193-member General Assembly (UNGA).
Annalena Baerbock, the president of UNGA, said the selection process is already underway, and the interactive dialogues with candidates have been scheduled for the week of 20 April, where they will present their “vision statements”.
Meanwhile, the US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.” The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.
In an interview with the New York Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.
So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who advocates these UN goals? Will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?
Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, International Crisis Group (ICG), who oversees ICG’s work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, told IPS nobody knows how this race will end.
Obviously UN-watchers will be tracking the initial candidates’ vision statements and public appearances over the coming months, he pointed out.
“But diplomats in New York have a suspicion that the veto powers in the Security Council may suddenly announce support for a new candidate at the last minute to circumvent the entire public process. There is a strong sense that the U.S., China and Russia don’t want to be boxed in by the General Assembly.”
There is also a scenario, he said, where the veto powers cannot agree on a candidate, and the Council ends up grinding out discussions of a candidate right through to December.
“UN officials have even done some contingency planning for what happens if there is not an agreed candidate on 1 January 2027. It is possible that the Security Council might ask Guterres to hang on for a few months, although I don’t think either diplomats or Guterres want that outcome.”
There are definitely a few senior UN officials and ambassadors in New York who wonder if the Council could call on them at the very last minute, said Gowan.
Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor Emeritus, Political Science, and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, told IPS it is hard to imagine anyone running for UNSG who would not run into a veto from Washington in a candidacy necessarily addressing the values of cooperation (multilateralism of any shape) as well as honestly discussing such issues as climate, gender (male or female), nuclear proliferation, Palestine, and sovereignty—all “hoaxes” or “con jobs” according to DJT (President Trump) and his junta.
Both the 1996 and 1981 elections, he said, provide “models.”
“The Chinese vetoes probably are the most relevant precedent for Washington going to the mat indefinitely until an “acceptable” candidate emerges. Let’s hope that person is as competent as the compromise of 1996, Kofi Annan”, he declared.
In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, was backed by the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.
In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US – even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.
In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.
Meanwhile, there has been an intense campaign for a female UN chief, the first in the 81-year history of the UN. But the US has remained tight-lipped on the widely supported proposal.
The last 9 secretaries-general, all males, include:
António Guterres (Portugal), who took office in January 2017; Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea), from January 2007 to December 2016; Kofi A. Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to December 2006; Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996; Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), January 1982 to December 1991; Kurt Waldheim (Austria), January 1972 to December 1981; U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962), to December 1971; Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.
As for the U.S., said Gowan, “I don’t believe that Washington has settled on a candidate yet. But the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.
A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.
Right now, there is not an obvious female candidate meeting those criteria, though. I think some candidates who could never align with the U.S. on things like development and diversity are already stepping out of the race.”
Meanwhile, there is a reason that Mia Mottley has gone from being the putative front runner to refocusing on domestic politics.
“I also think that all candidates recognize that they are going to have to talk a lot more about how they will advance the UN’s work on peace and security, which is a priority not only for the U.S. but a lot of member states.”
“That said, one senior UN diplomat recently told me that they cannot see Global South countries accepting another Western candidate after Guterres, regardless of gender. The non-Western members of the Security Council could create a blocking minority in the Security Council to keep candidates from U.S. allies out,” declared Gowan.
He said U.S. diplomats have told other veto powers that they will hold back on various reform proposals and cuts until they have their own candidate as Secretary-General.
A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.
Rubio’s speech isn’t just another round of transatlantic posturing. It marks a moment when a top U.S. official openly reframes five centuries of Western expansion — conquest, colonization, and domination — as a civilizational triumph that must be revived.
According to journalist Ben Norton, Rubio’s remarks went beyond simple rhetoric — openly lamenting the end of Western imperial expansion and portraying decolonization movements as destructive forces driven by “godless communist revolutions.”
In a striking address at the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio framed Western history not as a legacy of colonial domination, but as a “great civilization” whose decline must be reversed.
Rubio stated:
“For five centuries before the end of the Second World War, the West had been expanding… its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers… building vast empires extending out across the globe. But in 1945… it was contracting.”
He described anti-colonial uprisings as accelerating Western decline and rejected what he called “managed decline,” urging Europe and the United States to renew “the greatest civilization in human history.”
As reported in the Guardian this is something along the lines of “Empire is great. Empire is back. Empire is American.” Adding “The US secretary of state delivered what can only be described as a 22-minute ode to empire. A love letter to conquest and colonialism. A proud defense of the west’s territorial expansion.
Why This Matters
Since the post-World War II wave of decolonization across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, formal empires largely collapsed. Yet Rubio’s framing — praising Western expansion while dismissing colonial crimes as “purported sins” — signals a broader ideological shift.
Norton argues that this speech represents:
A defense of Western imperial legacy
A call for renewed transatlantic unity
A strategic push to restructure global supply chains away from China
An ideological justification for reasserting dominance over the Global South
Context: Competing Global Visions
While Rubio emphasized Western civilizational unity and supply chain control, China’s foreign minister presented an opposing vision centered on multilateralism and sovereign equality at the same conference.
The divide reflects a larger geopolitical struggle between:
A U.S.-led Western alliance seeking strategic dominance
A rising multipolar bloc emphasizing sovereignty and UN-centered governance
For more context on Rubio’s speech and the broader geopolitical stakes, here’s Ben Norton and The Geopolitical Economy Report:
When President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, the US reimposed wide-ranging sanctions in direct contradiction of Resolution 2231 and launched a campaign of economic warfare designed to cripple Iran’s economy that continues to this day.
The US assault on the UN Charter has now escalated once again to the brink of war, with US threats of force and acts of economic warfare proceeding daily.
SCHEERPOST, By Jeffrey Sachs / Common Dreams, February 18, 2026
Distinguished Members of the Security Council,
The President of the United States is issuing grave threats of force against the Islamic Republic of Iran if it does not accede to US demands. His actions risk a major regional war that would be devastating. Asked if he wanted regime change, he responded that it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen.” When asked why a second US aircraft carrier has been sent to the region, President Trump answered “in case we don’t make a deal, we’ll need it … if we need it, we’ll have it ready.”
These threats are in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which declares that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
These threats come in the context of Iran’s repeated calls for negotiations. Moreover, on February 7, Iran’s Foreign Minister delivered a speech in Doha proposing comprehensive negotiations for regional peace, following a round of talks in Oman supported by the diplomacy of the Arab states and Türkiye. Even as a second round of negotiations has been announced, the US is resorting to escalating threats of force.
The issue facing the UN Security Council in these perilous days is whether any member state, by force or threat of force, may place itself above the United Nations Charter that governs us all. At stake is the integrity of the UN-based international system.
One of the crucial roles of the Security Council is to call on member states to settle disputes by peaceful means such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or judicial settlement, without the threat of force or resort to force. Today, the world is in urgent need of a renewed commitment to diplomacy.
The current threat of an attack by the US did not begin with any failure by Iran to negotiate. On the contrary, it began with the United States’ repudiation of negotiations that had already succeeded.
On July 14, 2015, after years of extensive diplomacy, Iran and the P5 countries plus Germany concluded the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful. In return, economic sanctions on Iran were to be lifted. The JCPOA placed Iran’s nuclear activities under strict and continuous scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency and thereby ended the risk of a nuclear-arms breakout by Iran, a risk that Iran had consistently denied.
On July 20, 2015, the UNSC unanimously adopted Resolution 2231. That resolution “endorses the JCPOA” and calls upon all states to take the steps “necessary to support the implementation.” It terminated previous sanctions resolutions and incorporated the JCPOA into international law. The Security Council explicitly recognized Iran’s “right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and established a robust verification regime.
Yet on May 8, 2018, three years after the successful UNSC Resolution, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA. This withdrawal was actively lobbied for by the Israeli government. Since the late 1990s, Israel’s leadership has repeatedly, falsely, and hypocritically claimed that Iran was on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, even as Israel itself had secretly acquired nuclear weapons outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has until today refused to join the treaty and subject itself to its controls.
When President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, the US reimposed wide-ranging sanctions in direct contradiction of Resolution 2231 and launched a campaign of economic warfare designed to cripple Iran’s economy that continues to this day.
The current threats by the US are therefore part of a long-standing pattern of feigning interest in negotiations while in fact pursuing economic warfare and military force. In June 2025, following the renewal of negotiations earlier that year, the United States and Iran entered a sixth round of talks. The US had characterized the negotiations as constructive and positive. The sixth round was set for June 15, 2025. Yet on June 13, 2025, the US supported Israel’s bombing of Iran. A week after that, the US attacked Iran under Operation Midnight Hammer.
President Trump just made one of the most depraved statements about destroying living conditions for a foreign people ever uttered by a US president. “THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”
Trump doesn’t just talk depravity. He practices depravity. He’s ratcheted up America’s 66 yearlong campaign of economic sanctions and embargo to unprecedented heights. For the 11 million beleaguered Cuban people that means a new low in living standards from Trump’s cruelty.
Trump‘s criminal intervention in Venezuela allows him to cut off Venezuelan oil which suppled one third of Cuba’s oil. Not satisfied with that, Trump is pressuring Mexico to cut off the 44% of Cuban oil it supplies. If successful that would cut Cuba’s oil supplies by 78%. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum cancel one oil shipment but says Mexico will still provide Cuba oil based on “humanitarian needs.” Tho reducing oil shipments, Mexico is sending two ships containing 800 tons of desperately needed food, water and hygiene products. Hopefully Trump won’t mistake the Mexican ships for drug boats to be obliterated.
The oil shortage has already created a humanitarian crisis as less than half of Havana’s garbage trucks have fuel to cope with mountains of waste. Russia has ordered all its tourists out of Cuba. The collapsing tourist industry is destroying one of Cuba’s last economic lifelines.
But that is not good enough for Trump who’s considering a total blockade on oil imports to collapse the Cuban economy and depose the communist government. Last month Trump signed an executive order imposing tariffs on any country that sends oil to Cuba. Seeking to out-deprave the depraved Trump when it comes to Cuba, U.S. Charge d Affaires in Havana Mike Hammer told his staff “Now there is going to be a real blockade. Nothing is getting in. No more oil is coming.”
Nine years ago my wife and I visited Cuba for 10 days before newly elected Trump began dismantling Obama’s wonderful détente with Cuba. While his détente reestablished diplomatic relations and increased badly needed US tourism, it did not end the embargo which requires Congressional legislation. It was heartbreaking being there to ponder the madness of US policy inflicting such cruelty on such a beautiful country and its people for the past 57 years.
I’d been studying US Cuban relations since January 1, 1959 when news broke on Castro’s successful takedown of the brutal US supported Batista regime. I welcomed the news that 60 years of US exploitation of Cuba following our takeover of Cuba from Spain in 1898 had ended. Sadly, Ike rescinded his initial outreach to Castro within a year over US obsession in destroying any popular left wing government seeking to uplift its people suffering under colonialism.
My visit greatly expanded all I’d been studying about Cuba since 1959. It inspired me to develop a talk entitled ‘US Cuban Relations 1898 to Present: What They Didn’t Teach Us in School’ which I’ve presented many times. I end the talk imploring attendees to stay informed, support end to America’s cruel, heatless embargo, and visit Cuba to see for yourself its beauty and the need to end senseless US cruelty.
Alas, at next presentation I’ll drop the third request they visit Cuba to see for themselves its beauty and its people. The current depraved US administration is making Cuba unlivable for its 11 million citizens and any tourist who dares visit.
US empire managers have been making some surprisingly honest admissions in recent days, with Senator Lindsey Graham saying the wars of the future are being planned in Israel and Secretary of State Marco Rubio calling for a return to old-school western colonialism.
During a Monday press conference in Tel Aviv after a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, Graham said that “I’ve been coming here every two weeks whether I need to or not.”
Why is a South Carolina senator traveling to Israel every two weeks, rain or shine? The bloodthirsty warmonger answers this question in short order.
“The wars of the future are being planned here in Israel,” Graham said. “Because if you’re not one step ahead of the enemy, you suffer. The most clever, creative military forces on the planet are here in Israel.”
Graham salivated about the possibility of a US war with Iran, acknowledging that such a war could absolutely result in American troops in the region being struck by Iranian missiles but saying the US should go to war anyway.
“Could our soldiers be hit in the region? Absolutely, they could. Can Iran respond if we have an all-out attack? Absolutely, they can,” Graham said, arguing that “the risk associated with that is far less than the risk associated with blinking and pulling the plug and not helping the people as you promised.”
During a speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio took the mask all the way off in an unsettling rant about the need to return to the good old days when western powers dominated the global south without pretense or apology.
“For five centuries, before the end of the second world war, the West had been expanding — its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe,” Rubio said. “But in 1945, for the first time since the age of Columbus, it was contracting. Europe was in ruins. Half of it lived behind an Iron Curtain and the rest looked like it would soon follow. The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come.”
Rubio, a notoriously anti-communist gusano, is here admitting that socialism played a leading role in pushing back against the abusive colonialism and empire-building of the western world in recent decades. A normal person would take this as a strong argument in favor of socialism, but Rubio says it like it’s a bad thing.
Rubio urged Europeans to join their white Christian brethren in the United States in re-conquering the brown-skinned communists and heathens who have been insisting upon their own sovereignty and the advancement of their own interests:
“Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.
“For the United States and Europe, we belong together. America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent long before. The man who settled and built the nation of my birth arrived on our shores carrying the memories and the traditions and the Christian faith of their ancestors as a sacred inheritance, an unbreakable link between the old world and the new.
“We are part of one civilization — Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.”
It takes a special kind of psychopath to look back with fondness upon five centuries of unchecked western colonialism and imperialism and then advocate a return to those horrific days. Mass genocides across entire continents. The African slave trade. The violent subjugation and enslavement of entire populations. That is what Rubio is looking back on and sighing with nostalgia.
And this is of course to say nothing of the savagery his beloved “Western civilization” is perpetrating in the present day. This is the civilization of the Gaza holocaust. The civilization that cannot exist without constant war, exploitation and extraction. The civilization that is presently strangling Cuba to death and preparing for war with Iran. The civilization that still to this day violently subjugates and robs the global south. The civilization of ecocide. The civilization of Epstein.
Western civilization is the most depraved and abusive civilization that has ever existed. It doesn’t need a return to its prime, it needs to be stopped in its tracks and made healthy. This is obvious from a glance at the deranged empire managers this civilization has been elevating to positions of leadership.
President Trump recapped his sixth meeting this year with his real boss, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by stating it will be “Very traumatic” for Iran if a nuclear deal isn’t reached soon.
With his vast military armada perched on Iran’s doorstep, Trump’s warning is clear. The US is preparing a massive attack to decapitate the Iranian regime and splinter Iran into a failed state. Of course this has nothing to do with US national security interests. It’s about Israel’s decade’s long demand that its US servants remove Israel’s last hegemonic rival for Middle East supremacy.
When asked about a timeline for Iran to capitulate to every US, Israeli demand that would essentially nullify Iranian sovereignty, Trump said “I guess over the next month. They should agree very quickly.” Netanyahu echoed that delusional assessment stating “The president believes the Iranians now understand who they are dealing with” (and that) “conditions could emerge for achieving a good agreement.”
Trump and Netanyahu know full well Iran will never negotiate away their ballistic missile defense which will devastate both US military forces and Israel itself once Trump launches all out war.
Knowing no deal is possible, Trump and Netanyahu likely spent their 3 hour meeting discussing when and how to destroy Iran militarily. The Israeli news site Ynet, concurred, stating the two leaders discussed military options and that Israeli officials expect the US will eventually attack Iran.
Best we in the peace community can hope for is that someone close to Trump convinces him that the trauma Trump threatens Iran with will boomerang into unfathomable trauma for the US and Israel as well as Iran.
“Now, with increased US military presence in [West Asia], Trump is preparing strikes on Iran — not for American interests, but to appease his Zionist bosses. This isn’t ‘peace’; it’s escalating conflicts to advance Greater Israel fantasies, displacing millions and looting American taxpayers.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been deliberately steering the United States toward confrontation with Iran in an escalation that pushes America into a “slave state for Israel’s expansionist dreams,” says an American analyst.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Michael Rectenwald, an author and former professor, pointed to the strong Zionist influence in the US policy-making:
“The Zionist stranglehold on US policyprioritizes Israel’s aggression over American sovereignty.Netanyahu knows thatprovoking Iran draws in US forces and funds, turning our country into a slave state for Israel’s expansionist dreams.”
He noted that Tel Aviv’s push to see an all-out Iran-US war is not “just a willingness” but “a calculated strategy to bleed America dry.”‘Rectenwald, founder of the Anti-Zionist America Political Action Committee (AZAPAC), said Trump’s record stood in stark contrast to his campaign vows to end wars:
“He ran on ending endless wars and putting America first. In practice, his administration had served as Israel’s munitions depot and ATM, bombing countries like Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and others at Israel’s behest while funneling billions in arms and aid to support Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza and beyond.”
In Rectenwald’s assessment, the expansion of US military assets in the region signaled preparation for direct confrontation with Tehran.
“Now, with increased US military presence in [West Asia], Trump is preparing strikes on Iran — not for American interests, but to appease his Zionist bosses. This isn’t ‘peace’; it’s escalating conflicts to advance Greater Israel fantasies, displacing millions and looting American taxpayers.”
Trump’s rhetoric has sharpened in recent months. Following economic protests in Iran, which were later hijacked and turned into terrorist riots by US and Israeli spy agencies, he had warned that military action remained on the table and said that “help is on its way.”
In late January, he stated that “another beautiful armada” of warships was “floating beautifully toward Iran,” later suggesting the deployment might pressure Tehran back into nuclear negotiations,while Tehran said it had never abandoned talks.
Trump further threatened that failure to reach a deal would bring consequences “far worse” than the previous strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Tehran responded with its own warnings, declaring that any aggression would meet a swift and forceful response.
After an attack on its nuclear facilities in June — which ironically came during indirect Tehran-Washington talks — Iran launched a barrage of missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which hosted US forces and equipment.
Rectenwald argued that the push toward confrontation with Iran could not be understood without examining Israel’s strategic calculus and its influence in Washington. He contended that Netanyahu had been actively seeking a broader war between Washington and Tehran.
Rectenwald noted that Trump himself had been complicit in this pattern:
“Netanyahu and the Zionist regime in Israel are desperate for an all-out war between the US and Iran, as it would eliminate a key regional rival while keeping the US entangled as Israel’s military golem.
“Trump is no anti-war president; he’s a Jewish mobster puppet, dragging the US into more bloodshed for a parasitic state.”
Rectenwald described the president’s foreign policy as subservient to Israeli priorities rather than grounded in American sovereignty.
The risks of confrontation with Iran, he argued, were neither abstract nor hypothetical. Rectenwald said Trump had been fully aware of Iran’s military capabilities, particularly its missile arsenal.
“Trump is fully aware of Iran’s formidable missile capabilities, which have already pierced Israel’s multi-layered defenses and could devastate US assets and troops scattered across the region.”
Despite that awareness, Rectenwald believes the president had been influenced more by hardline voices aligned with Israel than by strategic caution. He described Trump as “more beholden to Zionist hawks like those in his administration and the pro-Israel lobby that dictates US policy.”
In making his case, Rectenwald contrasted Iran’s posture with Israel’s record:
“Iran hasn’t attacked US ships like the USS Liberty (that was Israel), nor does it control our political class or siphon our resources for genocide; that’s Israel’s playbook,.”
He argued that Trump had ignored the strategic dangers while appealing to domestic political instincts. The president, he said, had been “pumping up his base with pre-war rhetoric and aligning with figures who see siding with Israel as ‘good vs. evil.'”
Rectenwald warned:]”Attacking Iran would be another disastrous war for Israel, not fought for America, endangering our troops and economy.”
The latest round of talks between Tehran and Washington took place in Muscat on February 6, mediated by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi. The delegations exchanged their views and approaches through Omani channels.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the process as a “good start” and said that the continuation of talks depended on refraining from threats and pressure.
However, Rectenwald repeated his warning against Israeli influence, which can derail the talks as happened in June.
“Trump isn’t acknowledging Iran’s power; he’s blinded by Zionist influence, risking catastrophe to serve foreign interests,” he said.
For Rectenwald, the stakes extended beyond a single military decision. The broader issue, he argued, concerned sovereignty and governance. “We must end this control and reclaim American governance for Americans.”
Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint
– When the nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expired last week, it ended a historic era— but triggered widespread speculation about the future.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “February 5 was a grave moment for international peace and security”.
For the first time in more than half a century, he pointed out, “we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States of America – the two States that possess the overwhelming majority of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.”
US President Donald Trump dismissed the termination of the treaty rather sarcastically when he told the New York Times last month: “if it expires, it expires”—and denounced the expiring treaty as “a badly negotiated deal”.
“We will do a better agreement”, he promised, adding that China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenals, “and other parties” should be part of any future treaty.
The Chinese, according to the Times, “have made clear they are not interested”.
Currently, the world’s nine nuclear powers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China—all permanent members of the Security Council—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
Collectively, they possess an estimated 12,100 to 12,500 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the US owning nearly 90% of the total eve while all nine are actively modernizing their arsenals.
Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the START Treaty should be extended at least a year by formal or informal means. Is that as good as obtaining a new treaty that would include China as the US administration wants? No.
“Is it as good as fulfilling legally required steps such as adherence to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) unanimous ruling to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons or the fulfillment of the promise of nuclear disarmament embodied in Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? No”.
However, argued Granoff, doing nothing is asserting that a modest threat reducing easily obtained step now should not be taken because there are better ways forward. A modest positive step is no impediment to moving in other desired manners.
Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint, said Granoff.
The arguments being put forth as to why nothing can be done are inadequate.
First, the US argues that a new arrangement, a new treaty, is needed to bring China into the fold of restraint, he said.
“A modest step of extending START for a year by mutual presidential decrees while new negotiations take place does not negate creating a new treaty that would include China.”
Second, the arguments used to rationalize the new arms race fail to consider the folly of producing more accurate, usable, and powerful nuclear weapons”, declared Granoff.
Guterres pointed out the dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time – the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.
“Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, we must search for hope. This is an opportunity to reset and create an arms control regime fit for a rapidly evolving context.”
“I welcome that the Presidents of both States have made clear that they appreciate the destabilizing impact of a nuclear arms race and the need to prevent the return to a world of unchecked nuclear proliferation.
“The world now looks to the Russian Federation and the United States to translate words into action. I urge both States to return to the negotiating table without delay and to agree upon a successor framework that restores verifiable limits, reduces risks, and strengthens our common security’, said Guterres.
In a statement released last week, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, said the importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate.
“As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”
The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, PNND warned.
This was one of the key reasons that on January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock to 85 Seconds to Midnight.
Last year, PNND Co-President Senator Markey introduced draft legislation into the US Senate urging the government to negotiate new post-START agreements with Russia and China. The legislation is supported by a number of other Senators and by a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump Administration.
Granoff, providing a deeper analysis, told IPS the scientific data makes clear that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would annihilate humanity and that a limited nuclear exchange of less than 2% of the world’s arsenals would put around 5 million tons of soot into the stratosphere leading billions of deaths and the devastation of modern civilization everywhere.
“Realism reveals that the alleged need to duplicate the arsenals of adversary nations is not needed for deterrence. Realism also reveals that there is actually little to no meaningful difference between a nation having 600 (as China does now) or over 1400 deployed nuclear weapons, mirroring the US and Russia, or 30,000 nuclear weapons as Russia and the US each had at the height of the last arms race”.
“The reality is that devastation globally of a small portion of the world’s nuclear arsenals would be unambiguously unacceptable to any sane person. We could say that realism informs us that we have moved from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Self-Assured Destruction (SAD). The fact is that if any of the 9 states with the weapons were to use several hundred nuclear weapons that nation itself would also be devastated. MAD today reveals a new acronym, SAD.”
Meanwhile, a posting in the US State Department website reads
Treaty Structure: The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, enhances U.S. national security by placing verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The United States and the Russian Federation had agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.
Strategic Offensive Limits: The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. Under the treaty, the United States and the Russian Federation had seven years to meet the treaty’s central limits on strategic offensive arms (by February 5, 2018) and are then obligated to maintain those limits for as long as the treaty remains in force.
Aggregate Limits
Both the United States and the Russian Federation met the central limits of the New START Treaty by February 5, 2018, and have stayed at or below them ever since. Those limits are:
• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments; • 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit); • 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
An attendee told The Grayzone that oil industry heavyweights were less excited about Trump’s Venezuela policy, privately complaining about the President’s aggressive push to restart their operations.
When the American Petroleum Institute (API) gathered oil industry leaders and lobbyists for a “State of American Energy” summit on January 16, 2026, the geopolitical landscape seemed to be shifting dramatically in their favor. However, an attendee of the resource extraction cartel’s most important annual lobbying conference told The Grayzone that participants privately grumbled about President Donald Trump’s heavy-handed attempts to steer their agenda, particularly in Venezuela, where he has demanded they immediately restart operations.
Two weeks before the API summit, the US military kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a violent raid, enabling the Trump administration to commandeer the country’s oil reserves. Meanwhile, foreign-backed riots left thousands dead in oil-rich Iran on January 8 and 9, generating enough instability to excite Western governments about the prospects of regime change.
From the stage at Washington DC’s Anthem theater, veteran industry consultant Bob McNally of the Rapidan Energy Group could not contain his excitement over the prospect of toppling the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“Iran holds the biggest promise as well, though they’re the biggest risk, but the biggest opportunity,” McNally proclaimed. “If you can imagine the United States opening an embassy in Tehran, the regime in Tehran reflecting its people – the most pro American population outside of Israel in the Middle East, culturally, commercially adept – historic. If you can imagine our industry going back there, we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela.”
According to McNally, who formerly advised President George W. Bush on energy policy, a US regime change war on Iran would be a “terrible day for Moscow, [a] wonderful day for the Iranians, the United States, the oil industry and world peace.”
However, like many industry titans at the API summit, McNally saw Venezuela as a high-risk, low-return investment, even after the de facto US takeover of its resources. “Since the President’s decision to apprehend Nicolas Maduro, I think we’ve seen, you know, private conversations, the meeting at the White House, the administration has had to learn, you don’t go into Venezuela, turn a tap and 3 million barrels a day flow. It doesn’t happen like that,” he commented.
McNally went on to suggest the oil industry was pushing back on Trump’s demands that it immediately reinvest in Venezuela: “The prize in Venezuela is getting back from below a million barrels a day to between three and four million barrels a day, and that we will measure in many years and many decades. And that’s the truth. And the industry is speaking that truth to the administration.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The oil lobby sponsors a TV show to glorify itself
The API “State of American Energy” summit’s program closed with a session which demonstrated the power of America’s oil lobby to influence Hollywood content.
On stage beside actor Andy Garcia, a star of a new Paramount+ show, Landman, API President Mike Sommers boasted about his role in sponsoring a dramatic series which glorifies a heavily maligned industry on a Trump-aligned network.
According to Axios, API provided Landman with “a seven figure ad campaign,” ensuring the show’s viability on Paramount+, a network purchased in 2025 by the pro-Trump, ultra-Zionist billionaire heir David Ellison.
Landman’s plotlines sell viewers on the image of America’s extraction industry as a vital force that is entitled to bend the rules and make crooked deals in order to keep the oil flowing. In one episode, the roguish “landman” protagonist Tommy Norris, played by Billy Bob Thornton, finds himself involved in a turf war with a Mexican narco-cartel which controls a valuable plot of land. To increase his leverage over the cartel, Tommy threatens to trigger Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) involvement unless they stand down. Ultimately, the cartel agrees to co-exist with Tommy’s company, M-Tex Oil, ensuring secure drilling and lucrative profits.
It’s a plot that could have been ripped from actual headlines about the US oil industry’s secret dealings with Mexican cartels and designated terrorist groups. And just months after the Trump administration initiated a legally dubious anti-drug operation off Venezuela’s coast to increase pressure on Maduro, who now languishes in a federal prison cell as Washington dictates energy policy to Caracas, the API-sponsored Landman feels increasingly like predictive programming. https://thegrayzone.com/2026/02/13/iran-war-opportunity-oil-lobbys/
New START treaty expired, no binding constraints on arsenals
Russia commits to treaty limits as long as US does
Russia wary of costly arms race amid Ukraine conflict
MOSCOW, Feb 11 (Reuters) – Russia will keep observing the missile and warhead limits in the expired New START nuclear treaty with the United States as long as Washington continues to do the same, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.
The 2010 treaty ran out on February 5, leaving the world’s two biggest nuclear-armed powers with no binding constraints on their strategic arsenals for the first time in more than half a century.
U.S. President Donald Trump rejected an offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin to voluntarily abide by the New START limits for another year, saying he wanted a “new, improved and modernized” treaty rather than an extension of the old one.
“Our position is that this moratorium on our side that was declared by the president is still in place, but only as long as the United States doesn’t exceed the said limits,” Lavrov told the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament.
“We have reason to believe that the United States is in no hurry to deviate from these indicators, and for the foreseeable future these indicators will be observed,” he said, without explaining the basis for that assumption
Lavrov reiterated that Russia wanted to start a “strategic dialogue” with the U.S., saying it was “long overdue”.
nuclear-news 