nuclear-news

The U.S. Determination to Achieve Full Spectrum Dominance is Not In Decline

Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist. 23 Sep 2026, https://blackagendareport.com/us-determination-achieve-full-spectrum-dominance-not-decline

The trope of the United States being in a state of decline is a common one, but it should not be accepted without scrutiny. The U.S. faces crises but remains dangerous, powerful, and single-minded in its determination to achieve full-spectrum dominance over the world.

The claim that the United States is in a state of decline is a popular one and is often treated as being an axiomatic truth. The word “decline” is problematic, though. It gives an impression of weakness when the U.S. has the world’s most powerful military and the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency. Its recent actions indicate that while it faces significant crises, the Donald Trump administration and any administration coming after it will continue its wars of aggression and subterfuge, particularly in the absence of an equally strong opposing force.

While the extent of any decline in U.S. power internationally is debatable, the domestic decline is clear and is happening in large part because maintaining power around the world quite literally steals from the public’s needs. The U.S. military budget is now at least $1.5 trillion and dwarfs the military budgets of other countries. If anyone doubts that the figure impacts the lives of millions of people in the U.S., Donald Trump admitted as much himself. “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.” 

Of course, the states cannot pay for these programs, that’s why they were federal programs to begin with. It is not possible to spend that amount of money on the military without impacting the social safety net. Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill cuts billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid and will literally jeopardize people’s lives all over the country. The high cost will be borne by the public in a very direct way and is just one indicator of a declining quality of life as wages stagnate and the ruling class remains committed to an austerity-driven race to the bottom and endless precarity.

The assertion that the U.S. is a declining international power is repeated ad nauseam even as it achieves its goals of conquest around the world. The specter of decline is now being evoked due to the failure of the U.S. to win the quick victory it predicted after the joint attack with Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran, which began on February 28, 2026. The war of aggression was carried out with hubris and was emboldened by the U.S. success in capturing the Venezuelan president and the state of Venezuela in the previous month. The idea that kidnapping a president and his wife and pressuring a weak government into compliance would be akin to defeating a military power like Iran was a choice made out of arrogance and delusional power.

Yet the Iran failure cannot itself be given as proof of decline because it was preceded by a very significant success against Venezuela. Every president from George W. Bush to Trump 2.0 used sanctions and coercion against Venezuela. The first Trump administration attempted to install a president of their choosing, Juan Guaido, in 2019. The failed coup and end of support for Guaido led many anti-imperialists to celebrate perhaps too soon. While anti-imperialists were steadfast in supporting the Venezuelan government, the security state apparatus did not admit defeat and looked for new ways to undermine that nation.

The Trump administration has been particularly successful in the Americas. Turning Venezuela into a vassal state with huge reserves of oil was quite literally a dream come true. Without a military coup, assassination, or invasion, Venezuela fell quickly, and now its oil revenues sit in a U.S. treasury account, and the gold reserves held in London will soon be on their way to the U.S. 

The U.S. has in the past year interfered in elections in Honduras, Colombia, Peru and Argentina. Zionists are taking land in the Patagonia region of Chile and Argentina and Cubans are being killed by a siege in cynical hope that they will undo the revolution and turn the country over to Washington and Cuban exiles. 

Every U.S. president consolidates the work of his predecessors. Ronald Reagan sought to overthrow the Libyan government with a bombing campaign in 1986, but the deed was finally done under Barack Obama 25 years later in 2011. That awful success led the U.S. and its NATO allies to set their sights on Syria. But it took Obama, Trump, and finally Biden in his last month of office to bring about the fall of the Syrian Arab Republic at the hands of jihadist proxies.

These events should not bring about feelings of pessimism alone. They are history lessons which explain how the U.S. succeeds in bringing down government after government. Even as its military prowess lays waste to the domestic economy and the lives of millions of people, there has so far been no other power willing or able to counteract the U.S.

Russia began supporting the Syrian government, but not until 2015, when it was on the brink of collapse, and Vladimir Putin feared that Russian jihadis who joined that fight might come back home. But Russia made the mistake of agreeing to a kind of ceasefire, and then in 2022 the U.S. used Ukraine (after the Obama administration backed a 2014 coup) as a proxy against Russia. Russia was unable to fight in Ukraine and Syria simultaneously and now one of the jihadists who once had a U.S. bounty on his head is now the president.

But curiously, Russia and China lack the determination to take the fight to the U.S. even when they can. In November 2025, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 2803, which legitimized the so-called Board of Peace, which handed control of Gaza to the U.S., an act that actually violated the UN Charter. As two of the five permanent members of the UNSC, either Russia or China, could have vetoed what amounts to a surrender to global fascism, yet both abstained. Neither nation had to spend money, send troops, or risk the lives of their citizens. One of them could have voted no and sent the Board of Peace to the dustbin of history, yet neither of them was willing to do so.

Despite being targets of the U.S., both Russia and China chose a path of least resistance. It is said that Mahmoud Abbas, of the Palestinian Authority, asked them not to veto. But that excuse does not hold water. Abbas is seen as a collaborator and is not respected by Palestinians, whose rights were torn asunder by this agreement to take no action. This lack of determination means that the “decline” of the U.S. may be more wishful thinking than a reality if world powers are willing to go along in hopes of staying off of the menu themselves.

While Iran admirably has staved off destruction at the hands of the U.S. and Israel, it would be a mistake to think it is out of the proverbial woods. The U.S. is now using its influence at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to once again make false claims of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The goal is to continue making a case for war and to perhaps use the nuclear weapons which, unlike Iran, the U.S. and Israel have in abundance. 

The JPMorgan Chase bank made headlines recently after admitting they could not predict an end to the war against Iran. JPMorgan predicted that specific breaking points such as the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and rising oil and gas prices would force an end to the conflict, but no such movement is in sight.

That inability to predict is a warning sign that the Trump administration has committed itself to continuing the war against Iran. They are prepared for a dangerous endgame, as Trump said himself in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly.

“I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? “Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”

While the attack on Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz have driven people in the U.S. into yet another inflationary spiral, it is important not to think of a perceived decline. Instead, remember Syria and remember Venezuela. They were taken out by Washington when they appeared to be safe. The U.S. crises created by the pursuit of hegemony must be described that way, and not be diminished by overuse of a popular term. The decline which is spoken of so often may bring about a more ominous future than those who casually use the word are willing to contemplate. The U.S. may as Trump said, be willing to drive the world to hell with no chance of survival. That outcome would be the ultimate decline.

October 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Trump administration dives into U.N. Secretary General race

Signs of the Times, Karen DeYoung, The Washington Post, Mon, 24 Aug 2026 

The next leader of the United Nations could, for the first time, be a woman. But first she’ll need Trump’s approval.

This year, for the first time in its 80-year history, the United Nations may select a woman to serve as its secretary general. Of the eight candidates nominated so far for the position, five are women, and many U.N. members argue that it’s finally their turn.

But as the U.N. Security Council undertakes its months-long, ultrasecret selection process, hopefully making its choice before Portugal’s António Guterres reaches the end of his five-year term on Dec. 31, other factors are at play beyond gender.

The Trump administration, which has veto power on the council, is working overtime to ensure that the new leadership is in sync with its plans to continue cutting the U.N. budget and workforce. Beyond long-standing funding concerns, it wants to effect fundamental change across the global body, in particular the way it handles the three “pillars” of its charter — peace and security, development, and human rights — and adherence to international law.

“This institution desperately needs strong, effective leadership,” Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told a Senate hearing this spring. U.S. priorities, he said, were “reform, reform, reform … and getting back to basics ​on peace and security will be ​at the top of ⁠our criteria.”

This summer, high-level officials at the U.S. mission to U.N. headquarters in New York have conducted multiple interviews with six of the candidates — two new ones emerged this month, and there may be further nominations before any final decision.

President Donald Trump has not commented on a report last month by the New York Post that he wants Gianni Infantino, head of the world soccer federation FIFA, to have the job. But “there are tons of rumors about an October surprise,” said a longtime U.N. insider, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secret voting process.

“They have until the end of December,” said a second person familiar with the process and its backroom machinations. The question, this person said:

“Does [Trump] come in at some point — everybody at the U.N. is waiting for this — and say, ‘I want … Infantino, [or] his daughter [or son-in-law Jared] Kushner.’ … Then the whole process gets set back as somebody figures out the politics of backing him down.”

One senior U.S. official acknowledged deep U.S. involvement but said that the interviews were more akin to “conversations,” adding that the administration does not have a preferred candidate among current or possible future nominees.

“We want the best candidate. Period. We’re not focused on anything that would limit the most talented people around the globe from putting their names up.”

While they may differ on how it is done, few member states disagree with the need for reform. Peter Yeo, senior vice president of the U.N. Foundation and a longtime expert on U.S.-U.N. relations, said:

“This particular race is different from all the others. Fundamental questions are being asked about the future role of the organization … what the U.N. does, what is its mandate, what programs it should be running, how it should be financed. It’s not just the United States asking.”

Trump, who has denigrated a host of international organizations, has sharply criticized the U.N. as ineffective, wasteful and out of tune with U.S. priorities. He has canceled U.S. membership and voluntary donations to many of its agencies — most prominently the World Health Organization — while U.S. humanitarian and development aid has been shunted away from international programs toward bilateral assistance that reflects “America First” priorities.

Annual member dues to the regular U.N. budget are assessed according to a formula that includes gross national product and population, and the U.S. has long been the biggest contributor. But until recently, the Trump administration had paid nothing while it pushed for severe budget cuts and organizational changes.

Early this year, as Guterres warned that the U.N. faced “imminent financial collapse,” the administration paid about $160 million of last year’s more than $800 million assessment, according to the U.S. official. On Aug. 4, following staff and budget cuts in which the U.S. was heavily involved, the administration notified Congress that it intends to pay $725 million of this year’s dues.

Technically, the secretary general is elected by a majority vote in the 193-member General Assembly. But only once, in 1950, has there been more than one person on the ballot delivered to the assembly by the 15-member Security Council. The council’s approval requires at least nine votes, though each of the five permanent members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — has veto power.

It has long been agreed that the secretary general should not be from one of the permanent five members, who already wield tremendous power with their vetoes, and that the position will rotate among different regions of the world. Since the U.N. was founded in 1945, some of the nine who have held the office, including Guterres, have served two consecutive five-year terms. Africa, Asia and Europe have had multiple chances, but only one secretary general has come from Latin America — Peru’s Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, who served from 1982 to 1991.

All five of the currently nominated women are Latin Americans, as is one of the three men. The other two men are from Africa. All are former U.N. or national officials in their home governments, or both, and most have campaigned strenuously for the job.

Beginning this summer, council members are periodically holding secret straw votes in which they “encourage,” “discourage” or offer no opinion on each candidate. In officially unreleased but widely disseminated results of the first vote, held in late July, the top three were Rebeca Grynspan, former Costa Rican vice president and former head of U.N. Trade and Development; Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett, former foreign minister and current U.N. ambassador from Guyana; and Rafael Mariano Grossi, an Argentine diplomat who has been director general of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency since 2019.

In a second straw vote Friday, all three were reportedly still out in front, but no one looked like a runaway……………………………………………………… https://www.sott.net/article/508526-Trump-administration-dives-into-U-N-Secretary-General-race

September 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Funding crisis leaves UN nuclear watchdog begging for resources

September 17, 2026, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/09/funding-crisis-leaves-un-nuclear-watchdog-begging-for-resources/

The International Atomic Energy Agency faces a serious funding crisis as major contributors delay payments, putting nuclear safeguards, safety and security work at risk and exposing deeper problems with how the agency is financed.

The 180-plus members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are meeting this month in Vienna amidst an ongoing financial crisis. In June, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi reported that if significant payments were not received soon, the agency would not be able to meet its legal obligations.

The cause? The failure of the wealthiest members to pay their assessed dues on time. Between them the United States and China account for 45 per cent of the IAEA’s annual budget – roughly US$250 million. Both have increasingly failed to make timely payments.

At risk are services vital to international peace and security.

The IAEA is best known for its nuclear safeguards system, underpinning the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The key is on-site verification inspections and assessments in some 180 countries to confirm they are keeping their commitments not to acquire nuclear weapons. Some 800 highly trained IAEA inspectors conduct almost 3,000 in-field verification activities each year.

A major focus of safeguards attention has been Iran’s nuclear activities. The bombing of Iran’s facilities in June 2025 forced IAEA inspectors to leave the country. Nevertheless, safeguards inspections continue at the Russian-supplied Bushehr nuclear power plant, and inspectors remain ready to return to other facilities as soon as conditions allow.

Other vital responsibilities of the IAEA include the promotion of a strong global framework for nuclear safety and nuclear security.

Since the Chernobyl disaster, the international community has recognised that nuclear safety is a global challenge that requires international tools – many of which are provided by the IAEA. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, IAEA staff have been stationed at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant under conditions of great risk, producing over 360 public reports on developments there.

And in our immediate region, the IAEA has actively monitored the discharge into the sea of the water used to cool the Fukushima reactors damaged in the 2011 tragedy, confirming that these discharges remain well below regulatory and operational limits.

Beyond its regulatory and standard-setting roles, the IAEA helps developing countries harness nuclear technologies for national development – especially in medicine but also in agriculture and industry.

The funding of international organisations has long been a contentious issue. From the 1960s, a shadowy alliance of the major (Western) contributors known as the Geneva Group consulted to restrain the costs associated with the rapid expansion of membership in these organisations.

In the 1980s, the Geneva Group started to impose a policy of ‘zero real growth’ in the United Nations system, regardless of their roles and relative importance. This later evolved into a policy of ‘zero nominal growth’, effectively requiring budgets to be cut each year to offset inflation.

Consequently, funds were being cut just as demands for services were increasing, driven by the growth in IAEA membership and the emergence of new and increasingly complex, resource-intensive inspection challenges, such as the inspections in Iraq and the safeguarding of Iran’s nuclear programme.

To meet these demands, the IAEA increased its reliance on voluntary contributions. For some governments, the insistence on reduced budgets was a policy pursued regardless of the real costs involved: where they considered particular programmes vital, they would provide voluntary payments outside the regular budget, known as ’extrabudgetary funding’. The United States has long been a major contributor of extrabudgetary funding, and China has also become a significant player.

Extrabudgetary funding requires careful management lest it distort the balance of interests among IAEA member states. It can also dilute the neutral international character of the IAEA’s activities and risk giving funding providers disproportionate influence over the organisation’s priorities and activities.

A first and immediate step is for the major contributors to resume making full and timely payments. Their current delays amount to bullying behaviour and risk unduly influencing the IAEA’s programs and priorities.

The only sanction against non-payment is the provision in the IAEA statutes that members more than two years in arrears will lose their right to vote in the IAEA’s governing bodies. To date, this provision has been sufficient to deter prolonged financial default. But financial uncertainty carries its own cost, including the cost of rescheduling planned activities, or, in some cases, not delivering them at all.

Other significant contributors, including those in our region – Japan, Korea and Australia – pay their contributions in full and on time, only to see their good international citizenship exploited by the two dominant players.

The Asia-Pacific is now the leading region in global nuclear affairs and should therefore take a lead in calling for a return to full and timely payments to the IAEA.

More broadly, it is time to reconsider the role of the Geneva Group. Zero-growth policies were blunt instruments which achieved a very limited purpose. A more nuanced approach is needed, one that allows differentiation among agencies as they evolve to meet changing global challenges and respond to the changing expectations and needs of the international community.

Over its 70 years of history, the IAEA has earned an enviable record as the world’s highly professional and respected nuclear watchdog. It has also proven its capacity to adapt to new demands, from the challenges posed by would-be nuclear proliferators to those arising from nuclear safety and security.

It is in our collective interests to ensure that the IAEA’s funding needs are assessed on their merits and that all its members meet their fair share of the costs in full and on time.

September 24, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment