nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Iran says it could end ban on possessing nuclear weapons if sanctions reimposed

Comments made after nuclear inspectorate board passed motion censuring Iran for building uranium stockpile

Patrick Wintour in Lisbon,  Guardian 28th Nov 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/28/iran-says-it-could-end-ban-on-possessing-nuclear-weapons-if-sanctions-reimposed

The nuclear debate inside Iran is likely to shift towards the possession of its own weapons if the west goes ahead with a threat to reimpose all UN sanctions, the country’s foreign minister has said.

Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in an interview that Iran already had the capability and knowledge to create nuclear weapons, but said they did not form part of its security strategy. He also said Tehran was prepared to keep supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Western officials will be concerned by Araghchi’s warning over the reimposition of sanctions, which were lifted when Iran signed the 2015 deal intended to limit its nuclear activities.

Araghchi was appointed foreign minister by Iran’s reformist president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who was elected this year on a promise to improve Iran’s economy by pursuing improved relations with the west.

He was speaking in Lisbon before a meeting between Iranian and European negotiators in Geneva on Friday, which he described as a brainstorming session to see if there was a way out of their impasse. He admitted he was pessimistic about the meeting, saying he was not sure Iran was speaking to the right party.

He said he believed European nations – chiefly the UK, Germany and France – were set on confrontation after a board meeting last week of the UN nuclear inspectorate, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in which a European-tabled censure motion was passed saying Iran had failed to cooperate with inspectors and was building a uranium stockpile that had no peaceful civilian purpose.

Araghchi claimed the IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, had promised to forestall the censure motion after Iran offered to cap its uranium enrichment at 60% purity, as well as permit four nuclear inspectors to visit its nuclear sites. “He failed because the Europeans had decided on the course of confrontation,” he said.

The foreign minister said Iran had subsequently “decided to introduce thousands of new, highly advanced machines into the system. And now they have started to feed them with gas. So this is the result of their pressure.”

Araghchi said Iran remained within the confines of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, however, and still sought cooperation. “We have no intention to go further than 60% for the time being, and this is our determination right now,” he said. “I would like to re-emphasise that we have chosen the line of cooperation in order to come to a dignified resolution of this problem.”

But he suggested that Iranian engagement with the west on its nuclear programme was not guaranteed. “There is a debate right now in Iran that it was perhaps a wrong policy. Why? Because it proved we did whatever they wanted and when it was their turn to lift sanctions, in practice, they didn’t happen. So maybe something is wrong in our policy.

“So I can tell you, quite frankly, that there is this debate going on in Iran, and mostly among the elites – even among the ordinary people – whether we should change this policy or not, whether we should change our nuclear doctrine, as some say, or not, because it has proved insufficient in practice.”

He said if European countries did reimpose sanctions on Iran at the UN security council “then they [will] have convinced everybody in Iran that, yes, your doctrine has been wrong”.

He added: “And this is the result after 10 to 12 years of negotiation, and after 10 years of implementation and homework and all these things, now, Iran is back under chapter seven [of the UN charter], what for?

“If that happens, I think everybody will be convinced that we have gone in the wrong direction, so we have to change direction. So I think if the snapback happens we would have a crisis.”

But he said for the moment the fatwa against the possession of nuclear weapons could only be rescinded by the supreme leader. “Nuclear weapons have no place in our security calculations,” he said.

He also said that Iran had not supplied ballistic missiles to Russia, but that it is legitimate for Tehran to have close military cooperation with Moscow even though Iran supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Aware that Iran’s supply of drones and other equipment to Russia for use in Ukraine has poisoned relations with Europe, Araghchi said: “They are not in any moral or political position to complain about our cooperation with Russia […] when at the same time they are selling themselves weapons, sophisticated weaponry to Israel to kill Palestinians.”

He added that Iran was prepared to continue supplying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon if requested by the group, adding Israel had agreed to a ceasefire only because it could not “finish the job”.

Giving his verdict on the outcome of the Lebanon confrontation, which many say has left Iran weakened, he said: “Why is Israel now ready for a ceasefire in Lebanon? Because they couldn’t finish the job, and they are not able to finish the job. Yes, Hezbollah has suffered, but it is mostly on its leadership and high level commanders, but the organisation is intact.”

He also ridiculed claims by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel had agreed to the Lebanon ceasefire partly because Israel wanted to focus its energies on preventing Iran from securing a nuclear weapon.

“A full-scale war with Iran and a ceasefire in Lebanon? It doesn’t sound logical or understandable,” he said.

He said it would be a disaster if Israel launched a full-scale war against Iran. “That doesn’t mean that we want war. Contrary to Israelis, we don’t want war, but we are fully prepared for that, and we are not scared of war. And if they want to try us, they can do that.”

He said it was up to Hezbollah to decide if it wanted to withdraw its weaponry north of the Litani River, as set out in the ceasefire agreement with Israel, and said the group was not an Iranian proxy. “Hezbollah and others are not our proxies,” he said. “We only support them as our friends, so we have never dictated on them or any other resistance group in the region. They decide by themselves, and they implement their decisions by themselves.”

He said he believed it was the right decision by Hezbollah to end its link between the wars in Lebanon and Gaza in accepting the ceasefire, but questioned whether it would be followed by a further ceasefire in Gaza. “Israel cannot go for a ceasefire with Hamas, because a ceasefire with Hamas would be a total defeat for Israelis,” he said. “They went there to destroy Hamas, and now they have to make a deal with Hamas, and that means that they have failed to reach their goals. So a ceasefire in Gaza has become a very complicated question.”

He said that Israel’s intention was “the colonial erasure” of Palestinians, and it was up to the new US administration to decide if they would support this.

Asked if Iran’s foreign policy was causing domestic misery, he accepted that Pezeshkian won the presidential election because he wanted to leave sanctions and engage with the rest of the world but questioned if he had been welcomed by the west. “The morning after his inauguration ceremony, Ismail Haniyeh [the Hamas political bureau leader] was assassinated in Tehran,” he said. “I have spent my first 100 days as foreign minister trying to prevent a full-scale war.”

December 1, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

“Israel Wants Wars”: Gideon Levy on Lebanon Ceasefire, Gaza & Gov’t Sanctions Against Haaretz

Democracy Now, 27 Nov 24

Gideon LevyIsraeli journalist and author. Lina MounzerLebanese writer and editor.

We’re joined by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy as we continue our conversation on the Israeli-Lebanon ceasefire. We take a look at the mood within Israel, where Levy characterizes the Israeli public as “sour” about what is seen as a premature deal. “They would like to see more blood, more destruction in Lebanon,” says Levy. “Israel wants wars.” This retributive stance is still being felt in Lebanon, adds writer Lina Mounzer, who says Lebanese people are “very terrified of the day after” and do not feel that they have been awarded peace, despite the terms of the ceasefire.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government has unanimously voted to sanction the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, claiming that its editorials “have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self defense.” Haaretz has criticized the move, which comes just months after Israel banned the international media outlet Al Jazeera, as anti-democratic. Levy, a columnist for Haaretz, says the sanction makes it clear that Israelis cannot take the freedom of speech “for granted anymore.”

Media Options

Transcript……………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/27/israel_lebanon_ceasefire_haaretz

November 30, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump’s Cabinet Picks Aren’t Looking Good For Peace In Ukraine

Caitlin Johnstone, Nov 25, 2024,  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/trumps-cabinet-picks-arent-looking?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=152120142&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Conventional wisdom about the outgoing Biden administration’s reckless escalations in Ukraine these past few days is that things will cool down once Donald Trump takes office, but Trump’s cabinet picks aren’t really selling this idea.

While Trump did campaign on ending the war in Ukraine, the president elect has given multiple cabinet appointments to strategists who say that the way to achieve that peace is to substantially escalate aggressions against Russia. Michael Tracey has been doing a great job compiling footage of Trump’s recent cabinet picks advocating extreme measures which happen to be in perfect alignment with the nuclear brinkmanship of the demented outgoing president and his handlers.

Sebastian Gorka, who Trump has named as his next senior director for counterterrorism, is on record saying that Trump has told him he plans on saying to Putin, “You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.”

Mike Waltz, who Trump has selected as his next national security advisor, promotes a similar vision. Waltz says Russia can be pressured to come to the negotiating table via increased energy sanctions combined with “taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine.” Biden has since removed those very “handcuffs” by authorizing Kyiv to use US-supplied long-range missiles to attack Russia.

If it seems like these remarks from Trump’s incoming administration work very nicely with the actions of the outgoing administration, then you may find it interesting that Waltz just told Fox News Sunday that the two administrations are working “hand in glove” as the presidency changes over.

“Jake Sullivan and I have had discussions, we’ve met,” Waltz said. “For our adversaries out there that think this is a time of opportunity, that they can play one administration off the other — they are wrong. We are hand in glove. We are one team with the United States in this transition.”

This would seem to be an oblique reference to Russia specifically, since that’s the only US adversary with any hope that the incoming administration might be a bit less hawkish toward it than the outgoing one, and since years of mass media coverage went into spinning narratives about Trump being a pawn of Vladimir Putin.

But Trump was never a pawn of Vladimir Putin. Contrary to the narratives of both Democrat-aligned punditry and Republican-aligned punditry while he was in office, Trump spent his entire term ramping up cold war aggressions against Russia which helped pave the way to the war and brinkmanship we are seeing in Ukraine today. Tracey recently shared an audio clip of Gorka on X Spaces back in January 2023 exuberantly boasting about the way Trump ordered the US military to kill hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria in 2018. Putin himself cited the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty in 2019 when defending his decision to hit Ukraine with a new type of intermediate-range missile the other day in response to its use of US- and UK-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russia.

Other cabinet appointments who have taken extremely hawkish positions on Russia include secretary of state nominee Marco Rubio, secretary of defense nominee Pete Hegseth, CIA director nominee John Ratcliffe, and National Security Council appointee Doug Burgum. But it’s those comments from Waltz and Gorka which I find most concerning, because they explicitly refer to escalatory strategies that Trump might employ once he takes office.

This all comes out as we get news that US and European officials recently discussed providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine under the gamble that Putin will not escalate against the west before Trump takes office. The more aligned the Trump administration’s posture toward Russia appears to be with that of the Biden administration, the less safe a gamble this appears to be.

It seems likely that the Trump administration will end the Ukraine proxy war at some point down the road in order to reallocate those resources toward preparation for war with Iran and/or China. But it is not at all clear that this will happen soon enough before soaring escalations spin out of control into the single worst-case scenario that could possibly unfold on this planet.

November 27, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

European states vow to arrest Israeli PM

Rt.com 24 Nov 24

The ICC issued warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant earlier this week.

Several Western states have pledged to execute an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Hague-based court on Thursday issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu along with former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas commander Ibrahim al-Masri. West Jerusalem claims that al-Masri is already dead. The warrants are for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the Gaza conflict.

The decision has elicited mixed reactions in the West. Several nations emphasized their respect for the independence of the court, while others voiced support for Israel. 

The Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, and Norway all claimed they would meet their commitments and obligations under the Rome Statute and international law. However, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto stressed that the ICC was “wrong” to put Netanyahu and Gallant on the same level as Hamas. Austria also said that it would obey the decision, but its foreign minister, Alexander Schallenberg, added that the warrant was “utterly incomprehensible.”

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp assured the country’s parliament that the authorities would act on the warrants and avoid non-essential contacts with those named…………………………………..  https://www.rt.com/news/608045-european-states-vow-arrest-netanyahu/

November 26, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran warns West: abandon pressure or face more uranium enrichment

 Iran International 23rd Nov 2024

he West still has an opportunity to pursue engagement and abandon pressure, but Tehran is ready to confront any challenges, spokesperson and deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, announced on Saturday.

Addressing Western nations, Behrouz Kamalvandi wrote in a Tehran newspaper, “There is still time for engagement and for setting aside pressure and threats. While Iran has prepared itself to counter threats, it prefers dialogue over confrontation.”

Iranian officials have condemned a censure resolution adopted during the November 21 quarterly meeting of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors. While they claim Iran is ready to negotiate over its nuclear commitments, their calls for dialogue come against the backdrop of years of failed diplomatic efforts by the IAEA and Western powers to address concerns over Tehran’s reduced cooperation with the UN watchdog.

The IAEA Board of Governors approved a resolution proposed by four Western powers condemning the expansion of Iran’s nuclear activities and Tehran’s lack of necessary cooperation with the agency. The resolution passed with a majority vote.

This marked the second resolution adopted against the Islamic Republic by the Board of Governors in the past six months.

On Friday, Kamalvandi responded to the IAEA resolution by announcing a “significant increase” in uranium enrichment levels.

Speaking to state media, he said this step was part of Iran’s “compensatory measures in response to the new Board of Governors resolution” and noted that the process had “already begun immediately.”…………………………………………
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202411239657

November 25, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

In 14-1 UN Security Council Vote, Lone US Veto Kills Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution

“Today’s message is clear to the Israeli occupying power—you may continue your genocide… with complete impunity.”

“Today’s message is clear to the Israeli occupying power—you may continue your genocide… with complete impunity.”

The U.S. government, said one human rights lawyer, “proves once again to the world that it is fully committed to the continuation of the genocide in Palestine.”


Jessica Corbett, 22 Nov 24 https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-vetoes-un-security-council

The Biden administration faced fierce criticism on Wednesday after using its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block a resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional, and permanent cease-fire in Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip.

The vetoed measure also called for all parties to implement a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution passed in June—which would lead to the release of all hostages—and to enable Gaza civilians’ immediate access to basic services and humanitarian assistance.

Jess Peake, who directs the International and Comparative Law Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, condemned the U.S. decision as “absolutely unforgivable” while Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, declared that “this is absurd.”

Mai El-Sadany, executive director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy in Washington, D.C., called it “yet another shameful abuse of the UNSC veto by the U.S. to perpetuate a war that violates U.S. law and U.S. international legal commitment.

“Today’s message is clear to the Israeli occupying power—you may continue your genocide… with complete impunity.”

Human rights attorney Craig Mokhiber, who last year resigned as the New York director for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights over the United Nations’ response to Gaza, said Wednesday that “the U.S. has just vetoed another cease-fire resolution in the U.N. Security Council, and, in doing so, proves once again to the world that it is fully committed to the continuation of the genocide in Palestine.”

Mokhiber also called for action at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), where there is no U.S. veto power.

“Even as we seek accountability for Israeli perpetrators, we must also seek accountability for complicit U.S. actors,” he said. “Israeli/U.S. impunity threatens the entire world. And the U.N. must now move to take concrete action in the UNGA.”

The 14-1 vote at the UNSC marked the fourth time the United States has blocked a Gaza resolution since Israel began its retaliation for the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack. All five permanent members of the Security Council—the U.S., the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—have veto power. The other seats are filled on a rotating basis and lack that authority.

The 10 nonpermanent members—Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland—were behind the push to pass this draft resolution. Those who supported it represent “the collective will” of the international community, Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjama said after the vote, according toU.N. News.

“It is sad day for the Security Council, for the United Nations, and the international community as a whole,” Bendjama said, stressing that it has been “five months since the adoption of Resolution 2735, five months during which the Security Council remained idle—remained hand-tied.”

“Today’s message is clear to the Israeli occupying power—you may continue your genocide… with complete impunity. In this chamber—you enjoy immunity,” he added. “To the Palestinian people, another clear message—while the overwhelming majority of the world stands in solidarity with your plight, others remain indifferent to your suffering.”

Israel faces a South Africa-led genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its assault on Gaza, which as of Wednesday has killed at least 43,985 Palestinians, according to local officials. Another 104,092 people have been wounded, and most of the enclave’s 2.3 million residents have been repeatedly displaced as Israeli forces have devastated civilian infrastructure.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Wood said Wednesday that “we made clear throughout negotiations we could not support an unconditional cease-fire that failed to release the hostages.”

“This resolution abandoned that necessity,” he argued. “For that reason, the United States could not support it.”

The U.S. government has been widely accused of complicity in genocide for arming Israeli forces over the past 13 months—including by progressives in Congress. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday planned to force a vote on resolutions that would block American weapons sales to Israel on the grounds that they violate federal law.

November 24, 2024 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Trump opposes Israel annexation of West Bank, Republican sources say

November 20, 2024, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-trump-opposes-israel-annexation-of-west-bank-republican-sources-say/

Newly-elected United States’ President, Donald Trump, is in opposition to Israel’s reported plans to annex the Occupied West Bank, sources from his Republican Party have revealed.

According to Israeli outlet, Ynet News, a senior Republican Senator close to the President-elect has said that “Trump will not approve annexation” of the West Bank.

Such a move is reportedly seen by the new President as one that would be “a mistake for Israel” which would worsen its international standing – already severely damaged after over a year of the Occupation’s bombardment and invasion of the Gaza Strip.

Trump is also apparently primarily concerned that any official annexation could further disrupt and severely derail efforts to finally reach a normalisation between Israel and Saudi Arabia – a key priority for the incoming Trump administration, with Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, particularly working on that goal.

The reported comments by the unnamed sources follow increased speculation in recent weeks over Trump’s appointments of controversial figures in his incoming administration, with many of the relevant roles being filled by radically pro-Israel figures who favour annexation of the West Bank.

November 24, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

US one shy of becoming an Ace in blocking genocide ceasefire resolutions in UN

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 22 Nov 24

For the fourth time since the US enabled Israeli genocide in Gaza, the US vetoed a genocide ceasefire resolution in the UN Security Council.

The resolution passed overwhelmingly 14-1 as Uncle Sam enticed no Security Council partners to help him continue the genocide.

But he didn’t need any since the US, as one of 5 permanent members, has veto power to prevent any such resolution from passing.

Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjama who voted for the ceasefire, blasted the US veto: “Today’s message is clear to the Israeli occupying power: First you may continue your genocide. You may continue your collective punishment of the Palestinian people with complete impunity. In this chamber, you enjoy immunity,”

In aerial combat, a pilot who downs 5 enemy planes is called an Ace of the Air. With America’s fifth soon to occur veto , America can be called an Ace…of Genocide.

November 23, 2024 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Households receive chilling leaflet urging them to prepare for war and grim nuclear attack

 Households have all received a booklet on how to properly prepare for war
– as tensions escalate with Russia. Sweden has issued advice to citizens on
what to do if there is a World War Three, with all the grim and scary
details about what a nuclear bomb attack would bring, as well as how best
to protect yourself from any type of attack.

 Mirror 21st Nov 2024
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/households-receive-chilling-leaflet-urging-34158320

November 23, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

On Way Out, Reckless Biden Allows Deep Russia Strikes

Biden staked his legacy on Ukraine. He was involved in the 2014 coup, in allegedly shady practices there with his son and then in provoking Russia to invade in 2022. He foolishly believed he would prevail in bringing down Putin with an economic, information and proxy ground war.  [See: Biden Confirms Why the US Needed This War]

All three are now decisively lost as the U.S. — still under Biden — prepares for the end game. Biden’s only face saver is for Ukraine to get back some of its lost territory by trading for it with Russian territory it seized in Kursk this summer. 

November 17, 2024 By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, https://consortiumnews.com/2024/11/17/on-way-out-reckless-biden-allows-deep-russia-strikes/

With his party decisively beat at the polls, the rejected president is gambling with regional security to preserve his ‘legacy’ and to saddle the incoming president, who wants to end the war, with a major new crisis, writes Joe Lauria.

As a parting shot to incoming U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the defeated Joe Biden has defied the Pentagon by risking European and U.S. security with his decision announced Sunday to allow Ukraine to fire U.S. long-range missiles into Russian territory. 

Just two months ago, in September, Biden had bowed to the realists in the Pentagon to oppose allowing long-range British Storm Shadow missiles from being fired by Ukraine deep into Russia out of fear it would lead to a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation with all that that entails.

Putin warned at the time in that British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine launching the British missiles into Russia with U.S. geostrategic support “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.” 

That was a clear warning that British and U.S. targets could be hit. Biden thus wisely backed off. 

It was the second time that Biden had sided with the Pentagon against the neocons in his administration when it came to avoiding direct war with Russia.

The first time was in March 2022 when his neocon Secretary of State Antony Blinken stepped out of line to announce that the U.S. would give NATO-member Poland a “green light” to send Mig-29 fighter jets to Ukraine to enforce a no-fly zone against Russian aircraft.  

Members of Congress and the media then piled the pressure on Biden to approve it until cooler heads at the U.S. Defense Department, the greatest purveyor of violence in history, stepped in to stop it.

Biden ultimately sided with the Pentagon, and he couldn’t be more explicit why. He opposed a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine fighting Russian aircraft, he said, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at the time backed him up, saying:

“President Biden’s been clear that U.S. troops won’t fight Russia in Ukraine, and if you establish a no-fly zone, certainly in order to enforce that no-fly zone, you’ll have to engage Russian aircraft. And again, that would put us at war with Russia.”

But now Biden has reversed himself on his sensible positions and is defying the Pentagon to roll the dice that Russia’s warnings, repeated on Monday by Putin’s spokesman, won’t lead to nuclear conflict. 

While he previously would not even authorize British long-range missile attacks into Russia in September, let alone U.S. ATACMS, on Sunday he authorized the ATACMS, risking Russia taking direct action against U.S. targets.

So what changed Biden’s addled mind? 

An Undemocratic Democratic System  

First, the undemocratic U.S. electoral system gave Biden the opportunity. His party was voted out of office on Nov. 5,  but though the demos rejected Democrats in the White House they get to hang on in power for another 11 weeks, enough time to do considerable mischief to tie up the incoming administration that the people chose. (In a parliamentary system the new prime minister takes office on the next day and names the new cabinet well in advance of the election).

After one-term president George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election, Bush used those 11 weeks to invade Somalia, saddling Clinton with a foreign policy crisis that would bog him down and distract him from his agenda. 

What’s happening now is something similar. Biden wants to undermine Trump’s effort to end the Ukraine war. The incoming vice president has floated the idea of Russia holding on to territory it has won in exchange for peace.

Biden staked his legacy on Ukraine. He was involved in the 2014 coup, in allegedly shady practices there with his son and then in provoking Russia to invade in 2022. He foolishly believed he would prevail in bringing down Putin with an economic, information and proxy ground war.  [See: Biden Confirms Why the US Needed This War]

All three are now decisively lost as the U.S. — still under Biden — prepares for the end game. Biden’s only face saver is for Ukraine to get back some of its lost territory by trading for it with Russian territory it seized in Kursk this summer. 

So he is authorizing U.S. soldiers to operate ATACMS missiles from Ukraine to beat back a 50,000-man Russian force seeking to take back all of that Russian territory. Part of that force, according to the Pentagon spokesman, is a contingent of at least 10,000 North Korean troops invited by Moscow, thus operating legally on pre-war Russian territory. 

Yet the presence of these North Koreans has sent the Biden administration and its allied media into paroxysms of near insanity.  The New York Times reported on Sunday:

“Officials said Mr. Biden was persuaded to make the change in part by the sheer audacity of Russia’s decision to throw North Korean troops at Ukrainian lines. He was also swayed, they said, by concerns that the Russian assault force would be able to overwhelm Ukrainian troops in Kursk if they were not allowed to defend themselves with long-range weapons.”

It is not like Biden doesn’t know the potentially grave consequences he is recklessly unleashing.  He was already warned about the no-fly zone and said “that’s called World War III, okay?” He was then warned by the Pentagon against allowing the British missiles and acted like a responsible statesman.

But now, when it comes to his precious legacy, he doesn’t appear to give a damn about anything else. He was deprived of a second term (by traitors within his own party he no doubt thinks) and he will risk a NATO-Russia war to avoid the taint of utter defeat in Ukraine. 

This is what he’s ignoring, according to the Times:

“Some of Mr. Biden’s advisers had seized on a recent U.S. intelligence assessment that warned that Mr. Putin could respond to the use of long-range ATACMS on Russian soil by directing the Russian military or its spy agencies to retaliate, potentially with lethal force, against the United States and its European allies.

The assessment warned of several possible Russian responses that included stepped-up acts of arson and sabotage targeting facilities in Europe, as well as potentially lethal attacks on U.S. and European military bases.”

Where it goes from there, nobody knows. Thanks, Joe.

November 22, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

  What would Iran do: A race to the bomb or a deal with Trump?

 A proposed censure of Iran for its lack of cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog
raises important questions at a critical time after Donald Trump’s
reelection when Tehran faces regional weakness, economic pressure and
Israel.

The planned censure is likely going through despite Tehran offering
to cap its highly enriched uranium stock. France, Britain, Germany, and the
United States will introduce the resolution at Wednesday’s meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors despite, Iran
International has learned.

Iran and nuclear experts agree on one thing:
Trump’s return to the White House will have an impact on the Islamic
Republic, but whether and how the incoming administration and the Islamic
Republic may engage on the nuclear issue is up for debate.

 Iran International 20th Nov 2024,
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202411203852

November 22, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran has offered to keep uranium below purity levels for a bomb, IAEA confirms

Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, mhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/20/iran-has-offered-to-keep-uranium-below-purity-levels-for-a-bomb-iaea-confirms

UN inspectorate chief calls Tehran’s move a ‘concrete step in the right direction’, amid threat of restored sanctions.

Iran has offered to keep its stock of uranium enriched up to 60% – below the purity levels required to make a nuclear bomb – the head of the UN nuclear inspectorate, Rafael Grossi, has confirmed amid the threat of restored European sanctions over Tehran’s nuclear activities.

“I think this is … a concrete step in the right direction. We have a fact which has been verified by us. It is the first time Iran has agreed to take a different path,” Grossi said in Vienna on Tuesday.

The move negotiated by Grossi with Iranian officials, including the president, Masoud Pezeshkian, on a visit to Tehran last week is designed to head off a move at the IAEA board this week by European diplomats to request a comprehensive report on Iranian compliance that could lead to the snapback of UN sanctions. The agreement covering Iran’s nuclear activities formally expires in September, 10 years after it was negotiated in 2015.

A snapback would involve the reimposition of security council sanctions from earlier resolutions on Iran in the event of “significant non-performance” of Iran’s commitments under the nuclear deal.

“I went last week and I got something, and by moving step by step and getting concrete results the trajectory may be less confrontational,” Grossi said.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has however hinted that the Iranian offer of a cap on enrichment might be withdrawn if the European powers – France, Germany and the UK – insist on commissioning the report. Grossi said he had spoken to Araghchi on Tuesday night but there had been no Iranian threat or warning during the conversation.

Araghchi said in a statement: “If the other parties ignore Iran’s goodwill and interactive approach and put non-constructive measures on the agenda at the meeting of the governing council through the issuance of a resolution, Iran will respond appropriately and proportionately.”

He said the offer to freeze the stockpile was a sign of goodwill, but the European powers are likely to regard the Iranian offer to cap the 60% stockpile as less groundbreaking than either Grossi or the Iranians do. Grossi clearly believes it is a sign of constructive progress after nearly two years of impasse.

He added that four new, experienced nuclear inspectors were being allowed into Iran.

European powers are worried both by Iran’s continued refusal to give IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear sites, and also by the steady increase in its stockpile of nearly weapons-grade uranium. The strikes and counter-strikes between Israel and Iran this year has led to a growing debate inside Iran whether it should drop the fatwa on producing a nuclear weapon, with some Iranian officials claiming they had already mastered most of the techniques necessary to do so. Iran has always claimed that its nuclear work is solely for peaceful civilian purposes.

Israel and the US have both said they will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, but the incoming Trump administration has so far put the emphasis on tightening economic sanctions against Iran rather than a military attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.

In its latest report to the IAEA board, the IAEA said Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium had increased by 17.6kg to 182.3kg (402lbs). Assuming no change, that means Trump would enter office in January with Iran having enough nuclear fuel for four atomic bombs. It would take Iran just a few days to convert the 60% material into weapons-grade material.

November 22, 2024 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Australian government gives firm ‘no’ to joining UK-US agreement to advance nuclear technology

The Conversation, November 19, 2024, Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The Albanese government has been put on the spot by a new agreement – which it has declined to join – signed by the United Kingdom and the United States to speed up the deployment of “cutting edge” nuclear technology.

The original version of the British government’s press release announcing the agreement said Australia, among a number of other countries, was expected to sign it.

But the reference was removed from the statement.

The UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and the US deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk signed the agreement in Baku during COP29…….

A spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is at the COP meeting, said: “Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry.

“We recognise that some countries may choose to use nuclear energy, depending on national circumstances.

“Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy resources makes nuclear power, including nuclear power through small modular reactors, an unviable option for inclusion in our energy mix for decarbonisation efforts.”

Australia would remain as observers to the agreement to continue to support its scientists in other nuclear research fields, the spokesperson said………

In parliament, acting Prime Minister Richard Marles said for Australia to pursue a path of nuclear energy would add $1200 to the bills of each household in this country.

………………………Update: UK government seeks to clear things up

Later The Guardian reportred: “The UK government has conceded it made a mistake in including Australia in a list of countries that has signed up to a US-UK civil nuclear deal”. https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-gives-firm-no-to-joining-uk-us-agreement-to-advance-nuclear-technology-244041

November 22, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

High-Precision, Long-Range NATO Missiles Against Russia: Why Now?

Joe Quinn, Sott.net, Wed, 20 Nov 2024,  https://www.sott.net/article/496207-High-Precision-Long-Range-NATO-Missiles-Against-Russia-Why-Now

Russia announced a change to its nuclear doctrine several months ago, where it can now respond with nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear attack on Russia by an enemy, either directly from enemy territory or from the territory of a third party. A notable caveat however is that such a response would only occur in the event that the attack “threatened the very existence of the Russian state”.

The changes were officially signed into law yesterday with the wording relevant to the conflict in Ukraine being “where the aggression creates a critical threat for the sovereignty and/or territorial integrity [of Belarus or the Russian Federation].

In this context, the Russians have also said that the use of nuclear weapons would also be permissible if an enemy attacked Russian forces in the context of the SMO in a way that definitively threatened the achievement of the objectives of the SMO.

In Sept. Putin said that NATO’s plan to allow Ukraine to use longer range Western precision weapons against Russian targets inside Russia would be evidence of direct NATO involvement in a war against Russia. And that Russia would respond appropriately.

Three days ago, “Biden” approved the use of longer range Western precision weapons against Russian targets inside Russia.

Two days ago, Ukraine fired 5 US-made longer range Western precision weapons (supersonic ATACMS ballistic missiles) at a military base 130kms into Southern Russia. According to the Russians, all 5 missiles were shot down, with one falling on the periphery of the missile base, starting a fire but doing no material or personnel damage.
While many have interpreted this attack as fulfilling the requirements for a Russian nuclear response, that is obviously not the case, for four reasons:

1) The attack did not, in any way, threaten the very existence of the Russian state

2) The attack did not, in any way, threaten the achievement of the objectives of the SMO.

3) The Biden admin has less than 2 months left in power.

4) Trump and his incoming team have made no secret of their intention to negotiate a near-future settlement to end the war in Ukraine.

What then, at this late stage, was the point in the ‘Biden’ admin authorizing the use of long range precision weapons against Russia and why do EU leaders continue to make repeated reference to EU citizens needing to prepare for a potential “war with Russia” and sending EU/NATO military forces to Ukraine, if there’s a reasonable chance of a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the Trump admin?

The problem is how any ‘settlement’ would play out.

First (see map) Russia will not settle for anything less than the four regions it has already incorporated into its territory (including the “demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine”). In addition, a demilitarized buffer zone (of some distance) would be necessary extending out from these regions and away from the Russian and Belarusian borders to the North.

NATO and EU nations would, undoubtedly, insist on militarily occupying (“peacekeepers”) the rest of Ukraine beyond these zones, but such a presence would create an uneasy, and potentially dangerous, peace for some time to come. Hence the talk of sending their military forces to Ukraine and possible/eventual ‘war with Russia’.

Of note in this respect is yesterday’s announcement that the ‘Biden’ admin will begin sending anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine to “blunt the advancement of Russian troops”. Interestingly, the mines are said to be “nonpersistent” design, meaning they become inactive within weeks of deployment. Why now? Russian troops have been advancing, in one form or another, for most of the war. Why would NATO/Ukraine want to deploy anti-personnel mines that last for only a few weeks?

Much like the use of precision long-range weapons, the use of “non-persistent” anti-personnel mines now is more likely to be part of a strategy for a negotiation settlement, than to effect any significant change on the current battlefield.

The point of authorizing (and using) both NATO long range precision weapons against Russia and anti-personnel mines now is in preparation for expected negotiations after Jan 6th.

By using these weapons and calling Russia’s ‘nuclear bluff’, (while also being careful not to push too far) NATO expects that Russia will be forced to accept them as a de facto (rather than theoretical) part of Ukraine/NATO’s arsenal against Russia, and thereby provide NATO with a more favorable basis for negotiations.

November 21, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Biden Ramps Up Nuclear Brinkmanship On His Way Out The Door


Caitlin Johnstone, Nov 18, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/biden-ramps-up-nuclear-brinkmanship?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=151801494&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The New York Times reports that the Biden administration has authorized Ukraine to use US-supplied long-range missiles to strike Russian and North Korean military targets inside Russia — yet another dangerous escalation of nuclear brinkmanship in this horrific proxy war.

The Times correctly notes that authorizing Ukraine to use ATACMS, which have a range of about 190 miles, has long been a contentious issue in the Biden administration for fear of provoking military retaliations against the US from Russia. This reckless escalation has been authorized despite an acknowledgement from the anonymous US officials who spoke to The New York Times that they “do not expect the shift to fundamentally alter the course of the war.”

As Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp notes, Vladimir Putin said back in September that if NATO allows Ukraine to use western-supplied weapons for long-range strikes inside Russian territory, it would mean NATO countries “are at war with Russia.” This is about as unambiguous a threat as you’ll ever see.

NYT reports that Biden’s policy shift “comes two months before President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office, having vowed to limit further support for Ukraine.” And it is here worth noting that last week it was reported by The Telegraph that British PM Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had been scheming to thwart any attempt by Trump to scale back US support for Ukraine by pushing Biden to authorize long-range missile strikes in Russian territory.

But it is also true that the day before the US election Mike Waltz, Trump’s next national security advisor, had himself endorsed the idea of authorizing long-range missile strikes into Russia with the goal of pressuring Moscow to end the war. His plan for disentangling the US from the conflict entails ramping up sanctions on Russia and “taking the handcuffs off the long-range weapons we provide Ukraine” in order to pressure Putin into eagerly accepting a peace deal.

So while this is being framed as an administration that’s more hawkish on Russia executing a maneuver that’s designed to hamstring the peacemongering of an incoming administration that’s less favorable to assisting Ukraine, in reality it may just be goal-assisting the next administration in a policy change it had planned on implementing anyway.

Either way, it’s insane. Putin ordered changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine in September in order to ward off these sorts of escalations by lowering the threshold at which nuclear weapons could be used to defend the Russian Federation, and they’re just barreling right past that bright red line like they barreled over the red lines which led to the invasion of Ukraine. And the fact that they’re adding yet another nuclear-armed state into the mix with North Korea is just more gravy for the nuclear brinkmanship pot roast.

At one point in 2022, US intelligence agencies reportedly assessed that the odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine was as high as fifty percent, but the Biden administration kept pushing forward with this proxy war anyway. These freaks are taking insane risks to advance agendas that stand to yield the slimmest of benefits even by their own assessments.

We are living in dark and dangerous times.

November 19, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »