Iran to Israel: Ceasefire in Gaza war, or retaliation for Haniyh murder will proceed
SOTT, Parisa Hafezi and Laila Bassam, Reuters, Tue, 13 Aug 2024
Only a ceasefire deal in Gaza stemming from hoped-for talks this week would hold Iran back from direct retaliation against Israel for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on its soil, three senior Iranian officials said.
Iran has vowed a severe response to Haniyeh’s killing, which took place as he visited Tehran late last month and which it blamed on Israel. Israel has neither confirmed or denied its involvement. The U.S. Navy has deployed warships and a submarine to the Middle East to bolster Israeli defenses.
One of the sources, a senior Iranian security official, said Iran, along with allies such as Hezbollah, would launch a direct attack if the Gaza talks fail or it perceives Israel is dragging out negotiations. The sources did not say how long Iran would allow for talks to progress before responding.
With an increased risk of a broader Middle East war after the killings of Haniyeh and Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, Iran has been involved in intense dialogue with Western countries and the United States in recent days on ways to calibrate retaliation, said the sources, who all spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
In comments published on Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey confirmed Washington was asking allies to help convince Iran to de-escalate tensions. Three regional government sources described conversations with Tehran to avoid escalation ahead of the Gaza ceasefire talks, due to begin on Thursday in either Egypt or Qatar.
“We hope our response will be timed and executed in a way that does not harm a potential ceasefire,” Iran’s mission to the U.N. said on Friday in a statement. Iran’s foreign ministry on Tuesday said calls to exercise restraint “contradict principles of international law.”
Iran’s foreign ministry and its Revolutionary Guards Corps did not immediately respond to questions for this story. The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office and the U.S. State Department did not respond to questions.
“Something could happen as soon as this week by Iran and its proxies… That is a U.S. assessment as well as an Israel assessment,” White House spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Monday.
“If something does happen this week, the timing of it could certainly well have an impact on these talks we want to do on Thursday,” he added.
At the weekend, Hamas cast doubt on whether talks would go ahead. Israel and Hamas have held several rounds of talks in recent months without agreeing a final ceasefire.
In Israel, many observers believe a response is imminent after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran would “harshly punish” Israel for the strike in Tehran……………………………………….. more https://www.sott.net/article/493939-Iran-to-Israel-Ceasefire-in-Gaza-war-or-retaliation-for-Haniyh-murder-will-proceed
AUKUS revamped: Australia to indemnify US and UK against ‘any liability’ from nuclear risks

Documents tabled in parliament on Monday have also revealed the United States or United Kingdom could walk away from the AUKUS deal with Australia with a year’s notice.
SBS News, 12 August 2024
Key Points
- The US, UK and Australia signed a new AUKUS agreement in Washington last week.
- Documents tabled in parliament on Monday revealed several key elements of the revamped agreement.
- Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any ‘liability’ arising from nuclear risks related to the program.
The United States or the United Kingdom could exit the AUKUS agreement to provide nuclear-powered submarines with Australia with a year’s notice under a new arrangement.
The revamped agreement also requires Australia to legally protect both allies against costs or injuries arising from nuclear risks.
The arrangement was signed by all three partner countries in Washington in the US last week.
Advertisement
Documents tabled in parliament on Monday set out the agreed legal framework for transferring nuclear materials and equipment to Australia for the $368 billion acquisition of atomic-powered submarines announced in 2021.
The plan will bring eight nuclear-powered subs into service by the 2050s.
US and UK could walk away with a year’s notice
The agreement, which “shall remain in force until 31 December 2075”, says the AUKUS deal shouldn’t adversely affect the ability of the US and UK to “meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.
“Any party may terminate the agreement … by giving at least one year’s written notice to the other parties,” it reads.
Australia responsible for storage and disposal of waste
Nuclear material for the future submarines’ propulsion would be transferred from the US or UK in “complete, welded power units”, the agreement says.
But Australia would be responsible for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from the nuclear power units that are transferred under the deal.
Australia to cover other members for nuclear risks
The updated agreement also means Australia will indemnify the US and UK from any “liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims)” arising from nuclear risks related to the program.
But the legal protection won’t apply in relation to a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine that has been in service with the US Navy “until such time as it is transferred to Australia”…………………..
Greens attack revamped agreement
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge criticised the new agreement for its “multiple escape hatches” which risked Australia being left high and dry.
“This is a $368 billion gamble with taxpayers’ money from the Albanese government,” he said…………………..more https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/aukus-revamped-australia-to-indemnify-us-and-uk-against-any-liability-from-nuclear-risks/rudp9zf10
Israel Runs the U.S. No, the U.S. Runs Israel. No, Wait …

The occasion of Netanyahu’s address, his fourth before a joint session, puts all the complexities before us. Who was, in that hour, in charge — the insane man from the periphery, driven by rage, or his audience of adoring lawmakers at the imperial center, driven by… driven by what? I would say driven by greed, ideology and the work of running an imperium that is failing but has not failed yet. Who controlled whom that day? .
This is power.
Joe Biden, in this same line, accepted more money from the Israeli lobby than anyone else on Capitol Hill during his decades in the Senate — $4.2 million according to Open Secrets, and I understand this is a very low estimate if we count Biden’s post–Senate political career. Code Pink, in a signature-gathering campaign, says Harris has received $5.4 million from the Israel lobby, although it does not indicate at what stage in her career she accepted this extraordinary sum.
August 10, 2024 By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost
That deranged speech Bibi Netanyahu delivered to a joint session of Congress last month: I cannot get it entirely out of my mind. It did not change anything — neither the Israeli prime minister nor his hosts seem to desire or intend to change anything in U.S.–Israeli relations. And in this way, there is not much to say about that weird hour the world’s No. 1 terrorist — yes, think about it and tell me I’m wrong — spent at the podium under the Capitol’s rotunda. But the speech did clarify certain things, and then it raised an important question. Let us see about these matters.
There is, to begin with, the question of Netanyahu’s mental stability. If we consider his many outlandish assertions — Israel has minimized civilian casualties in Gaza, Israeli soldiers are to be commended for their moral conduct, those protesting in behalf of Palestinians are probably in Iran’s pay, and so on — we must conclude that the man given to such preposterous misrepresentations is, let’s say, perpendicular to reality.
I am sure Netanyahu spoke in large measure for effect. This must be so. But I am equally sure — note the demeanor in the videos, for instance — he was certain of the truth of what he had to say. Dr. Lawrence’s diagnosis: A man consumed with resentment and hatred, who has led Israel to the brink of a cataclysmic war at the irretrievable cost of its international standing, while dragging the U.S. into it (at similar cost), suffers from severe psychosis with symptoms of paranoia and obsessive-compulsive megalomania.
I do not say this to indulge some cheap denigration of one of the many contemptible political figures now walking around the Western world and its appendages. After Netanyahu’s notably strange performance in Congress July 24 — at times he seemed pure id — I say this diagnosis would hold in a clinical setting. We should all take note of this and brace ourselves accordingly. Never mind who’s driving the bus: It would be better in this case if no one were driving it.
There is also the reception Netanyahu enjoyed on Capitol Hill. Seventy-two ovations by my count, 60–odd of them standing, for a war criminal, a flouter of international law, a man who commits to waging “a seven-front war” across the Middle East?
Bibi’s big theme, running all through his remarks, was congruence, the perfect alignment of Israeli and American interests. Remember? “Our enemies are your enemies, our fight is your fight, and”—here the left fist pounded—“our victory is your victory.”
The response among those in attendance tells you all you need to know about what America’s lawmakers think of this idea. Netanyahu was looking merely for reaffirmation of standing arrangements at a moment when when terrorist Israel’s conduct had begun to turn more stomachs than he had bargained for. And he got what he wanted, needless to say.
This brings us to the question Netanyahu’s speech forces upon us. Does the U.S. control Israel or does Israel control the U.S.? Is the apartheid state another of Washington’s client regimes, albeit — let’s borrow a little from the Chinese — a client with Zionist characteristics? Or is Israel a case — rare, if not unique — of a distant outpost that dictates to the imperial center? The periphery exercises power over the metropole, this to say: This would have to be something new under the sun, surely.
This is not a new question. A lot of people have pondered it for months, if not longer —
The occasion of Netanyahu’s address, his fourth before a joint session, puts all the complexities before us. Who was, in that hour, in charge — the insane man from the periphery, driven by rage, or his audience of adoring lawmakers at the imperial center, driven by… driven by what? I would say driven by greed, ideology and the work of running an imperium that is failing but has not failed yet. Who controlled whom that day? ………………………………………………………………………
This is power.
Joe Biden, in this same line, accepted more money from the Israeli lobby than anyone else on Capitol Hill during his decades in the Senate — $4.2 million according to Open Secrets, and I understand this is a very low estimate if we count Biden’s post–Senate political career. Code Pink, in a signature-gathering campaign, says Harris has received $5.4 million from the Israel lobby, although it does not indicate at what stage in her career she accepted this extraordinary sum.
Harris is now wowing all the dreamy liberals in our midst with gestures here and there intended to suggest that she will be tougher on the Israelis than Joe-the-Zionist and more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Follow the bouncing ball, please, as those honorable Arab–Americans up in Michigan follow it: Harris makes it quite clear, on those occasions she fails to avoid the topic, that she has no intention of making any meaningful adjustment in U.S. policy toward the terrorist state. Let the murdering go on, as long as the Israelis want it to continue.
This, as I say, is power—perversely acquired and perversely exercised………………………………………..
What is at issue in all this is the question of responsibility. Israel exercises considerable power over the U.S. — yes, we all know this — but this is by dint of a corrupt abdication on America’s part. We must not miss this. Washington’s whorish elites have sold U.S. policy to the Israelis, and Congress has sold itself similarly………………………………..
……………………………………..America could sink Netanyahu’s boat any time it chooses to do so. Don’t let the moment fool you: Bibi, as history will show, is at bottom merely a passing punk.
This, to finish the thought, is the power that matters most — imperial power.
Here’s the important thing about the distinction I draw. The ephemeral power Israel asserts in the U.S., accumulated over the eight postwar decades, reaches an historic impasse. It is waning, in a word.
In his final days as a public figure, Joe Biden will continue to carry on about the Zionist state as he has the whole of his political career. “Without Israel, no Jew in the world is safe,” he declared the other day, and hardly for the first time. Kamala Harris is not saying anything about Israel and the Gaza crisis in part because she has little to say about anything, but mostly because, when circumstances require her to break this silence — “weird” indeed, this — it will not be good news for those anticipating even a millimeter’s worth of change.
………………………………………………………………….there was an interesting item at the end of last month on WMAC Radio, the NPR station broadcasting in Upstate New York and western New England. Kamala Harris was just then raising hundreds of millions of dollars, cashing in on the irrational exuberance by then evident among Democrats. At a typically boisterous campaign stop in Pittsfield, Mass., she also faced protesters carrying placards that read, among other things, “End the Genocide” and “All This Money Will Not Wash the Blood Off Your Hands, Kamala.”
What are we looking at here? Pittsfield is a small postindustrial city struggling back to life after General Electric abandoned it decades ago. But this is just the point: Anger about “the Biden–Harris administration” for its participation in Israel’s genocide seems to run right down to this nation’s broken sidewalks. Harris has since gotten the same treatment at a big campaign rally in Philadelphia, and again the other day in Detroit, where she high-handedly dismissed protesters with “I am speaking.” You come away with the impression Americans are simmering — virtually everyone I know is simmering, now that I think about it — and the major media, complicit with the Harris bandwagon, are doing their part to keep this out of sight. Let us not forget: American campuses are quiet after the honorable demonstrations this past spring, but classes resume in a month.
You can bribe some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t bribe all of the people all of the time. I think I have my Lincoln right. And I think the Israelis, who, I imagine, don’t bother much with Abe, are on the way to learning that the power they have long exerted over U.S. politics and policy will eventually, in however long, prove ephemeral. https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/10/patrick-lawrence-israel-runs-the-u-s-no-the-u-s-runs-israel-no-wait/
Genocide in Gaza still not on Kamala Harris’ moral radar

‘Don’t’ mention US enabling genocide…we’ve got an election to win.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 11 Aug 24
Three weeks in, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris continues support for Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza.
Over 40,000 dead with thousands more buried under the rubble from tens of thousands of US bombs in Gaza has made no dent on Kamala Harris’s conscience. Nor has a death toll predicted by the UK Medical Journal Lancet that upwards of 185,000 will soon be dead from disease, starvation to go along with endless US weapons of civilian destruction in the most grisly genocidal ethnic cleansing this century.
Of course, Harris has more sense than to cheer on the Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Her campaign frames her support this way: “Harris has been clear: she will always work to ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups”. She claims to be troubled by the suffering caused by endless US bombs there, but refuses to support an embargo on genocide weapons.
Hubby Doug Imhoff chimed in “Let me just make this clear: the vice president has been and will be a strong supporter of Israel as a secure democratic and Jewish state, and she will always ensure that Israel can defend itself, period. Because that’s who Kamala Harris is.” If Imhoff were honest and decent, he’s could do so by simply replacing “democratic” and “Jewish” with “Apartheid” and “genocidal.”
When anti-genocide protesters confronted her Harris about her genocide support during a campaign speech in Detroit, Harris shot back “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.” That has become the go-to Democratic response to pushback against Democratic support for Israeli genocide in Gaza: ‘Don’t’ mention US enabling genocide…we’ve got an election to win.
Three weeks into her campaign to become the first woman US president, Kamala Harris’ moral compass is frozen in support of Israeli genocide in Gaza. She should ponder this eternal truth. What does it profit a person to gain the world, when she must sell her soul to achieve it?
Teresa Ribera faces nuclear hurdle to running EU green policy

A French government minister even conceded to POLITICO that his country — the EU’s most high-profile and vocal nuclear advocate — “is trying to ensure that energy does not go to someone anti-nuclear.”
Nuclear-friendly lawmakers and countries like France don’t want the EU’s potential next green chief to thwart an atomic revival.
August 9, 2024 , Politico, By Victor Jack
BRUSSELS — On paper, the European Union’s leading candidate to guide green policy for the next five years has it all: decades of experience, endless high-profile contacts and a shining reputation.
There’s just one problem: Teresa Ribera is a hardened nuclear skeptic.
The former U.N. climate negotiator, who until recently served as Spain’s deputy prime minister, shepherded the closure of her country’s atomic reactors, railed against the cost of nuclear power and called the EU’s decision to label it a sustainable investment a “big mistake.”
That’s prompting worries among pro-atomic European Parliament members and EU countries that Spain’s top climate official could scupper plans to expand the buildout of nuclear power across the bloc just as the industry is riding a fresh wave of political momentum. France, where a hegemonic nuclear industry provides roughly 70 percent of the country’s electricity, is likeliest to cause a stir.
Those anxieties will likely play out on the public stage this fall, when Ribera is expected to face Parliament at her EU commissioner confirmation hearing. She’ll inevitably get pointed questions about whether she’d constrain a nuclear resurgence. And her answers could make or break her candidacy, as nuclear support unites politicians from numerous political families.
“In every political group, there are those that won’t vote for someone who’d be a vocal opponent of the nuclear cause,” said pro-nuclear French MEP Christophe Grudler, a member of the centrist Renew Europe group who could eventually be one of the lawmakers deciding Ribera’s fate.
“A Commissioner … is here to implement the Commission’s program — there’s no place for personal feelings,” he added. “She’ll have to just get on board … and I can assure you we’ll make sure she gets on board.”
A French government minister even conceded to POLITICO that his country — the EU’s most high-profile and vocal nuclear advocate — “is trying to ensure that energy does not go to someone anti-nuclear.”
Nuclear fallout
The race to become the EU’s next energy chief comes amid a new wave of excitement around nuclear, and at a critical moment for an industry that argues it’s long been forgotten in Brussels.
That moment came in 2022, when Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine sent the EU searching for new energy sources. Many have since settled on nuclear power as a useful option.
……………………………………………………………………….. Whoever takes over as the EU’s next energy commissioner will have the power to shape Brussels’ nuclear agenda. That ranges from lobbying the EU to open its piggy bank for atomic energy, to drafting strategies that give potent political signals to investors.
Ribera would also become the driving force behind a suggested “Nuclear Act,” aimed at boosting nuclear reactors if the Commission does go ahead with the idea.
“We’re a bit concerned,” said one EU diplomat from a nuclear-supporting country, who like others for this story was granted anonymity to speak freely.
“We cannot have decarbonization without nuclear,” said a second EU diplomat, arguing that Ribera could be “challenging” for the nuclear sector.
For atomic industry figures, the next five years are an opportunity for the EU to put their sector on equal footing with renewable energy like wind and solar in Brussels’ green legislation, according to Yves Desbazeille, secretary general of the nucleareurope lobby group. ……………………..
Brussels battle
The fight would likely come to a head this fall, when Ribera would face an MEP grilling to secure her job.
Depending on Ribera’s specific portfolio, she could end up before the Parliament’s powerful industry and energy committee or its environment committee — or both.
If committee leaders disagree over whether Ribera is well-suited for the job, it could go to a committee vote. Occasionally, lawmakers do reject commissioner candidates, disqualifying them from the role.
There’s no guarantee, of course, that Ribera will be given a broad green policy portfolio for the next five years.
While Ribera has repeatedly expressed interest in the role, the final call rests with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen. The EU chief has yet to say how she will divide up the myriad green policy issues — everything from cutting carbon emissions to keeping Europe’s manufacturers competitive.
So Ribera could get a climate-specific role, for instance, while someone else is handed energy policy.
Even if Ribera does get an overarching green job, she’ll have to balance her personal views against Brussels’ company line, which has been increasingly nuclear-friendly. It’s a balance former Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans was able to strike, even if he was seen by some pro-atomic countries as overly skeptical of nuclear power.
Von der Leyen, for her part, recently said she wants the Green Deal to proceed with “technology neutrality” — a euphemism for giving similar focus to nuclear and renewables in lawmaking.
Nuclear proponents aren’t banking on those caveats.
“I’m not seeing this potential nomination as positive for us, to be honest,” when it comes to Ribera, said Desbazeille, the nuclear lobbyist. https://www.politico.eu/article/teresa-ribera-nuclear-hurdle-run-eu-green-policy/
US Policy: Let Israel Escalate Against Iran, Then Tell Iran Not To Escalate Back
When Iran does whatever it’s about to do, we may be certain that the western empire and its propagandists in the mass media are going to frame it as an unprovoked and outrageous act of aggression and start babbling about “defending” Israel against its “attackers”.
Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 09, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/us-policy-let-israel-escalate-against?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=147506650&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In an article titled “U.S. Warns Iran of ‘Serious Risk’ if It Conducts Major Attack on Israel,” The Wall Street Journal reports that officials within the Biden administration have been warning Iran not to “escalate” against Israel in its planned retaliatory strikes for the assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran.
“The United States has sent clear messaging to Iran that the risk of a major escalation if they do a significant retaliatory attack against Israel is extremely high,” an anonymous US official told The Wall Street Journal, adding that “there is a serious risk of consequences for Iran’s economy and the stability of its newly elected government if it goes down that path.”
As we sit awaiting Iran’s planned reprisal attack and hope dearly that it doesn’t lead to a major new war in west Asia, one can’t help but read such reports and think it sure would’ve been nice of the Americans to issue these kinds of warnings to Israel against escalating before it went on its insanely escalatory assassination spree in the capital cities of Iran and Lebanon.
You’ll never see western officials so enthusiastic about the idea of de-escalation as they are in those time periods when their side has just severely escalated tensions with an extreme act of aggression, but the other side has yet to retaliate. They remind you of a parent who lets their kid run around clobbering other children at the playground, then when another child goes to hit them back they rush in and start yelling about the need to play nice.
They’ve been doing this song and dance for the last few days, ever since it became clear that Iran was going to retaliate for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was a guest on their territory.
“Earlier, Vice President Harris and I were briefed in the Situation Room on developments in the Middle East,” President Biden’s Twitter account posted on Monday. “We received updates on threats posed by Iran and its proxies, diplomatic efforts to de-escalate regional tensions, and preparations to support Israel should it be attacked again. We also discussed the steps we are taking to defend our forces and respond to any attack against our personnel in a manner and place of our choosing.”
“Further attacks only raise the risk of dangerous outcomes that no one can predict and no one can fully control,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken proclaimed on Tuesday.
“Further escalation in the Middle East is in no one’s interests,” tweeted UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Tuesday. “I spoke to Iran’s acting Foreign Minister, Ali Bagheri Kani, and cautioned that any Iranian attack would have devastating consequences for the region. Iran and all parties must urgently and immediately de-escalate.”
Israel’s powerful western backers are happy to let it run rampant throughout the region without making any meaningful warnings against its criminal actions or imposing any consequences on it whatsoever. But as soon as it becomes clear that Israel has crossed a red line and is about to get hit, these western empire managers turn into a bunch of hippies who just want peace and love.
When Iran does whatever it’s about to do, we may be certain that the western empire and its propagandists in the mass media are going to frame it as an unprovoked and outrageous act of aggression and start babbling about “defending” Israel against its “attackers”. Imperial history always begins right after Israel’s aggressions, and starts the clock as the retaliations for them emerge.
That’s how the imperial spin machine operates: reversing victim and victimizer, aggressor and defender, claiming to always be acting in self-defense while existing in a continuous state of attack. When the inevitable blowback from these aggressions turns up, they stare with Bambi-eyed innocence and call it an unprovoked attack launched by deranged madmen with hatred in their hearts, and use it to justify even more mass military slaughter in the parts of the world where they already wanted to inflict it.
Are you not tired of having your intelligence insulted like this? I know I am.
Australia makes undisclosed ‘political commitments’ in new AUKUS deal on transfer of naval nuclear technology

ABC News, By defence correspondent Andrew Greene, 8 Aug 2024
In short:
AUKUS partners have struck a revamped agreement to allow the transfer of US and UK naval nuclear material to Australia.
Critics of the trilateral submarine project warn the new document could eventually see high-level radioactive waste stored locally.
What’s next?
The agreement between the US, UK and Australia will need to be ratified by each AUKUS partner before coming into effect.
Undisclosed “political commitments” have been made between the Albanese government and its AUKUS partners in a new agreement for the transfer of naval nuclear technology to Australia, which critics warn is likely to also allow radioactive waste to be dumped here.
The White House confirmed Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States had reached another significant “AUKUS milestone” that set up further trilateral cooperation that would be essential for this country to build, operate and maintain nuclear-powered submarines.
Under the AUKUS “optimal pathway” unveiled in San Diego last year, Australia will spend up to $368 billion over the next three decades to first purchase second-hand Virginia-class submarines and then develop a new SSN-AUKUS fleet using British technology.
In a letter to speaker the US House of Representatives speaker and the US Senate president, President Joe Biden urged Congress to give the revamped AUKUS agreement “favourable consideration”
Mr Biden’s letter explains that the new agreement would permit the continued communication and exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (NNPI), including certain Restricted Data (RD), only previously shared between the US and UK…………………………………………………………………..
Concerns over radioactive waste ‘loophole’
AUKUS critics, including the Greens party, warn that the new agreement is likely to eventually allow high-level radioactive waste to be stored in Australia and for uranium enrichment to be undertaken locally, but the government insists that is not the case.
“A political assurance is there — a legal assurance, a legislative assurance, an institutional assurance is not. That gate needs to be closed, that loophole needs to be closed,” warns Dave Sweeney, a nuclear free campaigner from the Australian Conservation Foundation.
“And that’s one of many concerns and many options for interpretation of how AUKUS is operationalised that can add greater pressure, nuclear threat in our ports, in our harbours and waters and on land around the management of radioactive waste.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-08/australia-makes-political-commitments-in-new-aukus-deal/104200814
US, UK boycott Japan nuclear bomb memorial after Israel snubbed

The Mayor of Nagasaki said that there was a possibility of protests against the Israeli presence over it’s war on Gaza.
The New Arab Staff & Agencies, 07 August, 2024
Ambassadors from Western countries – including the US and UK – will skip a ceremony marking the 79th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki after Israel was snubbed, officials said Wednesday.
Nagasaki’s mayor said last week that Israel’s ambassador Gilad Cohen was not invited to Friday’s event in the southern Japanese city because of the risk of possible protests over the Gaza conflict.
The US and UK embassies said on Wednesday their ambassadors would not take part as a result and that their countries would be represented by lower-ranking diplomats.
Media reports said Australia, Italy, Canada, and the EU, who together with the US, UK, and Germany signed a strongly worded joint letter to Nagasaki’s mayor last month, would follow suit.
US ambassador Rahm Emanuel will not attend “after the mayor of Nagasaki politicised the event by not inviting the Israeli ambassador”, an embassy spokesperson told AFP.
nstead, Emanuel, 64, who was ex-president Barack Obama’s chief of staff, will go to a separate event at a temple in Tokyo, the spokesperson said.
Emanuel is fiercely pro-Israel, with his father being a former member of the Irgun, a Jewish paramilitary group that targeted British soldiers and Palestinian civilians in mandatory Palestine.
The British embassy said Ambassador Julia Longbottom would also not be in Nagasaki, adding that not inviting Israel “creates an unfortunate and misleading equivalency with Russia and Belarus – the only other countries not invited to this year’s ceremony”.
A spokesperson for the French embassy said its number two would attend, telling AFP that the “decision not to invite the representative of Israel is regrettable and questionable”.
The European Union’s ambassador would not take part “due to his agenda” and the bloc would be represented by a lower-level diplomat, a spokesperson told AFP.
The German embassy told AFP that the head of its political division would attend, with the decision made “in light of the absences and availability” of senior embassy staff………………………………………………………………………………….https://www.newarab.com/news/us-uk-boycott-japan-nuclear-bomb-memorial-after-israel-snubbed
EU member warns West not to ‘burn bridges’ with Russia

“Ghosting” doesn’t work in international relations, Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg has said
30 Jul 2024 https://www.rt.com/news/601844-austria-west-burn-bridges-russia/
Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg has warned against “ghosting” Russia when it comes to peace efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict, insisting that all channels of communication should be used.
The diplomat’s comments come after condemnation from EU officials over Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s visit to Russia earlier this month as part of his Ukraine “peace mission.”
“One cannot burn all bridges… Ghosting doesn’t work in foreign policy. I’m a realist and I have to deal with the world as it is, and Russia is part of it,” Schallenberg told Austrian broadcaster ORF on Sunday.
Last month, Switzerland hosted a ‘Peace in Ukraine’ summit to which Russia was not invited. The event focused on Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s ‘peace plan’ to end the conflict, which calls on Russia to withdraw from all territories that Kiev claims as its own. The plan has been dismissed by Moscow as being detached from reality.
Schallenberg added that there are “channels of communication” with Russia and insisted that they must be used.
Austria is an EU member but is not part of NATO. Like Hungary, Vienna announced last year that it would not send weapons to Ukraine, countering the trend among the EU. Schallenberg last week also ruled out sending Austrian military instructors to Ukraine.
In March, Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer spoke against the idea of using the profits from Russian assets frozen in the EU to provide weapons for Kiev.
In his interview on Sunday, Schallenberg also claimed Russia was not showing willingness to engage in “serious dialogue,” which he said makes it important to involve countries such as India, Brazil, and China in talks, “because they may have more influence on Moscow than others.”
During his controversial peace mission, Orban also visited China, which has long insisted on a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine conflict. Beijing did not send a delegation to the conference in Switzerland in June, despite being invited.
Russia has repeatedly stated that it is open to dialogue on Ukraine. It has pointed out, however, that any talk of negotiations is pointless unless Zelensky rescinds a law banning Kiev from negotiating with the current leadership in Moscow.
South Korean nuclear weapons would break U.S. ties, Japan’s defense chief says
Japan Times, By Hyonhee Shin and Josh Smith
Reuters Aug 8, 2024, SEOUL –
South Korea could rupture its U.S. alliance and shock financial markets if it started building nuclear weapons, Defense Minister Shin Won-sik said, dismissing renewed domestic calls for the country’s own arsenal to deter North Korea.
As the neighboring North rapidly expands nuclear and missile capabilities, more South Korean officials and members of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s conservative ruling party have called in recent months for developing nuclear weapons.
The prospect of another term for former U.S. President Donald Trump, who complained about the cost of the U.S. military presence in South Korea and launched unprecedented talks with the North, has further fueled the debate………………..subscribers only https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/08/08/asia-pacific/politics/south-korean-nuclear-weapons-us/
Hiroshima inviting Israel to attend nuclear bombing anniversary ‘very unfortunate,’ says scholar
Hope Nagasaki’s refusal to invite Israel to its peace event to mark US bombing of Japan ‘makes some kind of impact on the world,’ Richard Falk tells Anadolu
Riyaz ul Khaliq |05.08.2024, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/hiroshima-inviting-israel-to-attend-nuclear-bombing-anniversary-very-unfortunate-says-scholar/3296156
An invitation for Israel to attend an annual peace event in Hiroshima to mark the US nuclear bombing of the Japanese city was “very unfortunate,” a leading legal scholar told Anadolu.
“It is very unfortunate that Hiroshima does not grasp the fact it was victimized in a way Palestinian people have been victimized by Israel,” said Richard Falk, an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University.
Falk’s comments to Anadolu come as the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be commemorating 79th anniversary of 1945 atomic bombing by the US this week.
While Nagasaki has refused to invite Tel Aviv, Hiroshima will be hosting Israeli officials on Tuesday.
Nagasaki will be holding a similar event on Friday.
The US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima, the site of the world’s first atomic bombing, on Aug. 6, 1945, and then Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 140,000 people by the end of that year.
“And what Nagasaki is doing by not inviting Israel to its observance of the bombing in World War II is to make a statement that it does not want to be identified with a government that behaves that way,” Falk said, referring to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including its ongoing brutal offensive on the Gaza Strip.
“That is a very important lesson for the world and is a very interesting way of highlighting two ways of relating to Israel” amid the war on Gaza, said Falk, who in past served as UN special rapporteur on occupied Palestinian territory. “I hope it makes some kind of impact on the world.”
Japan has refused to invite Russia and Belarus to similar events as Moscow has been waging war on Ukraine since February 2022.
Hiroshima’s local administration has invited Tel Aviv despite accusations of double standards and activists pressing authorities to backtrack on the move.
Local authorities in Hiroshima have called for an “immediate cease-fire in the Palestinian territory.”
Several demonstrations have been held against Israel’s participation in the program on Tuesday.
Israeli war on Gaza ‘changed discourse in Japan’
Saul Takahashi, professor of human rights and peace studies at Osaka Jogakuin University, told Anadolu that there has been “lot of protests and lots of discussions” in Japan about Hiroshima’s decision to invite Israel.
This event is where all the countries in the world come together and pray for peace.
So “how can it be that a country that has been found by International Court of Justice to plausibly be committing genocide … how can it be we invite them (Israel). This is outrageous,” Takahashi told Anadolu.
He said the genocide in Gaza has “changed discourse in Japan for sure.”
“People are much more mindful, they are much more paying attention to the Palestine question … in particular young people and that is big, really big,” said the academic.
Recalling his pre-Oct. 7 lectures on Palestine, which were mostly attended by older individuals, Takahashi said: “I was concerned about the future of the movement (regarding Palestine in Japan).”
“But it is completely different. You have young people in the streets, every week and not just in Tokyo but also in smaller cities and that is very big.”
Last week, both Iran and Hamas accused Israel of assassinating Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, in Iran’s capital Tehran, an accusation that Israel has neither confirmed nor denied. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at Israel’s involvement.
Israel, flouting a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire, has faced international condemnation amid its continued brutal offensive on Gazasince an attack last October by the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.
Nearly 39,600 Palestinians have since been killed, mostly women and children, and nearly 91,400 injured, according to local health authorities.
Almost 10 months into the Israeli war, vast tracts of Gazalie in ruins amid a crippling blockade of food, clean water and medicine.
Israel stands accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, which ordered it to immediately halt its military operation in the southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians had sought refuge from the war before it was invaded on May 6.
Understanding China’s Approach to Nuclear Deterrence
China has also always adhered to a “no first use” (NFU) doctrine regarding its nuclear forces, precluding it from adopting an asymmetric escalation posture. That it is entirely reliant on its own strategic nuclear capabilities for deterrence also precludes it from adopting a catalytic posture, as it does not need to, nor can it rely on, a nuclear patron to intervene in crises on its behalf.
Alex Alfirraz Scheers, https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/understanding-chinas-approach-to-nuclear-deterrence/
It has never been more crucial to understand China’s approach to deterrence, in order to bring a much-needed sense of perspective to Sino-American nuclear dynamics
The case for U.S. nuclear superiority made by several high-profile nuclear policy experts in the United States has tacitly increased tensions between Washington and Beijing. Any decision to pursue the recommendations outlined in the U.S. Strategic Posture Review to respond to China’s alleged efforts to achieve nuclear parity with the United States will only create a more uncertain and dangerous international threat environment. Hence, it has never been more crucial to understand China’s approach to deterrence, in order to bring a much-needed sense of perspective to Sino-American nuclear dynamics. More importantly, cultivating a sense of understanding is critical to attaining and maintaining peace.
This article seeks to contextualize China’s nuclear journey, and to serve as a reminder to policymakers and the general public alike that while China’s nuclear journey has been far from straightforward, China’s nuclear intentions have historically been to prevent and not to provoke nuclear conflict.
China has been a nuclear power since 1964. Up until the 1990s, China only had roughly 20 strategic nuclear capable delivery systems. Its approach to deterrence in that period, according to Nicola Leveringhaus, was not strategic, but rather can be understood by analyzing technological constraints, domestic politics, and its leadership decision-making considerations on nuclear and national security issues.
During the Cold War, China’s main strategic threats were posed by the USSR and the United States. Then, nuclear weapons served as a deterrent against any acts of aggression by the superpowers. In the 21st century, China has undertaken massive nuclear modernization and expansion. Today, China’s nuclear forces are numbered at roughly 440 warheads, and according to Pentagon estimates will number 1,500 warheads by 2035.
With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR, and the emergence of regional nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan as well as a continued U.S. threat perception, China’s nuclear deterrent is positioned to prevent acts of aggression regionally and against the United States.
Indeed, according to Caitlin Talmadge and Joshua Rovner, “The specific nature of China’s improvements do seem oriented toward bolstering the country’s assured retaliation posture in response to growing threats from ever more capable U.S. counterforce and missile defense systems.”
Yet, throughout China’s nuclear history, it has consistently adopted a deterrence by punishment posture, and has stressed the importance of maintaining an effective second-strike retaliatory capability.
A deterrence by punishment posture enables China to threaten nuclear retaliation against a nuclear strike on its vital interest, and a secure second-strike capability refers to China’s ability to absorb a nuclear strike and to retaliate with a nuclear response. Both require highly survivable nuclear capabilities, and a resilient national security infrastructure, which China appears to have continually pursued.
Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, China has invested heavily in developing a triad of land, air and sea-based nuclear capabilities. While the proliferation of nuclear silos from which to launch its DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) constitutes the largest land-based nuclear build-up in China’s history, they bolster China’s strategic deterrence capability by signaling to the United States that it is investing in long-range delivery systems that can reach targets in the continental United States.
Nevertheless, as Vipin Narang observed, “The types of capabilities that China developed are consistent with a retaliatory posture aimed at deterring nuclear coercion and nuclear use.” China has also always adhered to a “no first use” (NFU) doctrine regarding its nuclear forces, precluding it from adopting an asymmetric escalation posture. That it is entirely reliant on its own strategic nuclear capabilities for deterrence also precludes it from adopting a catalytic posture, as it does not need to, nor can it rely on, a nuclear patron to intervene in crises on its behalf.
As Brandon Babin stated, “China has defined its active defense national military strategy as ‘striking only after the enemy has struck.’” Nevertheless, recent Chinese efforts to develop more nuclear options, such as theater nuclear weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles, indicate that China is potentially reviewing its deterrence posture.
Current estimates of their nuclear forces suggest that China appears to adopt a posture that includes countervalue targets, holding at risk their adversaries’ densely populated centers. The size of China’s nuclear forces logically orients it toward adopting countervalue targeting, as a counterforce posture would require a nuclear force size capable of successfully hitting an adversary’s nuclear forces.
A damage limitation approach, therefore, would simply not be feasible with their force size. As it stands, counterforce would prove ineffective for China if ever it is engaged in a nuclear conflagration with the United States. Again, Narang here is salient: “Chinese posture features…strong centralized controls, survivability through dispersed and concealed stewardship procedures and numerical ambiguity, and punitive retaliatory strikes against key countervalue targets.”
Adopting countervalue targeting enables China to effectively deter adversaries without requiring it to possess robust nuclear forces with sophisticated delivery systems. Changes in force size, however, will surely increase China’s nuclear options and will afford China with a breadth of maneuverability previously unattainable.
China’s targets also align with its deterrence by punishment posture. Its primary targets, as illustrated by its DF-1 to D-5 ICBMs, are strategic in character. These targets illustrate that China’s approach is also shaped by the fact that since the end of the Cold War, it does not face any direct existential security threats on its borders. Recent skirmishes with India have not escalated to levels of war-fighting sufficient to warrant genuine concern and are unlikely to result in the kind of direct military engagement seen in the 1969 conflict with the Soviet Union.
There is precedent – however obscure – for China to trade blows with a nuclear power: The Sino-Soviet border clashes in 1969 are the only time in history that a nuclear China clashed militarily with another nuclear power. However, given that the likelihood for a recurrence of such clashes remains low, never mind the likelihood of regional nuclear escalation involving China, policymakers in the United States should not seek to pursue superiority simply to fuel a sense of insecurity in China.
Having said that, China’s main strategic concern revolves around Taiwan, and its nuclear deterrence strategy is ultimately oriented toward preventing what it refers to as a “high-intensity war” with the United States. How the next president of the United States will affect China’s calculus remains to be seen, but recent reports regarding China’s decision not to pursue arms control talks with the United States surely do not bode well for Sino-American cooperation on nuclear matters.
Whether a President Trump or a President Harris can lead to a course reversal for the better remains to be seen. Nevertheless, China’s approach to nuclear deterrence looks likely to continue to be informed by its efforts to protect its vital interests and to deter conflict with the United States, through threatening a retaliatory nuclear strike and by preserving assured second-strike capabilities.
While concerns mount over the prospect of a future nuclear conflict between the United States and China, a concerted U.S. pursuit of nuclear superiority will do little to decrease tensions with China and preserve the peace, however fragile it may currently appear to be.
Eastern Europe’s purchase of US nuclear reactors is primarily about military ties, not climate change

Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.
Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure.
It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.
By Maha Siddiqui, M.V. Ramana | August 2, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/eastern-europes-purchase-of-us-nuclear-reactors-is-primarily-about-military-ties-not-climate-change/
The nuclear industry hasn’t been so excited in a while. From the pledge to triple nuclear energy by 2050 made by around 20 countries during the 28th UN climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates to the recent report to the G20 by the International Atomic Energy Agency on speeding up investment into nuclear power to meet net zero goals, there is much talk about a new round of nuclear reactor construction.
Countries in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, are active participants in this effort to rebrand nuclear energy as clean and climate friendly. Poland’s inclusion in this list should be surprising: Its electricity primarily comes from fossil fuels, and the country has not committed to any net-zero target, making it “the lowest-placed EU nation” in its ability to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Nevertheless, in 2023, Poland’s government announced plans to import nuclear reactors.
Even though it promotes nuclear power as a way to meet climate goals, Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe seem to be using nuclear purchases for geopolitical leverage with the United States. That desire is evident in their parallel actions in the military front. Given the ongoing war in Ukraine and tensions in multiple parts of the world, the combination of geopolitics and nuclear technology may prove dangerous, even as it is ineffective at mitigating climate change.
Nuclear talk. In recent years, Poland has entered into a number of agreements to build nuclear reactors, including the in-vogue small modular reactors (SMRs) from the United States and large reactors from South Korea. Poland has attempted to build nuclear reactors in the past—in 2009, then-Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced plans to build two nuclear plants, with the first to begin operating in 2020. Those plans went nowhere.
Seen in that light, the rash of recent announcements have a desperate ring to them. Not surprisingly, Tusk has continued to advocate for building nuclear reactors, stating in November 2023 that Poland had to pursue nuclear energy “as quickly as possible.” But he has pushed back plans to start construction: The “first pour of concrete”—which is the traditional marker of project initiation—is now scheduled for 2028, two years after the earlier projected date of 2026.
Romania has taken a somewhat similar path. In 2021, on the sidelines of the 26th UN climate conference in Glasgow, Romanian officials signed a cooperation agreement on small modular reactors with NuScale Power. At that time, Romanian Energy Minister Virgil Popescu talked about developing SMRs “to meet [Romania’s] critical energy demand and green targets and to secure a quality future for the generations to come.” (Since then, NuScale’s first proposed SMR project in the United States has collapsed because of massive cost increases, and it is uncertain if the Romanian project will move forward.)
Military linkages. For countries like Romania and Poland, the rationale offered for supporting nuclear energy, namely climate mitigation, is just one face of the coin. A parallel set of military developments are also at play.
In April, Poland President Andrzej Duda publicly expressed a readiness to host NATO nuclear weapons. In an interview published in a Polish news outlet, he revealed that nuclear sharing had been discussed with the United States “for some time.” Although not widely noted at that time, the previous Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki had also indicated an “interest in hosting nuclear weapons under NATO’s nuclear-sharing policy.”
The interest in hosting nuclear weapons aligns with Poland’s efforts to position itself as close to the West ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among countries that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union, Poland was among the first three countries to join NATO, together with Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Poland also tied itself militarily to the United States by becoming part of US missile defense infrastructure. The process started during the George W. Bush administration and continued through the successive US presidencies. Most recently, as part of the Biden administration’s 2024 budget for defense, the Missile Defense Agency requested funding to complete construction of a site in Poland to deploy the Aegis Ashore missile defense system and purchase missiles for this site.
Poland has emerged as one of Europe’s largest importers of military equipment, second only to Ukraine, buying military equipment worth billions of dollars from the United States. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, Poland purchased Apache Helicopters ($12 billion), High Mobility Artillery Rocket System ($10 billion), Integrated Air And Missile Defense Battle Command System ($4 billion), and M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks ($3.75 billion).
Such significant imports are a good indicator that the country is seeking to ally with the United States. While Poland still lags far behind traditional US allies and arms importers like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Australia, Poland is rapidly expanding such imports. The country’s military spending in 2023 was 75 percent higher than in 2022 and 181 percent higher than in 2014. Poland was also among the world’s 20 largest importers of weapons in the 2019-2023 period, with its share of imports jumping four-fold compared to the previous 2014-2018 period. Of these imports, nearly half came from the United States.
US officials see the purchase of military equipment as one of the many ways the United States can bring Poland closer in geopolitical terms. Another is to have them buy US nuclear reactors.
In its “Integrated Country Strategy” for Poland from June 2022, the US State Department’s top two mission goals were stated to involve military engagement and adoption of new energy technology, including nuclear power. The document praises the “potential partnership with the United States to develop large-scale nuclear power plants with US technology” because it “could result in over $18 billion dollars in US exports and strategically tie our two countries even more tightly together over the coming century.” It should be clear who would profit most at the expense of the Polish public.
The United States has historically tried to use nuclear development to expand its empire and influence. During the Cold War, US nuclear power companies “had a specific agenda to promote the advancement of nuclear technology in non-communist countries,” which was one reason they exported nuclear reactors to South Korea.
By all evidence, the focus on nuclear energy in Eastern Europe appears not to be driven mainly by climate change but by old-fashioned geopolitics in significant proportion. Were the urgency of climate change really driving investment in nuclear energy, Poland should have considered purchasing reactors also from Russia or China. In fact, over the past decade, Russia has dominated the export market for nuclear power plants and China has built more nuclear plants than any other country.
Why it matters. The geopolitical framing of imports of nuclear energy is a problem, especially in Eastern Europe where there is an active war in neighboring Ukraine. Building up military forces using US technology and expanding US military presence in the region, even possibly basing nuclear weapons in Poland, may increase the likelihood of a catastrophic war between Russia and NATO. Such a war would be compounded by the potential for radioactive contamination from deliberate or inadvertent attacks on nuclear reactors, as illustrated by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine, which Russia has occupied since March 2022 and used as a source of leverage.
Such geopolitical games also make dealing with climate change much more difficult. A geopolitical view, by its very nature, conceives of problems essentially as a zero-sum competition: Countries will avoid cooperating with each other. But as happened with the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of cooperation will undermine the chances of quickly reducing global emissions.
The analyst and disarmament activist Andrew Lichterman recently explained that anyone interested in a more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable global society should avoid using “the conceptual frame of geopolitics” which “is limited to the imperatives of holding and deploying power in what is portrayed as an endless, inevitable struggle for dominance among the world’s most powerful states.”
Investments in nuclear power in Eastern Europe hide geopolitical and military motivations behind a smoke screen of fighting climate change. When these motivations result in the massive acquisition of military equipment, manufacturing and operating them will increase carbon dioxide emissions. Worse, military buildups will also increase the risk of conflict, potentially leading to a catastrophic war that could involve nuclear weapons.
The Abrahamic Alliance: Reality or work of fiction?

Lorenzo Maria Pacini, Strategic Culture Foundation, Sat, 27 Jul 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/493617-The-Abrahamic-Alliance-Reality-or-work-of-fiction
DC‘Abrahamic Alliance’ will probably end up being an empty and superficial alliance, consisting mostly of the U.S. and Israel, similar to Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is widely considered a flop.
On Wednesday 24 July 2024, Israeli President Bibi Netanyahu delivered a speech to the Congress of the United States of America that will go down in history.
The speech of the world’s most dangerous clown
In the absence of the political leadership – embroiled in an unprecedented social crisis of paedophilia scandals, old men with Alzheimer’s pressing random buttons in war rooms and clowns on psychiatric drugs attacking banks -, the ‘host’ from the Middle East took the opportunity to travel to Washington and clarify certain programmatic aspects of the future of the collective West.
Here are some highlights of his crazy speech, with which he orwellianly turned reality upside down, spread fake news, manipulated his listeners and legitimised a genocide that goes on while the rest of the world thinks about going on holiday, while writing ‘All eyes on Rafah’ on social media to wash hisconscience.
– “The war in Gaza has one of the lowest ratios of combatants to non-combatants in the history of urban warfare”;
– “Not a single innocent Palestinian civilian has been killed by the IDF in Rafah”;
– “Iran is behind all the terrorism, all the unrest, all the chaos and all the endless killing. And this should come as no surprise”;
– “For Iran, Israel is first, America is second. When Israel fights Hamas, we are fighting Iran. When we fight Hezbollah, we are fighting Iran. When we fight the Houthis, we are fighting Iran. And when we fight Iran, we are fighting radical terrorism”;
– “We are not just protecting Israel, we are protecting the United States. Our enemies are your enemies. Our fight is your fight. Our victory is your victory”;
– Netanyahu then proposed an Abrahamic Alliance, consisting of Israel, the U.S., and Arab countries dependent on the two aforementioned.
– He received a total of 58 standing ovations in his 60-minute speech (not even a Taylor Swift concert!).
So, to recap:
– Genocide of the Palestinians does not exist;
– If anything, there is a good genocide and that is the Israeli one;
– Palestine is called Israel and if you think otherwise you are an idiot;
– Israel is a victim, unfortunately it has found itself in the home of people who had been there for thousands of years who are demanding their land back;
– The only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian;
– Iran (the only country in the world to have fought against the imperialism of the Great Satan (Israel+USA+UK+Saudi Arabia) is entirely to blame for being Shia (and also for having eradicated Wahabi and Salafist Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and curbed imperialist expansionism);
– If you think otherwise, maybe you deserve a bullet too.
The Abrahamic Alliance
In the general delirium of his words, Netanyahu put forward the strategic proposal of an alliance, military, political and economic, called the ‘Abrahamic Alliance’.
If the U.S. had tried to form this alliance 10 years ago, we could say that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan and Egypt would probably have joined. With the ongoing Syrian war, fears over the nuclear programme and anti-Iranian sentiment at boiling point, the Arab nations felt they had something to prove.
However, in the Middle East of the year 2024, with Iran as an emerging force that has imposed hard power equations on its neighbours, and after the peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, I think such an alliance is not feasible. At best, the Kingdom of Jordan and Bahrain would join such an alliance.
Saudi Arabia is openly interested in closer ties with Iran, the UAE mostly follows Saudi policy and is heavily dependent on Iranian imports, while Egypt has a history of rejecting alliances and has bigger problems than Iran. None of these countries will be enthusiastic about the prospect of an anti-Iran alliance at a time when Iran is rapidly emerging as a pre-eminent geopolitical power in the Middle East.
Jordan, because of its dependence on NATO and the U.S., is the one most likely to be in favour. It was the only Arab nation to open its airspace to the Israeli Air Force when Iran launched its missile attacks against Israel in April this year.
Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Persian Gulf Fleet, while it might be interested in joining, has also openly expressed its interest in re-establishing diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In short: the ‘Abrahamic Alliance’ will probably end up being a shell of what it once could have been. It will be an empty and superficial alliance, consisting mostly of the U.S. and Israel, similar to Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is widely considered a flop.
Then, in all this, there remains one last fundamental point to consider: while Netanyahu and his followers blather on about turning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a global war on a religious basis (in perfect neocon eschatological style), they perhaps forget that the rest of the world – ‘the rest’, as the Americans used to say – is turning over a new leaf and will not stand by and watch. Russia and China have already concluded the laying of the pillars of a multipolar world… in which war will no longer be fought as before.
Comment: The Abrahamic Alliance is merely a guise to ‘circle the wagons’ assuring Israel an unhindered mission and survival at the expense of others. Some have eyes to see.
AUKUS Australian servility to USA – just one facet of poor governance

By Paul KeatingJul 31, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-servility-just-one-facet-of-poor-governance/
Richard Marles has the Navy out in force firing torpedoes at AUKUS critics.

On Friday last, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead claimed the critics need to produce evidence of any challenges to AUKUS being realised, then on Saturday, Vice Admiral Hammond, Chief of Navy, raised his periscope claiming the AUKUS debate was being ‘hijacked’ by people with ‘specific agendas’ without indicating what these agendas might be or who was likely making them.
The fact is, what clearly is being ‘hijacked’ is national accountability – accountability for the most wayward strategic and financial decision any government has taken since Federation.
Despite AUKUS’s half trillion of budgetary cost and its dangerous strategic implications there has not been one Ministerial Statement explaining its rationale, its strategic policy objective or defending its hugely distorting impact on government expenditures.
Not a coherent or persuasive word has come from the Minister for Defence or for that matter, the Prime Minister, let alone from a parliamentary debate on what is significantly a seminal turn in the country’s strategic and defence policy settings.
Vice Admiral Hammond, ignoring Australia’s geography – its residence among populous and prosperous Asian states, fell back on the old Anglo glee-club adage ‘three developed nations who have over 100 years of shared history, heritage, values and sense of purpose.’

The likelihood is that Australia will not come into possession of nuclear submarines of its own making, but what it will certainly become is landlord and host to American nuclear submarines as the United States appropriates Australian real estate in its attempts, against all odds, to maintain strategic primacy in Asia. Odds that carry the likelihood of Australia being dragged into military skirmishes with China, or indeed, worse.
So irresponsible, secretive and smug has the government been in making its decision, that no amount of ‘hijacking’ by anyone else is likely to disrupt Australia from its current path of effectively falling into American hands, or at least, being abjectly at America’s beck and call.
Republished from Australian Financial Review, July 30, 2024
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

