politics international « nuclear-news

Trump sprang Ukraine surprise on NATO states – Reuters

Trump noted that the plan is seen by Washington as a business opportunity.

16 July 25, https://www.rt.com/news/621575-trump-ukraine-weapons-surprise/

Several bloc members reportedly only learned they were supposed to fund American weapons for Kiev when it was announced by the US president.

Several NATO member states were not notified in advance that they would be asked to fund new arms deliveries to Ukraine under US President Donald Trump’s latest proposal, Reuters has reported, citing European officials.

On Monday, Trump pledged to provide more US-made weapons to Kiev through a new scheme funded by European NATO members. “We’re not buying it,” Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with the bloc’s secretary-general, Mark Rutte. “We will manufacture it, and they’re going to be paying for it.”

Trump noted that the plan is seen by Washington as a business opportunity.

Rutte said six countries – Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada – were willing to take part in the arms procurement scheme. However, high-ranking sources at the embassies of two of those countries told Reuters they only learned of their supposed participation when the announcement was made.

“It is my clear sense that nobody has been briefed about the exact details in advance,” one European ambassador told Reuters. “And I also suspect that internally in the administration they are only now beginning to sort out what it means in practice.”

Several countries have already distanced themselves from Trump’s plan. According to Politico and La Stampa, France and Italy will not be financially supporting the effort. Hungary and the Czech Republic have also declined to participate, with Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala saying Prague is focusing on other projects.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, on the other hand, has welcomed the proposal but emphasized that Washington should “share the burden,” stating that if European countries pay for the weapons, it should be considered as “European support.”

Since taking office in January, Trump has renewed pressure on NATO members to increase defense spending and warned that the US may not defend allies who do not meet their obligations.

Russia has repeatedly condemned Western arms supplies to Ukraine, arguing that it only prolongs the bloodshed and does not change the course of the conflict. The Kremlin maintains that foreign military aid is being used to escalate the hostilities rather than seek a diplomatic resolution.

July 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Instigating Murder

The US Attack on Francesca Albanese is even worse than meets the eye

Tarik Cyril Amar, Jul 10, 2025, https://www.tarikcyrilamar.com/p/instigating-murder

Sometimes – or, actually, very often – the behavior of the West’s ruling “elites” (if that is the word) is so obviously absurd and vicious that it’s, literally, stunning. In the sense that it almost knocks out a sane and morally decent individual’s capacity to fully grasp all aspects of any given new piece of depravity.

Instead, if you are still halfway normal in this West ruled by the clearly criminal and perverse, their frequent peak performances in depravity leave you with a dazed sense of “What just happened, again?” And once you recover from that shock, you can’t entirely shake the eerie feeling that you’ll never quite catch up with “their” constant and, again literally, limitless production of new evils.

None of the above is abstract. On the contrary, concrete examples abound. Recently, for instance, we have witnessed Israeli genocider-in-chief and fugitive under international law Benjamin Netanyahu publicly nominate genocide co-perpetrator Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Together with his gang, the same Donald Trump, also of course serving as president of the still single most powerful (alas!) rogue state on the planet, has attempted to simply wipe out the memory of the Epstein sex abuse (at least) and political blackmail scandal. Most likely – as in, we all know it – because he himself and many of his donors were ensnared in that Israeli operation of controlling the West’s “elites” and depriving the West’s populations of the last, miserable shreds of having a say in their own countries.

Meanwhile, in Britain, those who resist the Gaza Genocide perpetrated by Israel and the West together are brutally suppressed as “terrorists,” while cabinet minister Lisa Nandy literally conspires with Israeli diplomats to make the already outrageously pro-Zionist BBC even more so.

And then, essentially at the same time, there has been America’s massive and unambiguously criminal attack on the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese. And that is, perhaps, the case displaying with greatest clarity that odd, stunning quality of the West’s atrocities and outrages.

The gist of the matter is that the US has sanctioned Albanese as if she were a criminal or even a terrorist. US secretary of state Marco Rubio has claimed that Albanese, an internationally recognized authority on human rights and international law, is waging a “campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel.” In particular, Rubio charged her with having supported the prosecution of Israeli leaders – that is, in reality, genocide perpetrators, also guilty of any other crime in every other book, from war crimes, via crimes against humanity, to apartheid and ethnic cleansing – by the International Criminal Court, another body under heavy sanctions fire from the US.

That, according to Rubio’s non-logic which is, of course, identical with that of the Israeli criminals – amounts to “antisemitism.” As a special highlight of absurdity, Rubio added that Albanese’s activities threaten the US’s “sovereignty.”

Let’s not waste time. No, it is neither necessary nor just nor intellectually healthy to treat these American allegations seriously, in the sense of going into any detail about why precisely they are deranged lies. Only so much, if Rubio and the other Trumpists are looking for someone destroying US “sovereignty” then the guy the American president has a habit of seating in his chair like a waiter may be a really good starting-point. And Netanyahu would, obviously, only be a small, nasty part of something much bigger called Israel and its lobby in America.

What is really happening here is clear: Albanese is a prominent critic and opponent of Israeli genocide. The US and its Western vassals are, at best, accomplices or, more realistically, co-perpetrators of that genocide. No Western state, conversely is fulfilling its clear legal obligations under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention and the 1998 Rome Statute (the US, to be fair, has always been vile enough not to even sign the latter; but that makes no difference to the fact that it is a signatory of the Genocide Convention): namely, not only not to commit the crime of genocide but to prevent it and to punish its perpetrators.

The US conclusion from the above, true to form is to persecute Albanese. It’s – literally – the criminals going after the sheriff. Because they can. For the worst and meanest rogue nation of them all, the US, with its trusty mass-murderous sidekick Israel, believes that might makes right. The rest – rules-based this or that, values, etc. – is pure hypocrisy.

None of the above is surprising or, make no mistake, new: No, this is not merely “Trumpism,” it is real-existing Americanism, as it has been for a long, long time. Ask the native Americans who were exterminated not “merely” by bloody violence but also by one broken agreement after another. Ask, more recently, the Iraqis or Libyans, for instance. What the Trumpists have added is merely a special note of in-your-face: Going after Albanese as if she were a terrorist while simultaneously not only sucking up once again to the genocidal führer of Israel but also a died-in-the-wool real terrorist, the head-cutting, pogrom-running puppet now in charge in Syria – that is almost a Gesamtkunstwerk of real-existing Americanism. Or maybe a Gestalt of evil and lies of satanic purity.

Likewise, the assault on Albanese – while a fresh peak performance – stands in a long tradition of harassing her as well as other opponents of Western-Israeli genocide, and not only in the US, of course. In Germany, Albanese was treated like a dangerous extremist who must not be allowed to speak in public. In the US, the attempt to cancel Albanese has a long history. Other critics of Israel and its crimes have been subjected to massive lawfare, on both sides of the Atlantic. Most recently, the German journalist Hüsein Dogru and his pregnant wife, too, have been terrorized by lawless EU sanctions that aim at nothing less than his economic destruction.

The reason: his reporting on protests against German complicity in the Gaza Genocide, which was absurdly re-interpreted as destabilizing Germany and – drum roll – playing into Russian hands. By that “logic” any criticism of any policy in the West can now lead to punitive sanctions (without any legal process, simply by bureaucratic fiat, Kafka-style) designed to destroy an individual’s existence.

All of the above, though, is obvious. Indeed, it is stunningly obvious in the sense mentioned at the beginning of this text: It arrests the mind, as it were. One gets stuck as if meditating on a perverse mandala of the unholy. Yet there seems to be one aspect of the attack on Albanese that receives too little attention, although it is second to none in its viciousness.

Consider that the Israelis have a long history of not “merely” smearing and undermining the UN, its offices, and representatives, but of deliberately mass-murdering them, too. To his eternal shame, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has betrayed his own brave staff by never daring to say what the world knows: The hundreds of UN, in particular UNRWA, personnel killed in Gaza since October 2023 have been the victims of an Israeli campaign to destroy UNRWA as a last lifeline for the Palestinian victims. A campaign that is part of Israel’s use of starvation as yet another weapon of genocide. Its “logical” conclusion has been the replacement of UNRWA with the mercenary death squads, cooperating with the equally murderous IDF, of the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, funded, of course, by Israel.

If hundreds of UN staff have been mass-murdered as part of Israel’s Gaza Genocide, let’s not forget that Israel has a long tradition of assassinating UN officers, indeed, including the very highest: In 1948, Folke Bernadotte, a mediator and emissary of the UN Security Council was murdered by the Lehi terrorist organization (aka Stern Gang). Its members received a general amnesty in 1949. Later, one of Lehi’s leaders would go on to become Israeli prime minister (another one, of course, had led Irgun, another Zionist terror organization), and a military decoration would be named after it as well.

Israel, in sum, has a proud tradition of murdering UN representatives. It also has a long tradition of impunity in this area – as in all others – of criminality as well. Against this background, it is impossible that Rubio, Trump, and other US officials have missed one simple fact: They have not only assaulted Albanese with criminal lawfare. They have also signaled to Israel that they won’t mind if Israeli criminals go a step further and murder this UN representative, too.

That is the stark reality: Albanese’s punishment for standing up against genocide is not “merely” massive harassment but a very real death threat. Or to be precise, an implicit encouragement for Israel, a murderous state founded by ethnic cleansers and terrorists, to make true on the death threat Albanese lives under already. And Trump and his henchmen know this.

July 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Putin urges Iran to accept ‘zero enrichment’ nuclear deal with US – Axios

Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged Iranian officials to accept a
nuclear agreement that would ban uranium enrichment, a key US demand in any
future talks, Axios reported Saturday citing multiple sources. Putin
conveyed his position to both President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders in
recent weeks, encouraging Tehran to move toward a deal that would help
restart negotiations with Washington.

Iran International 12th July 2025,
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202507120964

July 14, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

Iran tells IAEA to end ‘double standards’ before nuclear talks can resume

Iran links future IAEA cooperation to impartiality, after deadly June conflict with Israel and US.

Iran’s president has warned the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to abandon its “double standards” if it hopes to restore
cooperation over the country’s nuclear programme, amid an acute mistrust
following Israel and the United States’ attacks on Iranian nuclear sites
last month, and the UN nuclear watchdog’s refusal to condemn the strikes.

Speaking to European Council President Antonio Costa by phone on Thursday,
President Masoud Pezeshkian said, “The continuation of Iran’s
cooperation with the agency depends on the latter correcting its double
standards regarding the nuclear file,” according to Iranian state media.

Tehran has accused the IAEA of enabling the strikes by issuing a resolution
on June 12 – just one day before the bombing – accusing Iran of
breaching its nuclear obligations. Iran says its nuclear programme is for
peaceful purposes and denies seeking nuclear weapons. However, it has made
clear that it no longer trusts the agency to act impartially. Despite
remaining a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), Iran insists that the IAEA failed to condemn the attacks by
the US and Israel and instead chose to align with Western pressure.

Aljazeera 10th July 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/10/iran-tells-iaea-to-end-double-standards-before-nuclear-talks-can-resume

July 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Patrick Lawrence: Trump Dead-Ends Putin

By Patrick Lawrence / Consortium News, https://scheerpost.com/2025/07/08/patrick-lawrence-trump-dead-ends-putin/

Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have spoken by telephone numerous times since the former reassumed office seven months ago. Not much appears to have been accomplished by way of these exchanges, some of which have been lengthy, according to the accounts Washington and Moscow have provided afterward.

No progress toward a durable settlement to end the war in Ukraine. Talk and desultory diplomatic contacts with a view to repairing the profligate damage successive American administrations have done to U.S.–Russian relations, but no substantive advances. O.K., it is what it is, as we say. But there was something singularly conclusive about the telephone conversation the U.S. and Russian leaders had last Thursday.

I detect that a dead end has been reached.

Trump was trying once again to get Putin to agree to an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire” in Ukraine — “the quick end to the military action,” as Yuri Ushakov, the Kremlin’s senior foreign policy adviser, put it. Putin was trying once again to explain that the time has come to structure an enduring settlement by addressing — the Kremlin’s favored phrase these days — the “root causes” of the conflict.

Maybe it is the barrage of drones and missiles with which the Russians bombarded Kiev and other Ukrainian cities within a few hours of the Trump–Putin exchange that prompts me to think the two leaders or their diplomats are unlikely ever to get anywhere on the telephone or at the mahogany table.

The Ukrainians, for what their word is worth, counted 539 drones and 11 missiles, including a hard-to-intercept, high-velocity (Mach 10 hypersonic) projectile called the Kinzhal.

This was the largest aerial attack so far in the war, by the Ukrainians’ reckoning, and it left Kiev smoldering last Friday morning. It is hard to avoid concluding the Kremlin had a point to make after the failure of the phone call.

Trump Has Nothing to Propose

Or maybe it is Trump’s remarks after the call that makes me think a diplomatic settlement seems simply beyond reach — this at least until the Ukrainian military is decisively smashed, and very possibly not even then.

“I was very unhappy with my call with President Putin,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One afterward. “I didn’t make any progress with him at all. He wants to go all the way, just keep killing people, it’s no good.”

You cannot be surprised at this current state of affairs. Trump made no progress with the Russian leader because he has nothing to propose that would make progress possible. Social media messages demanding a ceasefire, replete with capital letters and exclamation points, do not count and do not work as statecraft; they betoken nothing so much as Trump’s — read, the West’s — un-seriousness.

The fundamental problem here is that Kiev and its sponsors are unable to accept defeat. I concluded more than a year ago that Ukraine and its Western powers had lost the war — “effectively lost,” I thought for a time, but then I dropped “effectively.”

For a good long time now what we’ve watched is nothing more than postwar gore. If you have lost a war but cannot admit you have lost because the West must never lose anything, you are down to the old game of pretend. And so long as the U.S. and its European clients insist that they deserve any consequential say in the terms of negotiation — as if they can assert the authority of a victor — it amounts to the pointlessness of pretending.

It is as if the Germans, if you do not mind the comparison, insisted they set the terms of surrender in May 1945, or had a say in the settlement concluded at Versailles in 1919.

When a settlement is finally reached it will not be termed a surrender — you can count on this — but this is what it will come to. And Russia, to turn this question another way, will have a responsibility to avoid turning a finally achieved peace into another Versailles disaster — where the victors planted the seeds for a renewal of conflict — by asking too much.

I am confident Moscow will hold to its currently expressed demands, which I consider eminently just and not at all excessive: A new security architecture in Europe; no NATO membership for a neutral Ukraine that must be demilitarized and de-Nazified; and recognition of the four oblasts that voted to join Russia.

Ressentiment

But I am not confident Ukraine and the neo–Nazis who control the military and the civilian administration — yes, both — will ever accept any kind of coexistence with the Russian Federation. The hatred is too visceral, too irrational, too atavistic, too pathological. This is why de–Nazification was and remains a Russian objective.

The neo–Nazi beast, never far below the surface in post–1945 Ukraine, was sprung into the open air with the U.S.–cultivated coup in 2014. Washington and its clients in Kiev needed the neo–Nazis, especially but not only the armed militias, because they could be relied upon to fight the Russians with the sort of visceral animus the occasion required.

I do not know what a de–Nazification operation would look like, given the phenomenon’s above-noted characteristics, but something will have to be done to rid the Ukrainian consciousness of this deformity.

What we will see in Ukraine otherwise will prove an horrific case of ressentiment — enduring and poisonous. Ressentiment is a term the Germans, Friedrich Nietzsche among them, borrowed from the French in the 19th century because they had no term for the phenomenon.

It denotes the hostility and anger within a group arising from a shared sense of inferiority in the face of another — this other becoming a kind of scapegoat for a society’s frustrations and complexes.

Max Scheler, the 19th and early 20th century phenomenologist, explored all this in Ressentiment, a brief but pithy book he published in 1912 (in English, Marquette Univ. Press, 1994). As Scheler explained in interesting detail, a socially accepted set of values arises from this complex of feelings.

Ressentiment is a potentially dangerous sentiment when it animates a society that feels itself wounded over a sustained period of time. We need look no further than the extreme Russophobia evident today among some segments of the Ukrainian population for a case in point.

Against this historical and social backdrop, I do not see the Ukrainians as capable of reaching a settlement to end the war that has already torn apart the nation and its people. I do not see that they can achieve peace, either with others or among themselves, because they do not know peace and they are not capable of it.

A Rockface of History

But I see another reason peace in Ukraine will prove elusive, if not impossible, even as the Russians achieve it on the battlefield. (And I tend toward the latter probability.) This judgment arises when we put the Ukraine crisis in a larger, global context.

I think of Ukraine as resembling the rock face in a mine, or a front line in a global conflict: It is where the non–West is most urgently chiseling a new world order into being. It is a site of insistence, let us say. And it is where the West proposes to stop this world-historical turn of history’s wheel — a turn that simply cannot be stopped.

Think of Putin’s demands. Apart from de–Nazification — an objective that, to me, reflects considerable insight on Moscow’s part — there are the more encompassing “root causes.” I gather Putin used this phrase yet again in his call with Trump. [See: Rooting Out the Root Causes in Ukraine]

Putin, Sergei Lavrov, his foreign minister, and other senior Russian officials have been clear on this point at least since Moscow sent those two draft treaties Westward in December 2021 as the proposed basis of negotiations that would lead to an encompassing new security structure between Russia and the West.

This framework would relieve the decades of tension along Russia’s western flank and Europe’s east and would be of benefit to both sides. This was and remains Moscow’s intent. Settlements that address the concerns of all sides, as against one side’s at the expense of another, is the very essence of sound statecraft.

But any such settlement would stand as an expression of parity between West and non–West. As I have argued severally over the years, parity between these two spheres is a 21st century imperative. There will be no world order without it — only more of the disorder the Western powers call, altogether absurdly, “the rules-based order.”

But it is precisely even the thought of parity that the United States and its trans–Atlantic allies refuse to accept. It would bring to an end the half-millennium of dominance the West cannot release from its grasp even as it will eventually have to do so.

“It is no good,” Trump said after his latest telephone talk with Putin. No, and I do not see how it can be. Trump has nothing to offer the Russians that would amount to a serious address of what is genuinely at issue between America and Russia — between the West and non–West.

I leave it to readers to conclude where this leaves the Ukraine conflict and the larger question of Russo–American relations. It is, once again, what it is — or what it is at the moment.

In another column I will revisit this question of parity as it applies in West Asia.

July 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

The Trumpanyahu Administration

Caitlin Johnstone, Jul 01, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-trumpanyahu-administration?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=167261479&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Honestly at this point they should just get Netanyahu his own room in the White House and a desk in the Oval Office.

The prime minister of Israel is taking his third trip to the White House in the five months since Trump has been back in office. I have immediate blood family members who I love with all my heart and visit less often than this.

This comes as the Trump administration revokes the US visas of British punk rap duo Bob Vylan ahead of a US tour for chanting “Death, death to the IDF” at a concert in the UK. Trump’s sycophantic supporters who spent years complaining that their free speech rights were under assault appear fine with their government deciding what words Americans are allowed to hear in their own country.

This also comes as Trump actively intervenes in the Israeli judicial system to prevent Netanyahu’s corruption trial from moving forward.

The president has repeatedly taken to social media to demand that Israel abandon its corruption case against the prime minister, at one point even implying that the US could cut off arms supplies if his trial isn’t canceled.

“The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel,” Trump said. “We are not going to stand for this. We just had a Great Victory with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu at the helm — And this greatly tarnishes our Victory. LET BIBI GO, HE’S GOT A BIG JOB TO DO!”

It’s so revealing what the US government is and is not willing to threaten conditioning military supplies on, and what it’s willing to interfere in Israel’s affairs to accomplish.

Ever since the Gaza holocaust began we’ve been hearing lines like “Israel is a sovereign country” and “Israel is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions” when reporters ask why the White House doesn’t leverage arms shipments to demand more humanitarian treatment for civilians in the Gaza Strip. But the president of the United States is willing to leverage those same arms shipments to directly interfere in Israeli legal proceedings which have nothing to do with the US government in order to get Netanyahu out of trouble.

And it would appear that the president’s intervention has been successful; Netanyahu’s corruption trial has since been postponed.

When it comes to committing genocide using American weapons funded by American taxpayers, Israel is a sovereign state upon which the US can exert zero leverage or control. When it comes to meddling in the corruption trial of a man who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, the White House pulls no punches in protecting its favorite genocide monster.

There is no meaningful separation between the US and Israeli governments. They’re two member states in the undeclared empire that sprawls across the entire western world, and Trump and Netanyahu are two of the most depraved and most consequential managers of this empire today.

They are thick as thieves. They are partners in crime.

Call it the Trumpanyahu administration.

July 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Slippery slope to nuclear proliferation

Letter David Lowry:

In your leader “The war that should have been
avoided” (FT View, June 14), you rightly identify the roots of the
present Israel-Iran crisis as the “flawed decision in 2018 [by President
Donald Trump] to withdraw the US unilaterally” from the so-called JCPOA
agreement that corralled Iran’s atomic ambitions.

Iran has been a signatory to the 191-member Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons since it was open to signature in 1968. This treaty, applying
international safeguards, controls the nuclear activities of its signatory
states.

Israel, however — which is believed to have as many as 200
nuclear weapons — has always refused to sign the NPT.

Now steps have been
taken in the Iranian parliament to withdraw Iran from membership of the
NPT. Many in power in Iran feel Israel is being rewarded by the
international community for staying outside the NPT regime.

Indeed, the final communiqué of the G7 in Canada on June 17 criticised Iran, which had
been attacked by Israel; while Israel, the G7 asserted, had the right to
defend itself. Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, was warned it cannot
have any. Israel, which has nuclear WMDs, was praised! By taking unilateral
military action against Iran and successfully encouraging the US to do the
same, Israel undermined the credibility of the international community’s
law-based order. This is a very slippery slope.

FT 2nd July 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/23d01c69-68d4-4217-a184-3ae1b5d272f1

July 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran cuts ties with UN nuclear watchdog after US and Israeli strikes

Iran’s suspension of co-operation with the IAEA follows its accusations the agency sided with Western countries and provided a justification for Israel’s airstrikes last month.

SBS News,3 July 25

Key Points

Iran has suspended inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog.
New legislation requires top security clearance for all access to Iranian nuclear sites by the agency.
It comes after Iran accused the agency of providing a pretext for Israeli and US strikes on its nuclear sites.

Iran has officially suspended its cooperation with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in a move that has drawn sharp international criticism.

It comes after last month’s 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel, in which Israel and the United States launched unprecedented strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and tensions between Iran and the IAEA escalated.

Iran has accused the IAEA of siding with Western countries and providing a justification for Israel’s airstrikes, which began a day after the UN agency’s board voted to declare Iran in violation of obligations under the UN-backed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

………. On 25 June, a day after a ceasefire took hold, Iran’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to suspend co-operation with the Vienna-based IAEA.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian formally enacted the suspension on Wednesday, state media reported.

The law aims to “ensure full support for the inherent rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran” under the NPT, with a particular focus on uranium enrichment, according to Iranian media.

The law stipulates that any future inspection of Iran’s nuclear sites by the IAEA needs approval by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council…………………………………………………………….

Iran has accused IAEA of providing pretext for Israeli attacks

Since the Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Iran has sharply criticised the IAEA, with officials saying that accusations against Iran of non-compliance with its NPT obligations provided a pretext for Israel and the US’ attacks.

Senior Iranian official Ali Mozaffari accused the IAEA chief of “preparing the groundwork” for Israel’s raids and called for him to be held accountable, citing “deceptive actions and fraudulent reporting”. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/iran-cuts-ties-with-un-nuclear-watchdog-us-israeli-strikes/r5j9kqdve

July 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Israel ‘not an ally’, says former British ambassador

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

MARK CURTIS, 26 June 2025, Declassified UK,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Pro-Israel lobby in British foreign policy making’

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Powerful allies’

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

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

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

Trump reiterates Iran nuclear talking points despite swirling questions.

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

Aljazeera, 29 Jun 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Vassal’s Impulse: Australia Backs US Strike on Iran

The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”

29 June 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/a-vassals-impulse-australia-backs-us-strike-on-iran/

The initial statement from Australian government sources was one of constipated caution and clenching wariness. Senator Penny Wong’s time as head of the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs has always been about how things come out, a process unsatisfyingly uncertain and unyielding in detail. Stick to the safe middle ground and sod the rest. These were the cautionary words of an Australian government spokesperson on June 22: “We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.”

That insipid statement was in response to Operation Midnight Hammer, a strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran by the US Air Force, authorised by US President Donald Trump on June 22. With such spectacular violence came the hollow call for diplomatic prudence and restraint. There was an importantdifference: Tehran, not Israel or Washington, would be the subject of scolding. Iran would not be permitted nuclear weapons but jaw jaw was better than war war. “We note the US president’s statement that now is the time for peace,” stated the spokesperson. “The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

Within twenty-four hours, that anodyne position had morphed into one of unconditional approval for what was a breach of the United Nations Charter, notably its injunction against the threatened or actual use of force against sovereign states in the absence of authorisation by the UN Security Council or the necessity of self-defence. “The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is,” accepted Wong.

This assessment was not only silly but colossally misguided.It would have been an absurd proposition for the US to make the claim that they were under imminent threat of attack, a condition seen as necessary for a pre-emptive strike. This was a naked submission to the wishes of a small, destabilising and sole (undeclared) nuclear power in the Middle East, a modern territorial plunderer celebratory of ethnonational supremacy.

Wong also misrepresented the circumstances under which Iran was told they could negotiate over their nuclear program, erroneously accepting the line from the Trump administration that Tehran had “an opportunity to comply”. Neither the US diplomatic channel, which only permitted a narrow, fleeting corridor for actual negotiations, nor Israel’s wilful distortion of the IAEA’s assessment of Iran’s uranium enrichment plans and prevarication, ever gave chance for a credible resolution.Much like the calamitous, unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a crew of brigand nations – the merry trio of US, UK and Australia stood out – the autopilot to war was set, scornful of international law.

Wong’s shift from constipated caution to free flow approval for the US attack, with its absent merits and weighty illegalities, was also a craven capitulation to the warmonger class permanently mesmerised by the villain school of foreign relations. This cerebrally challenged view sees few problems with attacking nuclear facilities, the radioactive dangers of doing so, and the merits of a state having them in the first place.

The US attack on Iran found hearty approval among the remnants of the conservative opposition, who tend tospecialise in the view that pursuing a pro-Israeli line, right,wrong, or murderous, is the way to go. Liberal Senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, thought the Albanese government’s initial response “underwhelming and perplexing,” claiming that support for this shredding of international law “a straightforward position for Australia to adopt.” Sharma is clearly getting rusty on hislaw of nations.

His side of politics is also of the view that the attacked party here – Iran – must forgo any silly notion of self-defence and retaliation and repair to the table of diplomacy in head bowedhumiliation. “We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” stated a very stern opposition home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie. “I’m very glad to see that Penny Wong has essentially endorsed our position and I’m glad we have bipartisanship on this.”

Australia’s response has been that of the weary poltroon. Little has been asked about Canberra’s standout complicity in assisting the US imperium fulfil its global reach when it comes to striking targets. The role of the intelligence signals facility in Pine Gap, cutely and inaccurately called a joint venture, always lends its critical role to directing the US war machine through its heavy reliance on satellite technology. Wong, when asked about the role played by the facility in facilitating the attacks on Iran, had little to say. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was also cold towards disclosing any details. “We are upfront, but we don’t talk about intelligence, obviously. But we’ve made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.”

At least on this occasion, Australia did not add its forces to anillegal adventure, as it all too wilfully did in 2003. Then, Iraq was invaded on the spurious grounds that weapons of mass destruction not only existed but would somehow be used either by the regime of Saddam Hussein or fictional proxies he might eventually supply. History forever shows that no such weapons were found, nor proxies equipped. But the Albanese government has shown not only historical illiteracy but an amnesia on the matter. Unfortunately, it’s the sort of amnesia that has become contagious, afflicting a goodly number of Washington’s satellites, vassals and friendly states.

June 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Zelensky clings to NATO hopes as Trump meeting looms

The Ukrainian president on Tuesday insisted the alliance would benefit from Kyiv’s joining, even as Washington has so far ruled out its bid.

By Victor Jack, Politico, 24 June,25

THE HAGUE — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is forcefully pushing Kyiv’s NATO bid as he gears up for a high-stakes meeting with Donald Trump in The Hague on Wednesday.

The U.S. president will join his fellow leaders from the military alliance for a state dinner on Tuesday evening as the organization hosts its annual summit — where countries will agree to ramp up their defense spending to 5 percent of economic output by 2035.

Last year’s summit in Washington ended with a pledge to back Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to NATO. But this year’s declaration will focus instead on a broader vow of continued support for Kyiv, alliance officials said.

Zelenskyy on Tuesday insisted that his country is still looking to join the alliance. While flanked by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, he said: “This direction is not changing.”

The alliance chief emphasized the organization was also working on “building that bridge” for Ukraine, while highlighting that European and Canadian members have pledged €35 billion in aid for Kyiv so far this year.

The U.S. under Trump has not requested any new military aid for Ukraine.

Zalenskyy also underlined that Ukraine’s accession was a “mutual opportunity” for the alliance, arguing his country now has the capacity to produce 8 million drones each year.

“It is an advantageous proposal for NATO today to have an ally like Ukraine, with NATO weapons, with new technology,” he told Sky News. “We have no secrets, and experienced people with 10 years of different types of fighting.”

Still, Trump and his administration have ruled out allowing Ukraine to join NATO. That’s a topic that could arise when the two leaders meet at The Hague………https://www.politico.eu/article/zelenskyy-trump-nato-hague-rutte-ukraine-russia-war/

June 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

What if Iran withdraws from the NPT?

Bulletin. By Mark Goodman, Mark Fitzpatrick | June 25, 2025

As the Iranian nuclear program saga plays out, one diplomatic action has been widely expected: Iran may declare its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).^[1] Such a withdrawal would eliminate the legal prohibition on Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and the requirement that Iran accept international safeguards monitoring. Over the past decade, Iran has threatened many times to play this card in retaliation for far less serious assaults.

NPT withdrawal is one of the few actions available to Iran that would have a significant effect. It would facilitate reconstitution of Iran’s bombed nuclear capabilities and enable Tehran to use them to develop nuclear weapons without international oversight.^[2] Even with the loss of the 14 nuclear scientists and engineers assassinated by Israel this month, Iran surely retains the knowledge on how to build centrifuges and assemble them into cascades, plus the expertise acquired during the secret work to date on weapons development. Iran may also have taken steps to remove equipment and material from its enrichment facilities before the US attacks against three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend.

Given these realities, Iran likely will be able to build and operate a secret underground enrichment plant capable of producing significant quantities of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU). This process will be sped if Iran was able to protect from Israeli bombing the over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent uranium 235 content the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran had as of May^[3] and, until recently at least, stored in easily transportable cylinders. At a time when much of the world sees Iran as the victim of Israeli aggression, NPT withdrawal could be accomplished with less political blowback than if it were employed in response to economic sanctions.

Iran’s adversaries would see NPT withdrawal as tantamount to a declaration of nuclear weapons intent. There is no such legal connection, however, and the logical case is not airtight. It is conceivable that Iran could withdraw from the treaty and maintain a policy of nuclear hedging, even as it reconstituted its enrichment program in secret. A decision to actually build a nuclear weapon could be made down the road when the capabilities are again in place. Invoking the NPT’s withdrawal clause in the near term would risk military escalation with few immediate benefits, though ending IAEA inspections would reduce the transparency and vulnerability of a reconstituted nuclear program.

Iran’s NPT status. Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and became one of its original parties when the treaty entered into force in 1970. As a non-nuclear-weapon state, Iran is prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons and from seeking or receiving assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. As an NPT party, Iran is also required to accept IAEA safeguards—international monitoring and inspections—on all its peaceful nuclear activities. To that end, Iran concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA in 1974…………………………………………………………………………………….

Implications of withdrawal. Article X of the NPT allows withdrawal from the treaty if a party “decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.” To do so, it must give three months’ advance notice to all other NPT Parties and to the UN Security Council, including a statement of those “extraordinary events.” After those three months, the obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept safeguards would cease.

…………………………………………………………………Some NPT parties have never accepted North Korea’s withdrawal as valid in meeting the requirements of Article X, questioning whether its notification cited “extraordinary events” that were “related to the subject matter of the [NPT].”^[13]

In Iran’s case, such questions are unlikely to be raised, since the “extraordinary events” are obvious.

…………………………………………………………… There is little prospect of effective multilateral responses to an Iranian withdrawal notification, aside from toothless requests for Iran to reconsider its decisions. Such responses would require consensus at least among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

……………………………………………….There is little prospect of effective multilateral responses to an Iranian withdrawal notification, aside from toothless requests for Iran to reconsider its decisions. Such responses would require consensus at least among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

……………………………….. The NPT-based nonproliferation regime has often worked best by slowing developments and giving countries time and incentives to reconsider fateful decisions. In Iran’s case, Israel’s war of choice is likely to have the opposite effect of speeding up a step off the cliff. If Iran announces formal withdrawal from the NPT, other members should do whatever they can during the three months’ notification period to persuade it not to follow through.
https://thebulletin.org/2025/06/what-if-iran-withdraws-from-the-npt/

June 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Why is Australia Supporting the US Attack on Iran?

24 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay https://theaimn.net/why-is-australia-supporting-the-us-attack-on-iran/

Description

Why is Australia supporting the US attack on Iran despite no proven nuclear threat? Explore the truth behind the alliance and why our national interest is at stake.

Introduction: The Flashpoint

Location: Parliament House, Canberra – just hours after the US launched strikes on Iranian facilities.

The Prime Minister steps up to the podium. Flashbulbs pop. He says solemnly, “We support action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

But there’s a problem: Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Nor has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found proof of an active nuclear weapons program. Yet, Australia is once again supporting US attack on Iran, despite lacking credible evidence.

By supporting the US attack on Iran, Australia reinforces a troubling trend of endorsing military aggression based on disputed intelligence.

This article delves into the underlying reasons behind this decision, separating rhetoric from reality.

The Problem: Why Australia Is Supporting the US Attack on Iran

A History of Following Washington

Since Vietnam, Australia has followed the US into conflicts: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The justification is often “shared values”, but the outcomes? Displacement, destabilisation, and destruction.

“We’re not a central player,” the PM insists. Yet, we continue to echo Washington’s every move.

No Proof, Yet Full Support

The IAEA has repeatedly said there’s no verified Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran enriched uranium to 60%, but weapons-grade is 90 %+. Still, our leaders claim this is reason enough for supporting the US attack on Iran, even without definitive proof.

What Was Actually Hit?

According to US sources, the strikes targeted “nuclear-related sites”. But independent verification is scarce. And our Prime Minister won’t confirm whether Pine Gap or other Australian resources were involved. This silence raises concerns that supporting the US attack on Iran also involves more profound complicity behind the scenes.

The Consequences of Obedience

Civilian Risk and Global Fallout

Imagine being an Australian working in Tehran. One day, you’re sending postcards home. Next, you’re rushed to the Azerbaijani border under armed escort. Over 3,000 Australians were left scrambling.

“We’re evacuating staff,” Foreign Minister Wong said. “Airspace is closed.”

Damaged Diplomacy, Rising Insecurity

Supporting the US attack on Iran damages Australia’s credibility as an independent voice in global affairs. We’re seen less as an independent nation and more as a military proxy. This makes us, and our citizens, potential targets.

The Illusion of Peace Through Bombs

Our leaders claim they “support de-escalation.” Yet, they support an illegal airstrike that has only escalated tensions.

Peace isn’t achieved through provocation – it’s forged through diplomacy.

Double Standards in Nuclear Politics

The Real Nuclear Threats: Israel and the USA

While Iran is accused of developing nuclear weapons without proof, Israel, a state with confirmed nuclear warheads, faces no sanctions or inspections. Worse still, Israel continues to violate international law, commit human rights abuses, and face allegations of war crimes. Yet, it is never threatened with airstrikes.

The United States remains the only country in history to use nuclear weapons in war, dropping them on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Despite indications that Japan was already seeking surrender, the bombs were deployed, not just to end the war, but as a geopolitical message to the world.

Many historians now consider the attacks to have been militarily unnecessary and politically motivated.

“You don’t stop a nuclear war by attacking countries that don’t even have nuclear weapons. You stop it by holding those with them accountable.”

US Militarism: A Global Record of Havoc and Misery

From Vietnam to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and coups in Latin America and Africa, the United States has caused immense suffering worldwide. Their justification – “freedom” and “democracy” – rarely materialises for the people left behind.

Australia’s uncritical support not only aligns us with this destruction, but it also makes us complicit.

A Foreign Policy True to Australia’s Interests

Uphold International Law, Not Just Alliances

Australia must reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter, which permits the use of military force only in self-defence or with the approval of the Security Council. Unilateral aggression is illegal.

Prioritise Evidence Over Allegiance

Before expressing support for military action, the Australian Government must demand verifiable intelligence. Without proof, there should be no participation – military or moral.

Transparency About Pine Gap and Involvement

Pine Gap plays a critical role in US surveillance and drone strikes. Citizens have a right to know whether their country is taking actions that violate international law.

Leverage Our Dollar Sovereignty

Australia issues its own currency, meaning we are not financially dependent on any foreign state. We can afford to fund independent diplomacy, peace building, and humanitarian aid rather than militarism.

“We are not broke. We are not beholden. Let’s act like it.”

The Price of Following, The Power of Leading

For decades, Australia has marched in step with the United States, often at the cost of our principles, safety, and independence.

This time, we are supporting the US attack on Iran, a strike on a country accused of a crime without evidence, risking war, instability, and the lives of Australians abroad.

Yet, we have the means, through monetary sovereignty, public accountability, and diplomacy, to reject supporting the US attack on Iran and shape a better, more independent path. We need the political will to make the choice.

Q&A Section

Q1: Was Iran about to build a nuclear weapon?

A: The IAEA has confirmed Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, which is not weapons-grade. There is no verified evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.

Q2: Could Australia have refused to support the strike?

A: Yes. Australia is a sovereign nation that can choose an independent foreign policy. We were not compelled to support a strike, especially without legal backing.

Q3: What role does Pine Gap play in US operations?

A: Pine Gap is a joint US-Australia intelligence base. While our leaders avoid specifics, it’s widely known that Pine Gap supports surveillance and targeting data for US military operations, including drone strikes.

June 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Donald Trump dominated extraordinary NATO summit that saw European defence spending increase – NATO chief calls Trump ‘Daddy’

ABC News, By Europe correspondent Elias Clure at The Hague, 26 June 25

Donald Trump was given a royal welcome by the monarch of the Netherlands as he arrived at the NATO summit in The Hague.

He left feeling like a king.

Member nations agreed to lift their defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP over 10 years and Mr Trump was quick to take credit, describing it as a “big win” for the United States.

He’d been calling for more spending and had made threats about the future of the alliance if it wasn’t agreed upon.

“They said, ‘You did it, sir, you did it sir.’ Well, I don’t know if I did it, but I think I did,” Mr Trump said.

When the commitment was finalised by members in an official summit declaration, NATO members proclaimed the summit a huge success.

But the event, which aims to hear from delegations of the 32 NATO countries and many more partners and allies, seemed to revolve around the presence of one man.

Trump insists damage was done

Mr Trump’s first official engagement at the NATO summit HQ was with Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

The president arrived at the meeting with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and State Department boss Marco Rubio. The meeting began with Mr Rutte lauding America’s actions in Iran.

“The great thing is you took out the nuclear capability of Iran. This was crucial. You did it in a way which is extremely impressive. But the signal it sends to the rest of the world that this president, when it comes to it, yes, he is a man of peace, but if necessary, he is willing to use strength,” Mr Rutte said.

When the American delegation was probed by the press on the validity of the White House’s claims that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been comprehensively demolished, it pushed back.

Mr Hegseth accused sceptics of being “politically motivated”, saying the damage was, in fact, “severe”.

Mr Rubio declared that the damage to the enrichment facilities was so bad “you can’t even find it on the map … it’s totally wiped out”.

Not to be outdone, Mr Trump then provided the most vivid description of Operation Midnight Hammer’s success, comparing the raid to the most destructive bombing in history.

“That hit ended the war. I don’t want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don’t want to use an example of Nagasaki. But that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war. This ended that war,”

Mr Trump said.

Mr Rutte watched on in silence.

NATO chief calls Trump ‘Daddy’

The NATO secretary-general has been quite transparent in his attempts to flatter the president.

Mr Trump seemed so taken by the gushing display of admiration by Mr Rutte that he leaked a text message reportedly sent to him by the alliance boss.

“Mr. President, dear Donald, Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer,” Mr Rutte reportedly wrote in the message.

Mr Rutte said at the summit that he was not embarrassed by the message, and he was actually happy for it to be made public.

“There’s nothing in it that had to stay secret,” he said.

At Mr Rutte’s meeting with Mr Trump, he was asked about what he thought about the commander-in-chief’s use of the f-word when describing Israel and Iran.

Mr Trump said that the two countries “had a big fight, like two kids in a schoolyard”.

Mr Rutte’s response was light-hearted but telling.

“Daddy has to sometimes use strong language.”……………………………………….

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-26/donald-trump-dominates-extraordinary-nato-summit/105461646

June 26, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »