UK named worst violator of anti-nuclear weapons treaty
by Tom Pashby, 22 April 2026, https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/04/22/uk-worst-violator-nuclear-weapons-treaty/
The UK has been named as the worst violator of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor 2026, a report by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA).
Its ranking as the worst state in terms of “non-compatibility” with the treaty is, in part, due to the UK having its own nuclear weapons, as well as being understood to have started hosting nukes for Trump’s USA.
A damning report
The report explained why it focuses on the TPNW:
It tracks progress towards a world without nuclear weapons and highlights activities that stand between the international community and the fulfilment of the long-standing goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
In measuring this progress, the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor uses the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as the primary yardstick, because this treaty codifies norms and actions that are needed to create and maintain a world free of nuclear weapons.
The TPNW is the only legally binding global treaty that outlaws nuclear weapons. It was adopted on 7 July 2017 and entered into force on 22 January 2021. The impact of the TPNW will be built gradually and will depend on how it is welcomed and used by each and every State.
The TPNW is supported by 99 of the world’s 197 states, with 74 joining as parties and 25 as signatories that have not yet ratified the treaty.
Political pressure
No nuclear-armed states have joined the treaty, but the Ban Monitor said:
Every non-nuclear-armed State that joins strengthens political pressure for nuclear disarmament.
Adding:
With ratification processes advancing in several signatory States, further progress in expansion of the treaty membership appears likely in 2026.
The report took aim at the poor record of European states on eliminating nuclear weapons, saying “support for the TPNW is strong across all regions of the world except Europe,” and warned:
The UK was singled out as having the most policies or practices in 2025 that were viewed by the report’s authors as being “non-compatible with, or of concern in relation to, one or more of the TPNW’s prohibitions”.
It was singled out alongside 44 other states found to have non-compatibilities with the TPNW. Most were not compatible with the TPNW’s “Prohibition on assisting, encouraging or inducing prohibited activity”.
The UK, meanwhile, was identified as being non-compatible with a total of six prohibitions:
- on “development, production, manufacture, or other acquisition”;
- on “possession or stockpiling”; on “receiving transfer or control”;
- on “assisting; encouraging or inducing prohibited activity”;
- on “seeking or receiving assistance to engage in prohibited activity”;
- and on “allowing stationing, installation or deployment” of nuclear weapons.
The next least compatible country was the US, which had five prohibitions it was not compatible with.
‘Evidence suggests’ UK received US nukes and is expanding its own stockpile
ICAN head of communications Alistair Burnett told the Canary:
The Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor reports annually on the size and composition of the arsenals of the world’s nine nuclear-armed countries and it also assesses how compatible each country is with the provisions of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Of the nine nuclear-armed states, Britain violates more articles of the treaty than any other because it not only has its own nuclear weapons, it may have also started hosting US nuclear weapons on its soil again after a break of 18 years.
In 2008, US nuclear weapons that were held at US air bases in Britain were quietly withdrawn, but last year evidence suggests the US may have returned upgraded nuclear bombs (the B61-12) to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.
Neither country shares any information publicly on this, but research by the Federation of American Scientists revealed new facilities to store these weapons were being built at Lakenheath and flights by the US planes that ferry nuclear weapons around the world have been monitored arriving there.
The United Kingdom also engages in assistance and encouragement of banned nuclear activities under the TPNW in its nuclear cooperation with France, and the United States.
In 2021, the UK also removed the cap on the number of warheads it has and stopped releasing information on nuclear warhead numbers.
UK faces becoming ‘more and more isolated diplomatically’
Burnett went on to explain how the UK’s failure to support the TPNW is likely to make it increasingly diplomatically isolated, and recommended how the government could work towards a nuclear weapons-free future.
He said:
The TPNW came into force in 2021 and a majority of the world’s states have already either signed or ratified the treaty (74 have ratified and a further 25 have signed it and are working on ratification). As more and more countries join it, Britain and the other nuclear-armed countries become more and more isolated diplomatically
The TPNW provides a fair and verifiable pathway to eliminating nuclear weapons, and Britain – which committed to getting rid of its weapons when it joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 – should engage with the TPNW and work towards joining that treaty as well in order to fulfil the disarmament commitments it has made and also to help reduce the nuclear threat that continues to menace the whole world.
It is impossible to envisage any use of nuclear weapons in conflict that would be consistent with international law, of which the British Government claims to be a champion.
A first step would be for the UK to stop voting against annual UN General Assembly resolutions on the TPNW and the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. In 2024, the UK, alone with Russia and France, even voted against setting up an independent scientific panel to update our understanding of the impact of the use of nuclear weapons in 2024.
In addition this year, the UK Government, at a minimum, should also observe the first Review Conference of the TPNW that is being held at the UN in New York in late November and early December.
The Canary approached the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for comment on the government’s shaming in the report. An MOD spokesperson deferred to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The FCDO did not respond to a request for comment.
UK Government urged to end its ‘nuclear hypocrisy’ and engage with TPNW
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) general secretary Sophie Bolt told the Canary:
It’s little surprise Britain is the worst violator of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons for 2026. It’s ploughing ahead with the multi-billion pound modernisation of its nuclear-armed submarines, update and expansion of its nuclear warhead stockpile, hosting of US nuclear weapons on British soil, and giving the RAF a nuclear role for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
The Canary reported earlier in April that campaigners were demanding that the UK stops hosting Trump’s nuclear weapons, in response to his veiled threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
Bolt continued:
As the government is facing increased pressure to enforce more austerity to fund major military spending hikes, a quarter of the MoD’s budget is blown on nuclear weapons.
What’s more, these nuclear projects are facing delays and ballooning costs with diminishing oversight. Nuclear dangers have never been higher but having nuclear weapons doesn’t increase security. Britain needs to end the nuclear hypocrisy and finally engage with the TPNW.
Nuclear deterrence is ‘naïve idealism’ – professor
University of Sussex emeritus professor Andy Stirling reacted to the report by telling the Canary:
Recent events show more than ever, that notions of ‘nuclear deterrence’ are a delusion that only lasts so long. Now more than ever, time is running out.
As with the same claims made in the past for explosives, machine guns and aircraft, nuclear weapons are not – and never can be – technologies to end war. Nuclear deterrence is naïve idealism.
With impacts of global war now more existential than ever, the security of each country must be viewed with reason, not sentimental nationalist blinkers or militaristic ideology.
Even where only a few countries claim exclusive national rights to make nuclear threats against others, the inevitable result will be nuclear war.
The only rational way to reduce the threat of nuclear war is to address security globally. As in the playground … or in gangland … the only realistic way to abolish nuclear threats for all is for each to stop making them against others.
Those who make nuclear threats lower their own security by adding to risks of surprise nuclear attacks against them.
It is too often forgotten that even a small nuclear attack by any one country will (even if it is not retaliated against), cause devastation in that country as well through nuclear winter. In that way too, nuclear threats are a suicide vest.
In a debate on ‘Civil Preparedness for War’ in the House of Lords on 20 April, MOD minister of state Lord Coaker confirmed that the government does still support the NPT and representatives would be attending the NPT review conference in New York later in April.
This could be seen as a thin sliver of hope for the UK eventually working to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
10 takeaways from Trump’s senseless Iran war
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 23 April 26, https://theaimn.net/ten-takeaways-from-trumps-senseless-iran-war/
1. First time a foreign power, Israel, goaded, indeed demanded America launch a criminal war
2. Trump’s capitulation to Israel’s war demand is destroying his presidency and will likely hand over Congress to Democrats in November
3. Air power alone has not and will not achieve victory over Iran
4. Ignoring Iran’s ability to close Strait of Hormuz gave strategic advantage to Iran to force stalemate, if not achieve outright Iranian victory
5. US has greatly degraded world economy and may spiral it into recession, possibly even depression if it doesn’t end war soon
6. All US Gulf States bases have been damaged or destroyed and may never be rebuilt due to loss of US security credibility to Gulf States
7. Israel has largely destroyed its support among young Americans disgusted with its endless manipulation of US to support both its Gaza Genocide under Biden and war to destroy Iran under Trump
8. If desperate Trump resumes bombing to destroy Iranian infrastructure, Iran will retaliate destroying Israeli and Gulf States infrastructure, possibly all Middle East oil production
9. A peaceful settlement on Iran’s sensible terms is the only path to Middle East peace
10. As long as the war continues, Israeli use of nuclear weapons remains a possibility
‘We Have No Plan For Next Round Of Negotiations’: Iran Rules Out Immediate US Talks
Iran announced it has no immediate plans to resume negotiations with the United States, accusing Washington of repeated ceasefire violations and aggressive actions that undermined trust. Pakistan, acting as mediator, remains cautiously hopeful of restarting talks in Islamabad, but rising tensions have clouded prospects for a temporary agreement to extend the ceasefire.
Vinay Mishra, April 20, 2026,
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that Iran currently has no plans to hold another round of negotiations with United States, citing growing mistrust between the two sides. Speaking at a press briefing, Baghaei stated that no schedule had been fixed for future talks as uncertainty continues over whether discussions between Tehran and Washington will resume.
Iran accused the US of lacking genuine commitment to diplomacy, alleging repeated violations of ceasefire terms. Baghaei claimed that Washington’s actions, including alleged breaches of agreements related to Lebanon and attempts to impose a naval blockade, had weakened trust between the two nations.
He further alleged that a recent strike on an Iranian commercial vessel amounted to an act of aggression under United Nations resolutions. According to him, such actions have deepened distrust among the Iranian public and raised doubts about US intentions. He added that Iran would determine the future of negotiations based on its national interests.
Baghaei also said Iran had informed Pakistan, which is serving as the main mediator, about the alleged violations. Pakistani officials expressed cautious optimism about reviving dialogue and have been preparing to host another round of talks in Islamabad aimed at ending hostilities.
However, officials acknowledged that escalating tensions have dimmed hopes for immediate progress. Unlike the earlier round held on April 11, Pakistan has been pushing for extended multi-day negotiations to secure a temporary memorandum of understanding that could prolong the ceasefire by up to 60 days and allow more time to negotiate a lasting peace deal.
Is There a Way out of the Iran War? (w/ John Mearsheimer) | The Chris Hedges Report.
As ceasefire talks hang by a thread, rising tensions over the Strait of Hormuz reveal a stark reality: escalation could trigger a global economic catastrophe—and the United States may have far less control than it claims.
April 21, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/21/is-there-a-way-out-of-the-iran-war-w-john-mearsheimer-the-chris-hedges-report/
The illusion of control is collapsing.
The story being told to the public is one of control—measured escalation, strategic pressure, and a superpower shaping outcomes in a volatile region.
The reality is something else entirely.
As the ceasefire deadline approaches, the United States is not dictating terms—it is reacting to them. Iran, through its ability to constrict or reopen the Strait of Hormuz, holds a form of leverage that no amount of rhetoric can override. Oil flows, fertilizer supply chains, shipping routes, and global food systems all run through this narrow corridor. And right now, that corridor is unstable.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is not just the risk of war—but the structure of it.
This is not a chaotic breakdown. It is a system under strain: competing pressures from Israel pushing for continued escalation, economic realities demanding de-escalation, and a U.S. leadership apparatus that appears, at times, unable or unwilling to reconcile the two. The result is a policy environment defined less by strategy than by contradiction.
In this conversation, Professor John Mearsheimer offers a blunt assessment: the United States cannot win an escalatory confrontation with Iran under these conditions. The longer the conflict continues, the more leverage shifts away from Washington and toward Tehran. Meanwhile, the global economy—already weakened—absorbs the shock in real time: energy disruptions, fertilizer shortages, rising food costs, and the creeping threat of systemic breakdown.
The war’s original objectives—eliminating Iran’s nuclear capacity, weakening its regional alliances, asserting dominance—remain unmet. In some cases, they have been reversed.
What remains is a narrowing set of options. Escalation risks triggering an economic crisis that could reverberate worldwide. De-escalation requires concessions that Washington—and its allies—have long resisted.
Between those two paths lies a fragile, temporary possibility: a ceasefire that holds just long enough to delay collapse.
Whether that window remains open is now the central question—not just for the region, but for the global system itself.
FULL TRANSCRIPT (CLEANED FOR PUBLICATION)
Iran, after initially balking, will send negotiators to Islamabad for a new round of talks with the United States less than 48 hours before the ceasefire is set to expire. Iran, however, has criticized the U.S. for violating the ceasefire from the beginning of its implementation, citing the U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz since April 13 and the seizure of an Iranian container ship……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/21/is-there-a-way-out-of-the-iran-war-w-john-mearsheimer-the-chris-hedges-report/
Trump Nudges World Closer To Nuclear Doomsday
As the NPT frays, reckless US signals push rivals toward the bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear catastrophe.
By Ramananda Sengupta, April 21, 2026, https://stratnewsglobal.com/united-states/trump-nudges-world-closer-to-nuclear-doomsday/
There is a difference between strategic ambiguity and strategic incoherence.
The first deters adversaries. The second unnerves allies, emboldens rivals, and corrodes the very architecture meant to prevent catastrophe.
Under President Donald Trump, the United States’ nuclear posture is drifting dangerously toward the latter, and the consequences are now rippling through the global non-proliferation regime.
The warning lights are not subtle. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, hardly a sensationalist platform, has effectively accused Washington of taking a wrecking ball to decades of carefully constructed nuclear norms.
Across multiple recent analyses, the Bulletin outlines a pattern: erratic signalling, coercive use of force against nuclear-threshold states, and a cavalier attitude toward arms control obligations. The cumulative effect is not just instability. It is the potential unravelling of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) itself.
Let’s start with the basics. The United States still possesses one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world of around 3,700 warheads, according to the Bulletin’s Nuclear Notebook 2026.
That number alone is not the problem. It reflects decades of Cold War inheritance and gradual reductions. The real issue is how that arsenal is being politically framed and operationally signalled.
Trump’s approach has been marked by contradiction. On one hand, he speaks intermittently about arms control and reducing nuclear risks. On the other, he has openly floated resuming nuclear testing and declined to clarify whether the United States might actually conduct such tests.
Arms control depends on predictability. Treaties, verification regimes, and confidence-building measures exist precisely to eliminate guesswork.
When a nuclear superpower signals that it might abandon long-standing norms, such as the de facto moratorium on nuclear testing, it sends a clear message to others: restraint is optional.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Trump’s handling of Iran. According to the Bulletin’s April 2026 analysis, Washington’s actions risk teaching exactly the wrong lesson: that nuclear restraint does not guarantee security.
For decades, the NPT has functioned on a basic bargain. Non-nuclear states agree not to pursue weapons in exchange for access to peaceful nuclear technology and an implicit security framework backed by international norms.
But if a state that remains below the weaponisation threshold, maintaining “nuclear latency”, can still be attacked or coerced, that bargain begins to collapse.
The Bulletin puts it bluntly: states may conclude that only actual nuclear weapons, not compliance, not inspections, and not diplomacy, can ensure survival.
This is a profound shift. It transforms nuclear weapons from deterrents of last resort into perceived necessities for regime security. And once that logic takes hold, proliferation is no longer an aberration, it becomes rational behaviour.
The Bulletin’s other April piece goes further, accusing Washington of effectively undermining the NPT framework itself. The metaphor is deliberate: this is not erosion through neglect, but active damage.
The core problem lies in precedent.
International norms are not enforced by a global police force; they are sustained by consistent behaviour among major powers. When the United States disregards those norms, whether by sidelining diplomacy, undermining safeguards, or prioritising coercion, it weakens the legitimacy of the entire system
The NPT has survived for over half a century because it created a shared expectation: that nuclear powers would move, however slowly, toward disarmament, while non-nuclear states would abstain.
But that expectation is already fraying.
The expiry of the New START Treaty, the last major arms control agreement between Washington and Moscow, has removed a critical stabilising mechanism.
Experts warn that this opens the door to renewed arms competition and eliminates transparency measures that helped prevent miscalculation. Without such guardrails, the NPT’s credibility suffers further. The broader trajectory is unmistakable. The post-Cold War era of gradual nuclear restraint is giving way to a more volatile, competitive environment.
The United States and Russia still control the overwhelming majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, around 86 per cent of the global inventory. Historically, their bilateral agreements set the tone for global stability.
Today, that leadership vacuum is being filled not by cooperation, but by suspicion.
Trump’s push for “multilateral” arms control involving China might sound forward-looking, but in practice it has produced little tangible progress. Meanwhile, the absence of concrete negotiations and the collapse of existing treaties are accelerating uncertainty.
Even more troubling is the renewed emphasis on nuclear signalling as a tool of coercion.
The 2026 conflict with Iran, coupled with ambiguous nuclear rhetoric, suggests a willingness to blur the line between conventional and nuclear deterrence. That ambiguity increases the risk of escalation, intentional or otherwise.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been ringing the alarm bell with increasing urgency. In 2026, it moved its famous Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight, the closest humanity has ever been to catastrophe.
This is not mere symbolism. It reflects a convergence of risks: nuclear, technological, and geopolitical. But nuclear weapons remain at the core of that assessment. The danger today is not just the existence of nuclear arsenals but the breakdown of the systems designed to manage them.
When arms control collapses, when norms erode, and when leadership becomes erratic, the probability of miscalculation rises sharply. And nuclear miscalculation is unforgiving. There are no second chances.
For countries like India, outside the NPT but deeply invested in strategic stability, the implications are particularly complex. A weakening non-proliferation regime could legitimise further expansion by nuclear and near-nuclear states across Asia.
If Iran, for instance, moves from latency to weaponisation, it could trigger a cascade of responses across West Asia. Similarly, the absence of US-Russia constraints may encourage China to accelerate its own arsenal expansion—already a concern in strategic circles.
In such a world, deterrence becomes more crowded, more opaque, and more dangerous. The risk is not just a bilateral arms race but a multipolar nuclear competition with fewer rules and weaker safeguards.
Perhaps the most insidious effect of Trump’s approach is not any single policy decision but the normalisation of instability.
When nuclear threats are used casually, when treaties are treated as optional, and when strategic clarity is replaced by improvisation, the entire system adapts to its own detriment.
What was once unthinkable becomes conceivable; what was once unacceptable becomes negotiable. The NPT does not collapse overnight. It erodes gradually, as states lose faith in its guarantees and begin hedging their bets. That process may already be underway.
The Bulletin’s warning is stark but credible: if current trends continue, the world could enter a new era where nuclear proliferation accelerates, arms control becomes an afterthought, and the threshold for nuclear use becomes dangerously blurred.
The global nuclear order has always been fragile, sustained less by enforcement than by mutual restraint. Under Donald Trump, that restraint is being tested as never before. An erratic doctrine, combined with coercive policies and the dismantling of arms control frameworks, is placing unprecedented strain on the non-proliferation regime.
The NPT, long considered the cornerstone of nuclear stability, is now under real pressure. Not from a single rogue state, but from the behaviour of its most powerful guarantor.
This is the paradox of the present moment: the country that helped build the system is now accelerating its decline.
And in the nuclear age, systemic decline is not an abstract risk. It is a countdown.
PATRICK LAWRENCE: Iran & Ukraine — Two Theaters in the Non–West’s Single War for Parity
At that gathering of European officials in Berlin Wednesday, immediate pledges of new weapons supplies came to $4.7 billion, and there is more, much more, coming as Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, mooches his way around the European capitals.
Are the Western powers aware of the magnitude of the moment? I do not see how this can be anything other than so. Setting aside the Zionists’ obsessions and the visceral hatred Ukraine’s neo–Nazi regime nurses toward Russia and Russians, these conflicts are, when viewed broadly, about the defense of Western hegemony in its declining years.
In Iran and Ukraine, what is at stake — what is fought for and against — is a rebalancing of power that will prove of world-historical magnitude when it is at last accomplished.‘
By Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News, April 18, 2026, https://consortiumnews.com/2026/04/18/patrick-lawrence-iran-ukraine-two-theaters-of-non-wests-single-war-for-parity/
First came news that, on April 8, Israeli jets bombed what is known as the China–Iran railway, a key component of Beijing’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. Of all the targets the Zionist terror machine might have hit, why a Chinese-sponsored infrastructure project, you had to wonder.
Then on Wednesday came reports that officials from nearly 50 nations — I would love a list of these 50 — met in Berlin to make sure the fires of war against Russia do not flicker out. “We cannot lose sight of Ukraine,” Mark Rutte, NATO’s new secretary-general, declared a little forlornly.
There are other reports such as these of late. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced Thursday that the Pentagon has authorized the Pacific Fleet to interdict ships in the Indian and Pacific oceans if they are deemed to be carrying Iranian oil to Asian ports or “material support” from Asia — read China — to the Islamic Republic.
It is time for a stock-take.
The war in Ukraine drones (literally) on and on, the West showing no inclination whatsoever to take the Russian position seriously. In West Asia we find a variant: The United States and the rabid dog that Bibi Netanyahu has made of Israel have no intention of considering the 10–point document wherein Iran states its conditions for ending a war it appears perfectly willing to continue waging.
What are we looking at? What animates these two confrontations such that to understand our moment we must see Ukraine and Iran as two theaters of a single war?
I do not care for self-referencing commentators, but an exception to my rule is the swiftest way to my reply to these questions.
I have argued since the turn of the millennium that parity between the West and the non–West is the foundational imperative of the 21st century. Any given nation or bloc may favor or oppose this eventuality, but there will be no stopping the turn of history’s wheel: This was my take at the opening of the era that announced itself with the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
And it is the painful birth of this new time we witness as the wars in Europe and West Asia grind on. In each case what is at stake, what is fought for and against, is a rebalancing of power that will prove of world-historical magnitude when it is at last accomplished.
What have the Russians sought since Donald Trump began his second term and declared his intention to end the war in Ukraine and restore relations with Moscow to some kind of equilibrium?
It is the same thing Moscow hoped for at the Cold War’s end, and the same thing they proposed when, in December 2021, they sent draft treaties, one to Washington and one to NATO headquarters in Brussels, as the basis of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement between the Russian Federation and the West.
Moscow’s Push for Equal Standing
Moscow has been clear on this point the whole of the post–Soviet era: It seeks a security architecture that takes cognizance of its interests and, so, recognizes Russia as an equal partner in its relations with the West.
President Putin and Sergei Lavrov, his able foreign minister, speak of the “root causes” of the war in Ukraine and insist these must be addressed if any kind of enduring settlement between East and West is to be achieved. This is merely another way of saying what the Russians have said for the past 30–odd years. [See: Ukraine Timeline Tells the Tale]
Neither has the West’s reply been any different: It amounts to one long list of refusals, however directly, dishonestly or incompetently these have been conveyed.
Last November the Trump regime issued a 28–point peace plan that was not less than shocking when cast against the past three and some decades of history. It called for a nonaggression pact Russia, Europe and Ukraine were to negotiate and sign. “All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled,” it read in part.
And further in this line:
“A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO… to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security…”
These 28 provisions proved too good to be true. The Americans who developed this document, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the incompetent Trump insists must act as his “peace envoy,” simply did not know where the fence posts lie: While they almost certainly did not understand this, implicit in their 28 points was an East–West relationship based on parity.
Out of the question, as was immediately evident.
The Trump regime quickly abandoned its plan, despite its favorable reception in Moscow, and seems to have dropped all thought of “a deal” with Russia. The Europeans, freaked out at the very thought of a negotiated settlement, now resort to upside-down versions of reality I find it hard to believe they even try on.
At that gathering of European officials in Berlin Wednesday, immediate pledges of new weapons supplies came to $4.7 billion, and there is more, much more, coming as Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, mooches his way around the European capitals.
Boris Pistorius seems to have spoken for the group when the subject of peace talks arose. “The truth is, anyway, Russia has never taken them seriously,” the German defense minister declared. “This is why it is all the more important to support Ukraine.”
Russia has never taken negotiations seriously: Can you imagine how this kind of talk lands in Moscow? Can you imagine how low are the Russians’ expectations that the West will take their legitimate interests seriously until events on the battlefield force them to do so?
Tehran’s Conditions
The Iranians, it seems to me, are in a similar predicament.
Read the text of the 10–point plan wherein Tehran advances its demands for ending the war with the United States and Israel. An end to U.S. and Israeli attacks is merely the Iranians’ opener. The withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the region, a nonaggression pact with the United States, recognition of Iran’s rights on the nuclear side, war reparations: To borrow from the Russians, this is a demand to address root causes, a demand for “a new security architecture,” a demand — returning to my principal point — for parity as a non–Western power.
There is a lot in the press these days about a return to negotiations after Vice–President J.D. Vance’s debacle in Islamabad last weekend. I have no trouble imagining the Iranians are eager to avoid more of the savage, indiscriminate bombing their civilian population suffered prior to the two-week ceasefire that went into effect April 8. But I do not think, at the horizon, they will abandon the 10 demands they have advanced any more than the Russian will abandon theirs.
Both nations appear to have concluded it is time to confront the West in the name of that 21st century imperative I noted earlier. Two reasons. One, Russia and Iran have both gathered strength as non–Western powers in recent years, forged in the heat of incessant confrontations. This, indeed, is what history’s wheel looks like as it turns.
Declining Coherence & Power
Two, it is not difficult to recognize the declining coherence and power — and so the creeping desperation — of the United States and its European allies.
Are the Western powers aware of the magnitude of the moment? I do not see how this can be anything other than so. Setting aside the Zionists’ obsessions and the visceral hatred Ukraine’s neo–Nazi regime nurses toward Russia and Russians, these conflicts are, when viewed broadly, about the defense of Western hegemony in its declining years.
This is how I read that attack on the China–Iran railway. O.K., the Israelis did the wet work, as they say, but the bombing of a significant Chinese asset was not without intent: It reflects the United States’ mounting anxiety as the non–West’s premier power advances an imaginative global agenda that has the policy cliques in Washington, now that they belatedly recognize its significance, quaking.
Look at the map in this link. This rail line is key to China’s long-term plan to build efficient connections through southeastern Europe and on to the European capitals. To date, Beijing has reportedly spent 40 billion yuan, about $6 billion, on the project. This is part of the $400 billion investment agreement Beijing and Tehran signed in June 2020.
A little to my surprise, the Chinese have not reacted since the Israelis bombed their asset. There are several considerations at work here, but the most operative appears to be Beijing’s desire to assist in diplomatic mediations while presenting itself as a responsible world power in the face of the Trump regime’s serial insanities.
China Daily ran an editorial cartoon in its Tuesday editions that sheds useful light on Beijing’s perspective. It shows Uncle Sam profligately scattering money and weapons as he bounds through a field marked “War, Hate, Chaos and Greed.” The headline at the top is “The U.S. Reaps What It Sows.”
It is a darkly humorous reminder that Beijing knows very well what the war against Iran is fundamentally about and what time it is on history’s clock. You can always count on the Chinese to take the long view.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, lecturer and author, most recently of Journalists and Their Shadows, available from Clarity Press or via Amazon. Other books include Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His Twitter account, @thefloutist, has been restored after years of being censored.
Iran Says It Won’t Negotiate With ‘Erratic’ Trump After Genocidal Threat to ‘Blow Up’ Whole Country
“Our assessment is that Trump effectively lacks both a coherent plan and the capacity to secure even a temporary agreement,” the official said. “His decision-making appears to be grounded in Israeli political and security assessments, conveyed to him on a daily basis.”
“Our assessment is that Trump effectively lacks both a coherent plan and the capacity to secure even a temporary agreement,” an Iranian official said.
Stephen Prager, Common Dreams, Apr 19, 2026
Iran says it has no plans to negotiate with the US after President Donald Trump said Sunday that “the whole country is going to get blown up” if Iran refuses to make a deal.
Trump claimed that Iranian officials were heading to Islamabad for another round of talks Monday with Vice President JD Vance, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
But Iran’s official IRNA news agency later reported that claims Iran was coming to negotiate were “not true” and described the announcement as “a media game and part of the blame game to pressure Iran.”
The Tasnim News Agency, which is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reiterated the government’s previous position that it would not negotiate unless Trump lifts his blockade of Iranian ports, which Tehran considers a violation of the ceasefire between the US and Iran.
After Trump said the blockade would continue, Iran again shut down travel through the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, following a brief reopening Friday following the announcement of a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel.
IRNA added that negotiators decided not to return because of “Washington’s excessive demands, unrealistic expectations, constant shifts in stance, repeated contradictions, and the ongoing naval blockade.”
An unnamed Iranian official familiar with Tehran’s internal deliberations told Drop Site News on Sunday that Tehran is prepared for a long war.
He said negotiators would prefer to make a deal with the US that would give Iran the right to enrich uranium, provide sanctions relief, and establish a long-term non-aggression framework.
But the official said Trump’s erratic behavior and maximalist demands—including that Iran surrender all its enriched uranium—are causing Iranian officials to sour on the idea that he could ever be a trustworthy negotiating partner.
“Our assessment is that Trump effectively lacks both a coherent plan and the capacity to secure even a temporary agreement,” the official said. “His decision-making appears to be grounded in Israeli political and security assessments, conveyed to him on a daily basis.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said Sunday that Trump’s apparent belief that he can use threats of mass violence to bully Iran into a favorable deal is pushing Tehran further from the negotiating table
“Due to poor discipline, Trump ends up prioritizing the optics of victory over actually getting a deal,” Parsi said. “Instead of using deescalatory signals from Iran to get closer to a deal, he declares victory and seeks Iran’s humiliation, and by that, he undermines his own diplomacy.” https://www.commondreams.org/news/iran-no-talks-trump-threats
Trump may want out of the Iran war, but the first round of negotiations showed the challenges ahead
It seems clear that Donald Trump realizes that this war has been a catastrophe for him, regardless of what he says publicly. As the global economy barrels toward recession, he sees little use in persisting. His only option is to increase pressure on Iran with more destruction, which would only bring more Iranian retaliation and lead to an even greater global economic catastrophe.
Iran is not willing to sacrifice what it sees as its national right to enrich its own uranium for civilian use, something permitted them under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are a signatory, and, notably, Israel is not.
By Mitchell Plitnick April 17, 2026, https://mondoweiss.net/2026/04/trump-may-want-out-of-the-iran-war-but-the-first-round-of-negotiations-showed-the-challenges-ahead/
When U.S. Vice President JD Vance took to the podium after a long day of talks to end the American and Israeli war of choice on Iran, he made one thing clear. This had not been a serious attempt to reach a deal.
Although the talks went on for more than twenty hours, it’s just one day of negotiations. The very fact that the headline was that there had been no “breakthrough” in just one day displayed a fundamental lack of seriousness.
Despite Vance’s attempt at drama, neither side shut the door on continuing negotiations. The U.S. has even proposed extending the ceasefire, as Pakistani emissaries have arrived in Tehran to arrange further talks. Washington has even pressed Israel for a ceasefire in Lebanon, something that does not sit well with either Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the Israeli Jewish population.
At the same time, the United States has moved to block Iranian ships from using the Strait of Hormuz, a sort of counter-blockade, and has dispatched thousands more troops to the region.
What does all of this mean?
Trump wants a way out of this war, but does he have one?
It seems clear that Donald Trump realizes that this war has been a catastrophe for him, regardless of what he says publicly. As the global economy barrels toward recession, he sees little use in persisting. His only option is to increase pressure on Iran with more destruction, which would only bring more Iranian retaliation and lead to an even greater global economic catastrophe.
In that context, Trump’s move to “blockade Iran’s blockade” in the Strait of Hormuz is best understood as an attempt to appear strong before being forced to accept terms that end this war with Iran in a stronger position than it was before.
Trump even went so far as to force Netanyahu to accept a brief pause in Lebanon. That’s not an easy feat, as Netanyahu is reeling in Israel from the lack of positive results from the wars in both Iran and Lebanon. Israeli Jews support both wars but believe Netanyahu has not handled them correctly, based on the lack of tangible political gains for Israel since they began, in contrast to what they see as military triumphs.
But while Trump may want a way out of the war, finding that exit may still be difficult.
One option is for Trump to simply leave the ceasefire in place without an agreement. That means the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, whether by Iran alone or by both Iran and the United States. Iran and Israel would continue to fight, but the fighting would likely be limited to those two countries, leaving the Gulf Arab states out.
That isn’t a very appealing option for Trump. He could talk about having “changed the Iranian regime,” but the reality of economic depression, ongoing fighting, and a strengthened Iran would be clear.
Moreover, Israel has been more vulnerable to both Iranian and Hezbollah attacks, as their supply of interceptors has dwindled. The U.S. can replenish them, but probably not at prior levels and not as quickly as Israel would need. The image of Israel getting pounded by Iranian and Hezbollah missiles is not one Trump wants his constituents to see.
Another option is simply to double down on force. Iran has already shown what the result would be if Trump chooses that option. Their recent attacks on Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline, which serves as an alternative to the Strait of Hormuz for the export of oil, were a warning of Iran’s ability to do a lot more damage to oil exports from the region. Iran has also threatened to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea. Ansar Allah (the Houthis) in Yemen have shown they can do this at will and that there is little the U.S. can do about it.
The third option is a realistic agreement. This seems to be the one Trump wants to take. The problem he faces is that American demands are unrealistic, and the compromises he would have to make would be extremely hard to sell as anything but capitulation.
According to reports, the talks in Islamabad crashed on the key issues of Iran’s nuclear program, its support of armed non-state actors in the region, and control of the Strait of Hormuz.
That was backed up by the words of a U.S. official who told Axios reporter Barak Ravid that the American red lines were that Iran would:
- End all uranium enrichment;
- Dismantle all major nuclear enrichment facilities;
- Surrender all highly enriched uranium;
- Accept an American peace, security and de-escalation framework that includes regional allies;
- End funding for regional allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar Allah;
- Fully open the Strait of Hormuz, charging no tolls for passage.
If the American spokesperson was accurate in calling those “red lines” rather than negotiating points, they’re non-starters.
Iran has offered to suspend all nuclear enrichment activity for five years, countering a U.S. demand that they agree to a twenty-year suspension. Iran had, before the war, agreed not to stockpile enriched uranium, which would make it impossible for them to ever accumulate enough nuclear material for a bomb.
But Iran is not willing to sacrifice what it sees as its national right to enrich its own uranium for civilian use, something permitted them under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are a signatory, and, notably, Israel is not.
Demanding Iran give up that option is not realistic. Yet that very unrealistic demand has been made more pressing by the war itself. By attacking Iran, Israel and the United States have reinforced the evidence for what happens to countries that abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran can look at itself along with Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine on one hand and North Korea on the other to see this obvious logic.
The path out of that paradox is Iran’s returning to the nuclear monitoring that it agreed to before Trump tore up the nuclear deal, and the U.S. accepting that Iran can enrich its own uranium, within reasonable limits. That creates a mutual deterrence; Iran would have to break off the inspections to even begin enriching uranium beyond its immediate needs, which it wouldn’t do unless the U.S. and Israel continue their belligerence.
It appears that such a resolution would be acceptable to Iran, but it would mean a significant climbdown for Trump. And, obviously, Israel will not accept it and would have to be strictly restrained by the United States. Yet it remains the only reasonable way out.
It is notable that there was no mention of Iran’s missile and drone capabilities among the red lines. That seems to imply that the United States has already backed away from a condition that amounts to convincing Iran to disarm itself in the face of not only American and Israeli aggression but also the understandably renewed hostility toward it from the Gulf Arab states.
That realization by the Americans reflects someone getting in Trump’s ear and making some headway on issues that are just absurdly unrealistic. Similarly, while Vance might have included support for non-state allies in his talks, that has not featured prominently in White House statements or in Trump’s stream-of-consciousness ramblings since the talks in Islamabad.
The nuclear issue seems to have the most prominent position, and that is always better. It is the issue on which Iran has the most flexibility, largely because it is based on Western fears and propaganda more than it has been based on reality until now. Yes, the war has probably made Iran’s nuclear ambitions much more real. The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei means his fatwa against nuclear weapons is no longer in effect, and, as noted, Iran has been given much more incentive to pursue a nuclear weapon than ever before.
Still, the fact that they were even willing to offer a five-year suspension of nuclear activity and have not stated any opposition to the idea of international inspectors would indicate that Iran is open to significant compromise on the nuclear issue.
The Strait of Hormuz may be more problematic. Iran has always and will always have the ability to disrupt shipping in the Strait. No American threat or international anger can change that simple fact of geography.
On the other hand, while neither Iran nor the United States has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees safe and unimpeded passage to peaceful vessels through many waterways including the Strait, most of the world views Iran’s threats to passage in the Strait and to its plan to collect tolls for passage as unacceptable.
Iran wants to use its ability to threaten passage through the Strait to help press for the reparations they need and, more importantly, to ease the sanctions that have restricted Iran’s ability to participate in the global economy, particularly regarding trade with Asia and Europe. It is likely that they would abandon the legally dubious idea of collecting tolls in the Strait if they can re-enter the Asian and European markets and receive reparations for this war.
Again, though, this would be a huge concession from the United States. It would be impossible to sell such a concession as anything but a massive defeat, even to Trump’s most sheepish supporters. Iran would be significantly stronger and economically healthier than it was before the war. There’s no way to dress that up.
Israel’s Lebanon land grab
Finally, there is Lebanon. Trump surely had to exert extreme pressure to get Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire, even a brief one.
Israel has not tried to hide the fact that this aspect of the war is a pure land grab. Netanyahu intends to extend Israeli control, if not its border, north to the Litani River. He is not about to abandon that goal lightly, even if he is forced to accept that his long-sought war on Iran is a failure.
The talks in Washington between Israel and Lebanon are a farce. No agreement there is possible, because what Israel wants is a permanent presence in Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah.
This Lebanese government would be open to a reasonable agreement with Israel, but those terms are obviously unreasonable. No country, especially not one as small as Lebanon, would simply give up a huge chunk of its territory.
But this Lebanese government wanted to address Hezbollah. They wanted to bring Hezbollah into the Lebanese military, thus disarming them and integrating them into a single, national force. That was never going to be easy, but Israel never stopped attacking Lebanon during the so-called “ceasefire” brokered in late 2024. If they really wanted the Lebanese government to eliminate Hezbollah as an independent fighting force, that was exactly the opposite of what they would have done.
The Lebanese are attending these meetings to help convince Trump to rein Israel in. Israel is doing it to convince Trump that they are willing to cooperate with his effort to end the Iran war. In both cases, the effort is merely a show.
Trump will take the exit from Iran as soon as he can find it, and Israel will find it hard to bring him back in again now that he has seen why all other U.S. presidents didn’t fall for Netanyahu’s “bomb Iran” pitch. But he will have little reason to exert the political influence that would be needed to keep Israel from occupying southern Lebanon permanently. Israel and Iran will also likely continue lobbing missiles at each other, even though Israel’s ability to fight Iran without direct American support is extremely limited.
That’s the best-case scenario for Trump, and it’s not a good one. It is entirely possible that, rather than admit a huge defeat, he will decide to keep fighting Iran to no possible better outcome.
Trump made this bed. He can either lie in it or take one of the less disastrous options to get out of it. Unfortunately for the world, he is not a man prone to making good decisions. .Plitnick is correct a fatwa in shiism if comes it from your marja is considered binding and upon his death is rescinded, apologies. I asked an al khoei who called for an unrelated reason. it’s not like that in sunni practise, can one never safely assume, i thought it would be ok this time.
TRUMP SAYS “ENOUGH”—BUT ISRAEL PUSHES ON IN LEBANON WAR LATEST
April 17, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/17/trump-says-enough-but-israel-pushes-on-in-lebanon-war-latest/
A fragile pause in the widening Middle East war is colliding with escalating rhetoric, conflicting claims, and continued violence on the ground.
In a flurry of social media posts, President Donald Trump declared that the United States had directly intervened to halt further Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
“Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer,” Trump wrote.
“They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you!”The statement, issued amid a rapidly evolving ceasefire framework, suggests a level of U.S. leverage over Israeli military operations that officials and analysts have long debated—but rarely seen asserted so bluntly.
Yet even as Trump claimed de-escalation, events on the ground told a more complicated story.
Reports out of southern Lebanon indicated continued violence, including a drone strike that killed at least one person despite the announced ceasefire. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled no intention of ending the broader campaign.
“Israel is “not done yet” with Hezbollah, Netanyahu said, describing a strategy of pursuing both military pressure and political negotiation simultaneously.”
Hormuz Reopens—But Under Pressure
At the same time, Iran announced that the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical oil chokepoints—would be reopened to commercial shipping during the ceasefire period.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated:
“Passage for all commercial vessels through [the] Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire.”
Trump quickly echoed the announcement, declaring the strait: “COMPLETELY OPEN AND READY FOR BUSINESS AND FULL PASSAGE.”
But the reopening came with contradictions. While signaling relief for global markets—oil prices reportedly dropped sharply following the news—the U.S. simultaneously maintained its military pressure.
“The naval blockade will remain in full force and effect … until such time as our transaction with Iran is 100% complete,” Trump said.
In other words: open waters, closed fists.
Conflicting Claims, No Clear Deal
Despite Trump’s sweeping declarations—including that Iran had agreed to “never close the Strait of Hormuz again”—there was no immediate confirmation from Iranian officials.
On the ground and in diplomatic channels, uncertainty remains the defining feature of this moment.
Negotiations are reportedly ongoing, with proposals for a temporary framework lasting several weeks. But key issues—including sanctions relief, uranium enrichment, and regional military activity—remain unresolved.
Even Trump appeared to acknowledge the disconnect, insisting:
“This deal is not tied, in any way, to Lebanon.”
That separation may be more rhetorical than real.
Ceasefire or Illusion?
The current 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon has already shown signs of strain. While some displaced civilians have begun returning home, analysts warn that the underlying dynamics of the conflict remain unchanged.
“Hezbollah will keep its ‘finger on the trigger’” if violations continue, one warning noted, underscoring how quickly the situation could unravel.
And with more than a million people displaced and thousands killed in recent weeks, the pause—however real or temporary—offers only limited relief.
A War Paused, Not Ended
What emerges from the past 24 hours is not clarity, but contradiction.
A ceasefire declared—and violated.
A waterway reopened—under blockade.
A bombing campaign “prohibited”—while leaders vow to continue fighting.The language of peace is here. The reality of war has not left.
And as global powers posture over oil routes, naval blockades, and regional leverage, the question is no longer whether the conflict can pause—
—but whether anyone is actually in control of it.
As the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran spills across the region, a sudden ceasefire in Lebanon is being framed as a breakthrough—but the reality is far more unstable. Iran’s influence appears to have forced a pause on one front, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and easing global economic panic, while Israel signals it has no intention of ending its campaign against Hezbollah. At the center of it all is Donald Trump, claiming control over both escalation and restraint—yet presiding over a situation where bombs still fall and tensions continue to rise.
In this live discussion from Breakthrough News, analysts break down what’s really driving the ceasefire, how battlefield dynamics forced political shifts, and whether Washington is actually capable—or willing—to restrain Israel. Is this the beginning of de-escalation, or just a temporary pause before a wider war?
Confused Closures and Opaque Openings: Continuing Dramas in the Hormuz Strait
19 April 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/confused-closures-and-opaque-openings-continuing-dramas-in-the-hormuz-strait/
Reading messages from President Donald J. Trump is an exercise in taunting masochism. It is one inflicted on commentators and the press corps the world over, and they are not better for it. The latest – and here, the latest will become distant and dated shortly – is that the Strait of Hormuz, predictably controlled by Iran with devastating global effect, was to be reopened for commercial traffic under certain conditions. Trump thought this undertaking absolute and indefinite, a rich suggestion coming from a man with such a fair-weather mind. “Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World!”
This proved typically premature: within a matter of hours, Iran’s decision was, if not reversed then heavily qualified. (The Strait technically always remained open to vessels favoured by the Iranian authorities.) On April 17, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Eshmaeil Baghaei affirmed two key principles in Tehran’s policies: Iran retained the right to control traffic moving through the Strait, and that it would not surrender enriched uranium, an issue “sacred to us as Iranian soil” and non-negotiable. The latter was certainly aimed at Trump’s dotty claim that Washington and Tehran would jointly deploy “lots of excavators” to remove fissile material (“nuclear dust”) and shift it to the US. On CBS News, the president claimed that “Our people, together with the Iranians, are going to work together to get it.” This all suggested much confusion on the part of the Americans.
Iran’s moves on the Strait were always going to be governed by other impediments. There was the demand, for instance, that Washington release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets. This was rejected. Trump has also insisted on a continued blockade of Iranian ports, which currently employs over 12 warships and something in the order of 100 fighter and surveillance aircraft. As he told Fox News, “we’re not going to let Iran make money on selling oil to people that they like and not people that they don’t like.” Maritime intelligence on this, however, suggests that the blockade has not been quite as effective as heralded by US officials. Martin Kelly, Head of Advisory at EOS Risk Group can point to the successful passage of sanctioned tankers and vessels of the shadow fleet such as LPG carriers Crave, Raine and NV Aquamarine.
On April 18, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy issued a statement that “no vessel is to move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Oman.” A number of vessels had successfully managed to pass through under supervision since Friday night, but the Strait would be closed till the US ceased blocking Iran’s ports. “Approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted.”
The IRGC have been true to their word. According to UK Maritime Trade Operations, the Master of a tanker reported “being approached by 2 IRGC gun boats” without a VHF challenge, “then fired upon the tanker.” No injuries were sustained. Another report documented “a Container Ship being hit by an unknown projectile which caused damage to some of the containers.” There were no fires or environmental impacts reported. A third incident involved the sighting by the Master of a cruise ship of “a splash in close proximity to the vessel” regarded as suspicious.
The ongoing US blockade, argues Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), was also a violation of the ceasefire agreement between Tehran and Washington. As Tehran revealed in a statement, passage through the Strait would only take place through a “designated route” and only with Iranian authorisation. The opening or closing of the Strait, along with pertinent regulations governing it would be “determined by the field, not by social media.” The Council has also revealed that it is reviewing new proposals from the US that may form the basis of future talks.
Trump has also huffed that the latest developments in the Strait were “not tied, in any way, to Lebanon,” a barely plausible contention. Iran has insisted that any lasting ceasefire manoeuvres would have to include a cessation of Israeli strikes on Lebanon and Hezbollah positions, even if negotiations between the US and Lebanon did not involve any mention of the Shia militia. The US president duly went on Truth Social to bluster that Israel “will not be bombing Lebanon any longer.” They were “PROHIBITED from doing so by the USA. Enough is enough.”
The somewhat devalued currency of a ceasefire did not, as it was subsequently confirmed, prohibit Israel from resorting to its right to self-defence, a right so latitudinous as to be boundless. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised that things were far from concluded. “I will say honestly, we have not yet finished the job.” Remaining rocket and drone threats needed neutralisation. Hezbollah would have to be dismantled through a “sustained effort, patience, and careful navigation in the diplomatic arena.”
There was also much room for lashing reluctant allies. “Now that the Hormuz Strait situation is over,” declared Trump, “I received a call from NATO asking if we would need some help.” With the usual flourish of petulance, he dismissed the call: Stay away unless you want to load up with oil. “They are useless when needed, a Paper Tiger!” Increasingly, the US imperium is resembling that tiger, incapable of stalking and capturing its far more resourceful prey.
Trump prefers collapsing world economy to admitting defeat in his criminal Iran war
Trump is now a shell of the former war president who gloried in bombing 7 nations and snatching Venezuelan President Maduro to capture his oil. He’s trapped with no way out except admitting defeat by ending the war on Iran’s sensible terms.
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/trump-prefers-collapsing-world-economy-to-admitting-defeat-in-his-criminal-iran-war/
That was some phony 2 week ceasefire President Trump agreed to with Iran. When Iran refused Trump’s impossible demands presented by amateur US diplomats Vance, Witkoff and Kushner, Trump essentially resumed the war with his imaginary blockade of all Iranian shipping delivering the world’s oil.
Trump still hasn’t ruled out resuming his murderous but ineffective bombing campaign or launching a possible ground invasion to extract Iran’s enriched uranium or snatch its oil infrastructure on Kharg Island. He’s sending 10,000 more ground troops to bolster the 50,000 waiting around to either to nothing, or face major destruction if dropped into Iran.
To show the extent of US war failure, 6,000 troops aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush and accompanying warships had to skip the short route through the Mediterranean to go around the much longer southern Africa route, due to the Houthis’ threat to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. As a result Trump won’t have his 60,000 troop force in place till early May.
Trump must know he has no path to anything remotely resembling victory. No regime change. No end to nuclear enrichment. No end to Iran’s missile stockpile. Most importantly, no reopening to the Strait of Hormuz and renewed flow of Middle East oil.
He’s also likely still controlled by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who convinced Trump to launch the war on February 28 and has been sabotaging the ceasefire with his ghastly bombing of Lebanon. While Trump desperately wants out of the lost war, Netanyahu demands it continue till Iran is destroyed as an Israeli rival. Why Trump remains under Netanyahu’s control is both horrifying and may forever remain a mystery.
Trump is now a shell of the former war president who gloried in bombing 7 nations and snatching Venezuelan President Maduro to capture his oil. He’s trapped with no way out except admitting defeat by ending the war on Iran’s sensible terms.
But Trump’s lifelong delusion of his invincibility in anything he does prevents him from facing the reality of the unfolding world catastrophe he initiated.
At present, Trump resuming murderous war and precipitating worldwide economic collapse appear more likely than seeking peace, albeit certifying US defeat. Unless Congress acts to defund Trump’s $200 billion request to continue this catastrophe, or the Cabinet, led by Veep Vance, removes Trump via the 25th Amendment, things will only get dramatically, possibly infinitely worse.
Israel May Be Preparing to Permanently Reoccupy Southern Lebanon
Negotiations may end up stopping bombs on Beirut, but are unlikely to end Israel’s expanding south Lebanon occupation
.By Shireen Akram-Boshar , Truthout, April 16, 2026
n April 16, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon, set to begin later that day. Although Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed this announcement, it is unlikely to put a stop to Israel’s expanding occupation of south Lebanon. In the hours before the announcement, Israel continued to bomb Lebanon’s south, bombing a school as well as the last main bridge connecting the south of the country to the rest of Lebanon.
The announcement came after a meeting on April 14, in which U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted Lebanon and Israel’s ambassadors for the first diplomatic talks between the two countries since the early 1990s, a move that is likely to cause further turmoil in Lebanon. In a statement after the meeting, the U.S. explained that direct negotiations would be launched at a later date, and that objectives included the disarming of Hezbollah. Additionally, it asserted that mediation would be limited to the U.S., and that Lebanon’s reconstruction would be linked to negotiations with Israel.
A day after the envoys met in Washington, D.C., Israel launched another round of strikes on southern Lebanon, pushing forward with its invasion of the south even as it purportedly moves toward “peace.” Israel’s strikes reportedly killed 20; at the same time, Israel issued yet another forced displacement order for residents of the south. Days earlier, protesters in Beirut mobilized against the Lebanese government’s planned negotiations with Israel.
The push for direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon came after Israel’s massive attacks on Lebanon on April 8. Hours after a fragile ceasefire took effect in the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran on April 7, Israel escalated its attacks on Lebanon, unleashing the most violent assault of its six-week war on the country. Iran and Pakistan — which mediated the U.S. ceasefire with Iran — insisted that a halt to attacks on Lebanon was part of the agreement, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump claimed otherwise. Israel’s military declared that “the battle in Lebanon is ongoing,” while renewing expanded evacuation orders for southern Lebanon.
Israel’s wave of attacks on April 8 clearly aimed to pressure the Lebanese government to further capitulate to Israel’s wishes. Throughout that morning, Israel bombed areas of southern Lebanon, attacking residential buildings as well as medical vehicles and a medical center. In the early afternoon, Israel escalated, unleashing more than 100 airstrikes in less than 10 minutes, bombing residential and commercial areas across Beirut as well as in southern Lebanon and the eastern Bekaa Valley. These airstrikes killed at least 357 people and wounded more than 1,200, marking the deadliest day of Israel’s current assault on the country. Airstrikes struck residential complexes, bridges, grocery stores, a funeral procession in a cemetery, and a university hospital………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A Genocidal Aggression
Israel began its latest escalation in its war on Lebanon on March 2, when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel after the U.S.-Israeli assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei. In reality, Israel had already been waging a protracted war on southern Lebanon since 2024. The ceasefire that marked the end of Israel’s 2024 war on Lebanon did not see an end to Israel’s attacks on the south of the country. In a familiar pattern from Gaza, the agreement essentially became a one-way ceasefire, with Israel attacking south Lebanon on a regular basis and continuing to occupy areas of the south between November 2024 and March 2026. According to the UN, Israel violated the 2024 ceasefire more than 15,000 times.
Since March 2, Israel has carried out a campaign of collective punishment, particularly of the Shia-majority regions of Lebanon, and has expanded its occupation of the south of the country. Israel’s assaults, and in particular its occupation of the south, have forced 1.2 million people — 20 percent of the country’s population — to flee their homes, creating a severe displacement crisis. Israel is also working to exploit frustrations with Hezbollah and sectarian tensions within Lebanon to push the country toward civil strife or even civil war.
This current war adds to the prolonged list of catastrophes that Lebanon has already been facing:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Israel’s expansion of its war on Shia-majority areas of Lebanon uses methods from its genocidal war on Gaza. Israel has waged mass ethnic cleansing of the population of the south of Lebanon, as well as the southern suburbs of Beirut — both of which have largely been depopulated throughout the course of the war. The Israeli military has issued numerous expulsion orders as it invades and pushes towards the Litani River — some 20 miles north of Lebanon’s border with Israel — while destroying civilian infrastructure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://truthout.org/articles/israel-may-be-preparing-to-permanently-reoccupy-southern-lebanon/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=8b318324c6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_04_16_09_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-8b318324c6-650192793
It seems Washington needs to be reminded of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Bulletin, By Olamide Samuel | Analysis | April 16, 2026
After more than 40 days of US-Israeli strikes on Iran and Iranian retaliation across the Middle East, Pakistan helped broker a fragile two-week ceasefire announced on April 7, alongside a temporary re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz and a promise of direct talks in Pakistan the following week. The ceasefire created just enough diplomatic space for the highest-level direct negotiations between the United States and Iran in recent memory.
But when the Islamabad talks collapsed after 21 hours of diplomacy on April 12, Washington almost immediately went back to coercion, with President Donald Trump threatening a blockade of Iranian ports and more strikes.
The fact that both sides agreed to talk, even momentarily, demonstrates their recognition that military escalation and economic coercion could very well spiral out of control and result in severe and unforeseen consequences………………………..
It is quite perplexing that a significant part of what Washington demands of Tehran has already been written into a treaty Iran signed a long time ago—the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a non-nuclear-weapon state party since 1970. Although Tehran is to blame for Washington’s undermined confidence in the NPT, bombing Iran and issuing blockade threats won’t lead to a better non-proliferation arrangement. As state parties to the NPT will convene this month in New York for the treaty’s review conference, it’s about time to remind the Trump administration of the non-proliferation obligations Tehran already agreed to.
Existing obligations. The NPT strictly constrains Iran’s nuclear activities: Article II bars the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Article III requires safeguards, limiting a state’s ability to “quickly achieve a nuclear weapon.” And even if Article IV affirms the rights of states to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear energy, it allows so only if that activity remains within the treaty’s non-proliferation obligations.
Of course, Washington has other demands that go beyond the NPT’s obligations. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Washington’s actions have consistently narrowed the already fragile space for Iranian cooperation with IAEA inspections at the very moment when more visibility and more access are needed. But when Vance now says Iran must renounce not only the bomb but also the “tools” that would allow it to move quickly towards one—tools that reportedly include enrichment capacity, major nuclear facilities, and highly enriched uranium stockpiles—he is in effect describing the function the JCPOA once served, albeit in more maximalist form. That 2015 agreement was designed to lengthen breakout time, constrain enrichment, and make the restraint verifiable. The UN Security Council had endorsed that agreement, and Iran was complying with it until the first Trump administration unilaterally walked away from it in 2018…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/it-seems-washington-needs-to-be-reminded-of-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Washington%20needs%20to%20be%20reminded%20of%20the%20Nuclear%20Non-Proliferation%20Treaty&utm_campaign=20260416%20Thursday%20Newsletter
Amid the Iran chaos, war over Taiwan just became less likely
by Marcus Reubenstein | Apr 15, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/amid-the-iran-chaos-war-over-taiwan-just-became-less-likely/
Last week’s meeting between Beijing and Taiwan’s main opposition leader is a bad sign for the China hawks and a sign of rapprochement. Marcus Reubenstein reports.
The combination of the US-Israel war on Iran and the anti-China media narrative in Australia has meant the visit of the leader of Taiwan’s main opposition party, Cheng Li-wun, to China has largely been ignored. Cheng chairs the Kuomintang (KMT) party, and she spent five days in mainland China from the 7th until the 12th of April.
Her public pronouncements indicate a belief that it is not in Taiwan’s interest to pin all of its hopes on an economic and military alliance with the US, and its future is better served with a pivot towards Beijing.
A significant proportion of Taiwan’s population does not want armed conflict with China. More importantly, Taiwan’s political leaders are acknowledging the fact that the US is becoming an increasingly unhinged and unreliable ally.
As reported by NBC News, Cheng points to Ukraine, saying,
“People do not want to see Taiwan become the next Ukraine.”
Add to that mix that Taiwan gets 70% of its oil from the Middle East, there is sentiment in Taiwan that the US bombing of Iran has been disastrously thought out and delivers Taiwan massive economic pain. Will Taiwan risk becoming the centrepiece of a future US military disaster?
In December, Cheng told the New York Times, “Could it be the United States is treating Taiwan as a chess piece, a pawn strategically opposing the Chinese Communist Party at opportune times?”
Taiwan’s ruling DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) had attempted to push a $US40B arms deal with the US through parliament in March, but that was sunk by Cheng’s KMT. The ruling DPP was eventually able to get a deal worth just $US11B through – around one third of an AUKUS submarine.
Cheng’s China visit
The visit to China by Taiwan’s opposition leader took in three very significant cities, Nanjing, Shanghai and Beijing. Shanghai and Beijing, as financial and political capitals, were logical, but Nanjing is of great historical significance.
She visited the Sun Yat‑sen Mausoleum in Nanjing with a large Taiwanese delegation, a site honouring the founding father of the Republic of China, revered in both Taiwan and mainland China. Nanjing is also the site of one of Japan’s greatest wartime atrocities, the so-called Rape of Nanjing.
A small number of hardline figures in Japan’s ruling LDP continue to deny Japanese participated in any wartime atrocities. The LDP’s newly elected prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, stating that Japan would send in its military to aid Taiwan in any conflict with China, has dramatically escalated tensions between Beijing and Tokyo.
Takaichi is one of Japan’s most pro-US leaders, and Cheng’s visit to Nanjing would not be lost on the US. By extension, Cheng’s point of visiting Nanjing could be seen as a backhanded message to Japan, which hosts 55,000 US troops, to stay out of Taiwan’s affairs.
Implications for Australia
Cheng’s trip to China has implications for Australia and our foreign policies towards both our biggest trading partner and most important strategic partner.
The Albanese government has gone all in on the US’s East Asia military push, and now the US is showing clear signs of stress. The US has redeployed Thaad missile systems from South Korea to fight its war with Iran, while supercarrier naval vessels based in Japan, and operating in the South China Sea, have also been sent to the Gulf. Despite being the greatest military power in global history, it’s obvious it doesn’t take much to wear US forces thin.
Neither Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, nor Defence Minister Richard Marles has deviated from Australia’s blind support for the US war on Iran.
The question is, will they follow the US into an inevitably disastrous war against China or, worse still, act as a proxy in a future war?
Australia’s tilt towards offensive military capability, also enthusiastically supported by the LNP opposition, and the billions committed to submarines which may never arrive, do not augur well.
If the US cannot defeat Iran, there is no path to victory against an equally determined China, far better equipped, with the world’s second largest economy, and that is not a pariah state.
1×1515
2:54 / 8:51
1×1515
0:16 / 8:51
Last week’s meeting between Beijing and Taiwan’s main opposition leader is a bad sign for the China hawks and a sign of rapprochement. Marcus Reubenstein reports.
The combination of the US-Israel war on Iran and the anti-China media narrative in Australia has meant the visit of the leader of Taiwan’s main opposition party, Cheng Li-wun, to China has largely been ignored. Cheng chairs the Kuomintang (KMT) party, and she spent five days in mainland China from the 7th until the 12th of April.
Her public pronouncements indicate a belief that it is not in Taiwan’s interest to pin all of its hopes on an economic and military alliance with the US, and its future is better served with a pivot towards Beijing.
A significant proportion of Taiwan’s population does not want armed conflict with China. More importantly, Taiwan’s political leaders are acknowledging the fact that the US is becoming an increasingly unhinged and unreliable ally.
As reported by NBC News, Cheng points to Ukraine, saying,
People do not want to see Taiwan become the next Ukraine.
Add to that mix that Taiwan gets 70% of its oil from the Middle East, there is sentiment in Taiwan that the US bombing of Iran has been disastrously thought out and delivers Taiwan massive economic pain. Will Taiwan risk becoming the centrepiece of a future US military disaster?
In December, Cheng told the New York Times, “Could it be the United States is treating Taiwan as a chess piece, a pawn strategically opposing the Chinese Communist Party at opportune times?”
Taiwan’s ruling DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) had attempted to push a $US40B arms deal with the US through parliament in March, but that was sunk by Cheng’s KMT. The ruling DPP was eventually able to get a deal worth just $US11B through – around one third of an AUKUS submarine.
Cheng’s China visit
The visit to China by Taiwan’s opposition leader took in three very significant cities, Nanjing, Shanghai and Beijing. Shanghai and Beijing, as financial and political capitals, were logical, but Nanjing is of great historical significance.
She visited the Sun Yat‑sen Mausoleum in Nanjing with a large Taiwanese delegation, a site honouring the founding father of the Republic of China, revered in both Taiwan and mainland China. Nanjing is also the site of one of Japan’s greatest wartime atrocities, the so-called Rape of Nanjing.
A small number of hardline figures in Japan’s ruling LDP continue to deny Japanese participated in any wartime atrocities. The LDP’s newly elected prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, stating that Japan would send in its military to aid Taiwan in any conflict with China, has dramatically escalated tensions between Beijing and Tokyo.
Takaichi is one of Japan’s most pro-US leaders, and Cheng’s visit to Nanjing would not be lost on the US. By extension, Cheng’s point of visiting Nanjing could be seen as a backhanded message to Japan, which hosts 55,000 US troops, to stay out of Taiwan’s affairs.
Implications for Australia
Cheng’s trip to China has implications for Australia and our foreign policies towards both our biggest trading partner and most important strategic partner.
The Albanese government has gone all in on the US’s East Asia military push, and now the US is showing clear signs of stress. The US has redeployed Thaad missile systems from South Korea to fight its war with Iran, while supercarrier naval vessels based in Japan, and operating in the South China Sea, have also been sent to the Gulf. Despite being the greatest military power in global history, it’s obvious it doesn’t take much to wear US forces thin.
Neither Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, nor Defence Minister Richard Marles has deviated from Australia’s blind support for the US war on Iran.
The question is, will they follow the US into an inevitably disastrous war against China or, worse still, act as a proxy in a future war?
Australia’s tilt towards offensive military capability, also enthusiastically supported by the LNP opposition, and the billions committed to submarines which may never arrive, do not augur well.
If the US cannot defeat Iran, there is no path to victory against an equally determined China, far better equipped, with the world’s second largest economy, and that is not a pariah state.
Respected US political scientist Professor John Mearsheimer says, US President Donald Trump’s war with Iran is “manna from heaven” for China. He argues the war on Iran has made the US an irresponsible stakeholder in the international system and that China looks like the “adults in the room.”
China’s carrot and stick
China’s approach to Taiwan, and more broadly to much of its global diplomacy, has been a mix of carrot and stick. Beijing is still dangling carrots in front of Taiwan. Reunification with Taiwan remains the endgame,
“but the overwhelming desire is that it should be achieved peacefully.”
Cheng was warmly received by Chinese President Xi Jinping, and following Cheng’s visit, the Chinese government announced a list of ten new policies to promote economic and travel initiatives to strengthen ties between Beijing and Taiwan.
In the background, a looming stick could be an easily achievable Chinese blockade of commercial shipping around Taiwan. As Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates, it doesn’t take a great deal of military firepower to cripple an economy.
What would, or could, Australia do to intervene? Hypothetically, that is a question which may face Australia, but a reconciliation, indeed possible unification between Taiwan and China, would render moot Australia’s current strategic policy.
Taiwan’s future?
While opinions in Taiwan about Cheng are divided, she has a realistic chance of becoming Taiwan’s next president at the 2028 election. To win, she doesn’t only have to run on China policy; there are plenty of domestic issues facing voters. Also, there is no suggestion that a reunified Taiwan would be considered as a province of China. Instead, it would become a special administrative region, citizens would keep their Taiwanese passports, and the New Taiwan Dollar would remain the official currency.The line in the sand for Beijing would be separatist movements and their sympathisers speaking out publicly. Taiwan would also be prohibited from entering into any military alliances or agreements with other nations.
While this is the same set of conditions imposed on Hong Kong, Taiwan hardly has a tradition of democracy. For its first four decades as a territory, it was governed under martial law, and it wasn’t until 1996 that democratic presidential elections were held.
Current president, Lai Ching-te, is unpopular with his approval rating sinking to 33% in late 2025, having recovered to the low 40% mark in the most recent polls. Cheng’s approval rating is lower, reflecting the distrust Taiwanese people have for their political leaders.
In terms of specific issues, concerns over the economy rank first for Taiwanese voters.
The Chinese, that is to say those of Chinese ethnicity, are by and large very pragmatic. Cheng is betting on a belief that close ties with China represent the future and that the
“Taiwanese people will come to distrust Washington more than they distrust Beijing.”
Netanyahu Doctrine: How one man’s war addiction is consuming Israel, Lebanon, and the World
The concept of Greater Israel – a territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Turkey – is not a fringe fantasy. It is the stated aspiration of the Netanyahu government.
Israel is not being destroyed by its enemies. It is being destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The addiction to war, the messianic ideology, the economic unsustainability, the exodus of the educated – these are not external threats. They are internal cancers.
15 April 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-netanyahu-doctrine-how-one-mans-war-addiction-is-consuming-israel-lebanon-and-the-world/
From the ‘Villa in the Jungle’ to the ‘Greater Israel Nightmare’
I. Introduction: The Doctrine of Perpetual War
On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. Hamas militants crossed from Gaza, unimpeded, and killed and tortured Israeli civilians. That day alone should have disqualified Benjamin Netanyahu from office. In most political systems, he would have been driven from power long ago.
Instead, he did what he has always done: he escalated.
What emerged from the ashes of October 7 is what analysts now call the Netanyahu Doctrine – a security strategy based not on containment, not on deterrence, but on perpetual war. As Netanyahu himself told military officers:
“No more containment of threats. No more the idea of the ‘villa in the jungle’, where one hides from predators beyond the wall. On the contrary: if you don’t go into the jungle, the jungle comes to you.”
The doctrine is simple: preventive attacks against every perceived threat, the creation of buffer zones through the seizure of neighbouring territories, and the constant use of force as the only guarantee of security. It is a doctrine born of trauma, shaped by political expediency, and devoid of any long-term diplomatic vision.
This article examines the Netanyahu Doctrine in action: in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, and against Iran. It documents the destruction, the displacement, and the erosion of Israel’s international standing. It argues that Netanyahu is not a strategist – he is an opportunist. He does not plan for the long term. He plans for the next distraction.
And the world is always distracted.
II. The Greater Israel Dream: From the Nile to the Euphrates
The doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The buffer zone is not the goal. The settlements are the goal. The land clearance is not for defence. It is for colonisation.
The concept of Greater Israel – a territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Turkey – is not a fringe fantasy. It is the stated aspiration of the Netanyahu government.
This is not a fringe position. It is the official policy of the Netanyahu government. And it is being executed.
III. Lebanon: The Pattern Repeats
The same pattern as Gaza. The same destruction. The same rubble.
On March 2, 2026, Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The stated goal was to create a “buffer zone” up to the Litani River, approximately 30 kilometres north of Israel’s border, to protect northern Israeli communities from Hezbollah rockets.
The reality is different. The buffer zone is not a buffer. It is a land grab. The territory up to the Litani is not needed for defence. It is needed for settlements.
Defence Minister Israel Katz has been explicit:
“All houses in villages near the Lebanese border will be destroyed, in accordance with the model used in Rafah and Beit Hanoun in Gaza, in order to permanently remove the threats near the border.” Displaced residents will not be allowed to return south of the Litani “until the safety and security of residents of northern Israel is guaranteed” – a condition that may never be met.
The human cost in Lebanon (as of April 2026):
- 1,268 people killed in Israeli strikes, including 125 children and 52 medics
- 303 killed in a single day (April 8, 2026) – one of the deadliest bombings ever inflicted on Lebanon
- 1,200+ killed and 1.2 million displaced since March 2
- 1,094 confirmed martyrs and 3,119 injured according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.
The air force can project power anywhere. The ground troops are not needed for security. They are needed for clearance.
IV. Conflicting Views: Military vs. Political Leadership
The Israeli military and political leadership are not aligned. The military leaders want a buffer zone. The political leaders want settlements.
In early April 2026, the Israeli army proposed a revised set of objectives for its operations in Lebanon, limiting the goal of disarming Hezbollah to areas south of the Litani River, rather than across the entire country. The proposal triggered sharp disagreements with Israel’s political leadership, leading to the postponement of a cabinet meeting.
Foreign Minister Israel Katz was among those who opposed the plan. Under the alternative military approach, the army would focus on the large-scale destruction of villages in South Lebanon and the forced displacement of their citizens to establish a buffer zone.
The gap is not a failure of communication. It is a feature. The ambiguity provides cover. The confusion provides deniability.
The military leaders can say: “We were only establishing a buffer zone.”
The political leaders can say: “The military recommended it.”
And the settlers move in.
V. The Economic Cost: Israel Cannot Afford This War
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not sustainable. The economic numbers are stark.
The cost to Israel:
The defence budget has ballooned. The army needs approximately 15,000 more soldiers, half of them for ground combat units. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned the government: “I am raising 10 red flags. If this continues, the Israeli army will collapse from within.”- The ultra-Orthodox community, which relies heavily on state benefits, is expected to triple by 2065, pushing the burden on non-Orthodox households to the equivalent of 60,000 shekels ($19,370) a year.
- Foreign investment is down. Institutional investors have been moving money out of the country since the 2008 financial crisis.
- More than 150,000 people have left Israel in the past two years, and more than 200,000 since the current government took office in December 2022. The educated upper class are more able to leave – they speak English, can find jobs, and are more exposed to international media.
The cost to Lebanon:
The Lebanese economy, already in freefall, is being shattered. The destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of 1.2 million people, and the loss of agricultural land in the south will take decades to repair.- Sectarian tensions are rising. Non-Shi’a Lebanese are increasingly ostracising the Shi’a community, viewing them as a liability that brings Israeli bombs. The country’s fragile social fabric is tearing apart.
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. And expansion costs money that Israel does not have.
VI. The Sabra and Shatila Precedent
This is not the first time Israel has invaded Lebanon. It is not the first time the world has been distracted. And it is not the first time the consequences have been catastrophic.
In 1982, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon and besieged Beirut. On 16 September, under Israeli supervision and protection, Lebanese Forces militias entered the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. For 43 hours, they tortured and killed everyone they came across. They crushed the heads of children and babies against walls. They raped women and girls before slaughtering them. They dismembered their victims.
An estimated 3,500 to 4,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed.
The Israeli government did not deny that it had overseen the camps. It denied knowledge of the massacre, despite order number 6 of the Israel Defense Forces command stating that “the refugee camps are not to be entered” and that “searching and mopping up the camps will be done by the Phalangists/Lebanese Army.”
The Kahan Commission found Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon “personally responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge.” He was forced to resign.
The world was shocked. The world moved on. And Israel invaded Lebanon again.
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not new. It is the same doctrine, dressed in new clothes, enabled by a distracted world, and executed with unprecedented brutality.
VII. The UN Warning: ‘The Gaza Model Must Not Be Replicated’
The international community is not silent. But its warnings are being ignored.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has issued a warning cry, stressing that the model of destruction witnessed in the Gaza Strip must not be repeated in Lebanese territories. He described the humanitarian repercussions as severe and requiring immediate intervention to prevent a slide towards a comprehensive catastrophe.
Stanford Law Professor Tom Dannenbaum warned that destroying all homes near the Lebanese border would not meet the standard of “absolute military necessity” required by the laws of war. “The unnecessary destruction of property can qualify as a war crime,” he said. Katz’s comments barring residents from returning home “strongly indicate an illegal policy of long-term or permanent displacement.”
European countries have called on Israel to avoid further escalation. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory was a “violation of their territorial sovereignty” and condemned it.
The world is not silent. But the world is distracted.
VIII. The Netanyahu Doctrine: A Record of Failure
Jonathan Freedland, writing in The Guardian, sums up the Netanyahu record:
“This is now the fourth time in a row – in Gaza, once in Lebanon and twice in Iran – that Netanyahu’s boasts of total victory and the removal of existential threats have been exposed as empty promises.”
The failures are clear:
Gaza: Netanyahu promised “total victory” over Hamas. After a two-year campaign that killed approximately 70,000 people, Hamas still rules the ruins of half of Gaza.- Lebanon (first round): Netanyahu boasted that he had “vanquished” Hezbollah, destroying its ability to menace northern Israel. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets.
- Iran (first round, June 2025): Netanyahu described the 12-day confrontation with Iran as a “historic victory that will stand for generations.” Eight months later, Tehran was once again said to pose an existential threat.
- Iran (second round, February-April 2026): Iran still has a stockpile of enriched uranium. Its rulers remain in place, more hardline than before. Tehran has demonstrated a mighty deterrent – a chokehold on the global economy in the form of the Strait of Hormuz.
As Yair Golan, the Israeli opposition politician and former general, observed: Netanyahu “does not know how to turn military achievements into political security.” There is no attempt to seize diplomatic openings, no effort to turn Israel’s enemies’ enemies into friends.
The Lebanese government and much of its people are desperate to be rid of the Hezbollah cuckoo in their nest. But Netanyahu speaks to them only through bombs.
IX. The Strait of Hormuz Distraction
The timing of the Lebanon escalation is not accidental. The world is focused on Trump and Iran. The media is focused on oil prices. The public is focused on the cost.
On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched joint military strikes against Iran. The war has spread across the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively blockaded. Oil prices have spiked. Inflation is rising. The global economy is bleeding.
Netanyahu is taking advantage. He always does.
The Iranian threat is not existential. It is useful. The fear is the tool. The distraction is the opportunity.
Netanyahu has been playing this game for decades. He is very good at it.
X. What This Means: The Erosion of Israel’s Standing
The Netanyahu Doctrine has gained nothing. And it has come at a monstrously high price.
Most obviously, in the lives of all those killed – whether in Rafah or the Bekaa Valley or Israel itself. But it has also inflicted perhaps irreparable damage on Israel’s standing in the world. Every day Netanyahu remains in post, he makes his country more of a pariah.
The Knesset has passed a racist law that will, in effect, impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of terrorist murderers – but not Jews. The bill was driven by Itamar Ben-Gvir, but Netanyahu went out of his way to vote for it.
Israel is not being destroyed by its enemies. It is being destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The addiction to war, the messianic ideology, the economic unsustainability, the exodus of the educated – these are not external threats. They are internal cancers.
The collapse will not be dramatic. It will be bureaucratic. The economy will contract. The allies will defect. The public will turn. The reservists will refuse. The militias will fight each other.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis will pass. The oil prices will stabilise. The media will move on.
But the land in Lebanon will not return. The settlements will not be dismantled. The buffer zone will become permanent .
The Netanyahu Doctrine is not about security. It is about expansion. The existential threat is not a threat. It is an excuse.
And the world is too distracted to notice.
XI. A Final Word
The Netanyahu Doctrine is a death spiral – for Israel, for Lebanon, for the region. It is a doctrine of perpetual war, sustained by distraction, enabled by silence, and paid for with the bodies of the innocent.
The question is not whether Israel will collapse. The question is how many more must die before the world stops looking away.
Sources……………………………………..
-
Archives
- May 2026 (72)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 