Underestimating the potential impacts of attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities
| Tilman Ruff, Jun 24, 2026 |
I worked with Kristina Kukolja, a journalist who obtained (heavily redacted) FOI files about the Australian government’s assessment and responses to Israel/US attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025 and 2026. Its clear the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency underestimated the possible resultant radiological releases. Australia was one of the first countries to support those attacks both in 2025 and 2026 on the basis that any measures to avoid Iran acquiring nuclear weapons were a good thing, despite criticising Russia’s attacks on nuclear facilities in Ukraine.
Close monitoring of developments and modelling of possible scenarios including worst-case scenarios from attacks on nuclear facilities is something one would expect any responsible government to undertake and to use as the basis for informing and protecting their staff and the public, particularly the substantial number of Australian citizens in the Middle East (at least 115,000).
An additional reason for Australia to thoroughly assess attacks by allies on nuclear power plants is that during 2025-6 Australia chairs the IAEA board of governors. In relation to both Ukraine and the Middle East, the IAEA Director General has been consistently calling out the severe radiological risks of military attacks on nuclear facilities and calling for such attacks, in violation of international law, to end. Australia’s position here was clearly divergent from the IAEA’s.
One wonders whether underestimating the potential risks and keeping the assessments secret might be connected with an incentive to downplay the risks for political reasons. See article in the last Saturday Paper (below)_ o you don’t get stuck behind a paywall.
A year ago the government began receiving modelling on radiation risks from the war in the
Middle East, which experts say understated the danger and should be made public.
Exclusive: DFAT’s secret nuclear briefings
By Kristina Kukolja, Jun 24, 2026
Documents obtained under freedom of information show that a year ago the
Australian government began secretly receiving detailed modelling of radiation risks
from the war in the Middle East and the protective action Australian citizens may
need to take, but did not share this with Australians in the region.
American and Israeli strikes on sites in Iran and Iran’s retaliation against US targets
prompted the Australian government agency responsible for nuclear safety to
produce numerous reports to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) –
at times, on a daily basis – detailing “credible worst-case scenarios” for possible
nuclear incidents in Iran, Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
The reports outline protective measures such as evacuation, sheltering and
restrictions of food and drinking water. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency (ARPANSA) experts also briefed the Inter-Departmental Emergency
Task Force (IDETF), convened to manage Australia’s response to the war, chaired by DFAT and attended by top government agencies including the Australian Defence
Force.
The Saturday Paper asked DFAT whether it had informed citizens about the
government’s monitoring and modelling for nuclear worst-case scenarios; whether
diplomatic staff were told to prepare food and water supplies; whether other
Australians, including military personnel, received the same advice; and whether
Australian embassies had secured supplies of potassium iodide tablets for
distribution.
DFAT declined to respond to these questions. A spokesperson said the department
“maintains internal contingency action plans at all Australian embassies and
consulates, intended to respond to crises and support Australians overseas.
Requests for technical advice, such as modelling, are part of prudent, scenario-
based planning and help inform our understanding of how an incident could affect
Australians in different locations.”
As the strikes escalated around nuclear facilities this year, an email to ARPANSA
staff from the emergency management project leader on March 9 said: “DFAT is
facing a major consular crisis, with many Australians unable to return home.
“It’s important to be supportive and respectful of their situation … We should also not
overwhelm DFAT or crowd their decision space unnecessarily.”
At the time of that update, there were about 115,000 Australians in the Middle East,
says DFAT – 24,000 in the UAE.
The results of ARPANSA’s modelling should be made “widely and promptly publicly
available … to inform Australians in making travel or evacuation decisions and be
better equipped to take timely protective measures”, says Dr Tilman Ruff, co-founder
of the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
(ICAN), based in Australia.
The radiation assessment reports and electronic correspondence released under
freedom of information are heavily redacted, including on the grounds that disclosing
certain information could damage the Commonwealth’s defence or international
relations.
In a statement, ARPANSA says the reports were prepared “for a specific operational
purpose but shared more broadly across government, including through the IDETF”
and “informed public-facing messaging, including through Smartraveller”.
The Smartraveller website provides general advice on nuclear incidents. Despite the
Middle East war, Ukraine is still the only country where Australians have been
specifically warned about a nuclear risk, stating that Russian actions “pose a threat
to Ukraine’s nuclear power plants”.
ARPANSA’s reports to DFAT began in June 2025 after Israel attacked Iranian
nuclear sites and scientists, followed by US strikes the Trump administration
declared had obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
said Australia, which had just taken over chairing the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors, supported the attacks, on the grounds they were
designed to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The assessments contain plume modelling – how far radiation could spread – and
exposure estimates for 48 hours after a possible incident at facilities such as the
targeted Natanz and Fordow fuel enrichment plants and Isfahan nuclear technology
centre. Projected plumes from Israel’s Dimona nuclear research facility and Iran’s
Bushehr nuclear power station – potentially causing the “greatest radiological
hazard” – reached neighbouring countries, including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar and the UAE.
“A military attack, even unintentional, could cause a catastrophic
nuclear accident such as Chernobyl or Fukushima.”
One simulation on June 20 last year showed radiation from a potential Bushehr
incident extending hundreds of kilometres into the Persian Gulf to Abu Dhabi and
Dubai, where Australian civilians and diplomatic staff are based, and the Al Minhad
Air Base, where Australian troops are stationed. While the report noted low
radiological risks for Australian “embassy locations in Kuwait City, Doha, Riyadh and
Bahrain”, the unredacted section did not address cities that would be affected by the
plume.
At the same time, IAEA director-general Rafael Grossi told the United Nations
Security Council an operating nuclear power plant hosts thousands of kilograms of
nuclear material, and a direct hit, or hits to electricity supply, could cause its reactor
core to melt, potentially causing “a very high release of radioactivity to the
environment”.
In the worst case, Grossi said, protective actions would be required: “evacuations and sheltering of the population or the need to take stable iodine, with the reach
extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometres. Radiation
monitoring would need to cover distances of several hundred kilometres and food
restrictions may need to be implemented.”
“Are we getting this wrong?” asked ARPANSA’s emergency project leader in an
email to a redacted recipient on June 21 referencing DFAT concerns that Grossi’s
comments differed from earlier assessments.
ARPANSA’s subsequent report assured there was no conflict, citing findings of
“similar distances for urgent protective action”. Declassified text messages between
agency staff acknowledge that environmental damage “would be a big issue
following the event”.
The agency’s worst-case scenario for Bushehr involved a “station blackout due to
loss of power after damage to plant infrastructure and backup power supply”.
“Although it is not an ideal state for a nuclear reactor, the backup systems mean that
a core meltdown would not be an immediate concern,” the report stated.
Tilman Ruff says this assessment “unduly downplays the real risks, particularly when
the cause of loss of external power is a major aerial bombardment, which risks
widespread and uncontrolled damage to plant systems.”
Ruff says the reports show the “greatest radiological risks in Iran and Israel arise
from damage to the Bushehr power plant, with 3000 megawatts of thermal capacity,
much larger than the next largest facility between the two countries, the Dimona
nuclear site, with a reactor estimated at 150MWt. Yet in none of the scenarios is the
possibility of damage to reactor containment included for Bushehr, as it is for smaller
reactors at Soreq, Tehran and Dimona.”
He says the reports also fail to specify scenarios involving a core meltdown, reactor
explosion or fire, “or consideration of spent fuel pools, which often contain larger and
longer-lived amounts of radioactive materials than are present in reactor cores”.
Professor Tatsujiro Suzuki, former vice-chairman of Japan’s Atomic Energy
Commission, agrees spent fuel pools are “the most vulnerable part of the nuclear
power project”.
“A military attack, even unintentional, could cause a catastrophic nuclear accident
such as Chernobyl or Fukushima.”
Over time “the radiation consequences could reach India or Pakistan, potentially the
Mediterranean area or even northern Europe”.
When the US and Israel launched new attacks on Iran in February, ARPANSA’s
Radiation Emergency Coordination Centre (RECC) in Melbourne was placed “on
heightened readiness”.
New reports from the RECC warned a large release of radioactive material from
Bushehr or the UAE’s Barakah nuclear power plant could see “radioactive
contamination deposited on land used for food production and in water bodies” in the
region. In worst-case events, they say, embassy staff may need to take protective
actions including sheltering in place with doors and windows sealed and awaiting
further advice.
“Use of potassium iodide tablets may be directed. As a precautionary measure, and
if feasible, having a short-term stockpile of food and water (seven days) at the
Kuwait and Doha embassies may be prudent to avoid ingesting potentially
contaminated food and water … And to provide additional reassurance to embassy
staff as they are within several hundred kilometres of the reactor site.”
Throughout March and into April, the period covered by the 2026 documents, Iran
reported strikes on multiple nuclear sites to the IAEA, including the Bushehr power
plant. Missiles were also reported near Israel’s Dimona facility. No off-site radiation
was recorded, but Rafael Grossi repeatedly warned attacks on Bushehr threaten a
“major radiological accident affecting a large area in Iran and beyond”.
In late March, DFAT requested radiation projections for possible nuclear incidents in
Pakistan, Türkiye, Syria, Armenia and Iraq. The 2026 modelling generally indicated more severe off-site releases than the 2025 assessments, says Tilman Ruff.
“The maps also depict higher levels of radioactive fallout, with potential exposure
near multiple facilities, including the relatively small research reactors at Soreq and
Tehran reaching over 50 mSv [millisieverts]. The estimated exposures are
significantly greater for Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites.”
Kristina Kukolja is a Walkley Award-winning journalist and broadcaster.
America’s Hidden Casualties: The Pentagon’s Iran War Numbers Still Don’t Add Up
June 17, 2026. Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/17/americas-hidden-casualties-the-pentagons-iran-war-numbers-still-dont-add-up/
As the Trump administration moves toward a second ceasefire agreement with Iran and officials in Washington attempt to declare the conflict a success, new reporting suggests the human cost of the war remains far higher than the Pentagon is willing to admit.
According to investigative journalist Nick Turse, the official U.S. military casualty count from the war with Iran has quietly climbed again. Yet even the latest figures appear to exclude hundreds of known casualties, raising serious questions about transparency, accountability, and whether the American public is being told the truth about the real cost of the conflict.
The Pentagon’s official Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) now lists 426 dead and wounded U.S. personnel connected to the war—an increase from earlier tallies. But Turse reports that the true figure likely exceeds 625, with numerous injuries and even some deaths seemingly absent from the official record.
The discrepancies are not minor bookkeeping errors. Earlier this year, fifteen wounded troops reportedly vanished from Pentagon casualty statistics without explanation. Despite repeated inquiries from journalists, military officials have failed to provide a coherent account of why those casualties disappeared from public records. One defense official quoted by The Intercept suggested the situation raises an uncomfortable possibility: either Pentagon analysts are extraordinarily incompetent or someone higher up ordered the numbers altered.
Among the missing cases are two soldiers injured when an Iranian drone reportedly downed a U.S. Army Apache helicopter earlier this month. Central Command publicly acknowledged the wounded crew members were receiving medical treatment, yet they do not appear in the official casualty database.
The questions extend beyond battlefield injuries. Turse notes that the Pentagon’s death count also appears incomplete. Major Sorffly Davius of the New York Army National Guard was publicly mourned by elected officials and military leaders after dying while deployed in Kuwait. Yet his death reportedly remains absent from official casualty totals.
Even more striking is the exclusion of more than 200 sailors treated after a major fire aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. Because those injuries were categorized outside traditional combat wounds, they are effectively invisible in the official accounting despite occurring during an active wartime deployment.
The story highlights a pattern that has followed many American wars: casualty figures become political numbers rather than simple facts. Governments eager to sustain public support often emphasize military successes while minimizing costs. The result is a widening gap between the realities experienced by service members and the version of events presented to the public.
This matters because casualty counts are not merely statistics. They shape congressional oversight, influence public opinion, determine veterans’ benefits, and form the historical record by which future generations judge a war. If those numbers are manipulated—or selectively reported—the public loses one of the few objective measures available for evaluating the true consequences of military action.
The Iran war has already produced catastrophic consequences across the region, including thousands of reported Iranian civilian deaths. Now, according to Turse’s reporting, Americans may also be learning that the costs borne by U.S. troops have been systematically understated.
For an administration that repeatedly promised transparency and accountability, the unanswered questions surrounding the Pentagon’s casualty reporting are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Before Washington writes the final chapter on this conflict, the public deserves a full accounting—not only of what was achieved, but of what was lost.
FIFA, Eurovision expelled Russia but Israel has Impunity
June 8, 2026 Mohammed Samaana Informed Comment, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/08/fifa-eurovision-expelled-russia-but-israel-has-impunity/
Hypocrisy and double standard are the words that come to mind in relation to how the west in general deals with the plight of the Palestinian people.
This is well manifested in culture and sports. Two major events this year have demonstrated just that. The first is the popular annual European singing contest Eurovision which was no different this year to any other year with Israel allowed to participate despite the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people in their own homeland.
Though five European countries – Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, Iceland and The Netherlands – took the higher moral ground and applied pressure by boycotting the contest in protest against Israel participation, this year’s edition of Eurovision went ahead without the participation of five European countries to ensure that Israel is present. To add insult to injury, the annual event took place at the usual time of every year when the Palestinian people mark the Nakba anniversary of their 1948 expulsion from their ancestral homeland by the Israelis. Because of its invasion and occupation of Ukraine, Russia hasn’t been allowed to participate in the Eurovision contest since 2022.
The second event is the World Cup. This year’s men football World Cup is another arena where the West is showing its hypocrisy. Russia was banned from all FIFA and UEFA soccer / football competitions in 2022 because of its illegal invasion of Ukraine and attempt to annex its territory, and the ban has become indefinite. All Russian national representative teams and club teams are prohibited from participation in global football events. Yet Israel’s deliberate assault on civilians and key infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon is much worse than anything Russia has done, bad as it is.
We all also remember the calls to boycott the last World Cup in Qatar over allegations of human rights abuses, including LGBTQ and migrant workers rights and the environment. Given the current and previous US administration’s record on human rights home and abroad, it is only common sense to ask the logical question, where are those who called to boycott the last World Cup four years ago?
If they were concerned about human rights then why they are not concerned about Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations’ support for the Israel genocide in Gaza where well over 72,000 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians, are confirmed dead so far as a direct result of Israeli fire without taking into consideration the missing and the ones who died indirectly as a result of the Israeli assault? This is besides Israel aggression towards other countries in the region including its destruction of Lebanon and the destitution of its civilian population after Israel grabbed land in the south of the country. This is besides Israel expansion into Syria and and its war on Iran which is more likely to have impacted every human on this planet at least financially.
Additionally, during Qatar World Cup in 2022, the German players famously took a photo covering their mouths in protest against the FIFA denying them freedom of expression. No sign of Germany’s team this year protesting against the American security oppressing protests against the genocide in Gaza on college campuses and elsewhere or for that matter their own German security forces brutality against similar protests in Germany or the German government support for the genocide.
Moreover, where is the concern about individual sexual rights in the light of the reports about sexual violence against Palestinian detainees and international peace activists who were at the Sumud (Steadfastness) flotilla after being kidnapped by Israeli soldiers at international waters. It is no wonder why the UN added Israel to the blacklist of states that uses sexual violence in conflict.
In terms of the environment, a study showed that the carbon footprint during the first 15 months of Israel ecocide war on Gaza mainly provided by the US is greater than the planet-warming emissions of a hundred countries.
Furthermore, how could any one be concerned about immigrants’ rights and overlook the brutality of the America Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers? In 2025 alone 32 died in ICE custody. Not to forget the treatment of Palestinian human rights activist and green card holder Mahmoud Khalil and the ongoing effort to deport him
For the qualifying games to the World Cup, Israel has always played in the European groups with no concern over human rights violations whatsoever except for protests by solidarity groups and other peace activists. At club level, Israeli clubs take part in the European competitions. This applies to all sports and not only soccer / football.
It is important to point out that Israel is located in west Asia, not in Europe. This means that Europe is under no obligation to allow Israel to take part in any European sport or cultural events. But by allowing Israel participation especially when it is committing a genocide, Europe indicates it support for Israel and everything that it does which makes Europe complicit.
Any times these issues were raised, the world was told to keep politics out of sports. The same, however, didn’t apply when Russia was thrown out of every sport and cultural event over its invasion of Ukraine. Even if we were to accept their double standards by keeping politics out of sport when it comes to Israel, it is impossible to argue for keeping ethics or human rights out of sports. Those who insist on applying exceptionalism when it come to Israel know very well that they are enablers of its atrocities by allowing it to sportswash its reputation.
Mohammed Samaana , a freelance journalist published in the Belfast Telegraph, is originally from Palestine and lives in Belfast.
Natasha Walter: Labour’s workaday repression of protest doesn’t alarm us. But it should
If a far-right government detained activists for months without trial and declared them terrorists, there would be outrage. But Palestine and climate campaigners are being treated like this in a social democracy, writes the author and columnist
But as a result of these complicated, bureaucratic moves we are seeing more and more people locked up for longer and longer periods, and more and more people dissuaded from protesting at all. And if our next government is a far-right one, with the groundwork for greater authoritarianism already dug, with so many precedents already set, many more dissenters will be locked up.
Natasha Walter, Jun 10, 2026, https://www.thenerve.news/p/natasha-walter-column-protest-palestine-action-sentencing-terrorist-connection-elbit?utm_source=www.thenerve.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=tuesday-edition-natasha-walter-on-protest-sangita-myska-on-farage-hotlist&_bhlid=ea754b28990feab0acf9d70ebf48f5b17a368a9a
I hate lazy parallels with the 1930s, but one echo does keep running through my mind just now. In 1933, my grandfather was imprisoned for three years for “high treason”, for being a member of a proscribed organisation. The first nine months of his imprisonment was pre-trial – on remand, as we would call it now. The organisation that had been outlawed in that year was the Communist party, and he was living in Germany.
This is not the start of the Third Reich in Britain, for sure: not even close. But when I look at the young people who are being held for long periods – up to 20 months – on remand right now, and when I see that this Friday four protesters face being sentenced as if there had been a “terrorism connection” to their crimes during a break-in at the Elbit Systems weapons factory in Bristol, I realise a little more clearly how it is that even when the right to dissent is being directly threatened, most people can shrug it off, and so the slide to further repression is eased.
For those who are not turning away, this case has particular weight. The four individuals have been convicted of criminal damage and grievous bodily harm, which can potentially carry long sentences. But the prosecution has submitted that the offences have a “terrorist connection”, which means that the defendants would have no chance of early release and face the possibility of long-term surveillance. The jury in the trial was not asked to deliberate on this terrorist connection, so it is something that – for the first time in British legal history – the judge will decide alone. And the judge in question, Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson, has already lost the trust of many observers.
In the trials of those individuals and others, Johnson has ruled that the defendants could not give evidence on their motivations, including their reasons for joining Palestine Action, their beliefs about Elbit’s supply of weapons to Israel for use in the war in Gaza, or their views about the actions of Israel in Gaza and its legality. He even referred one of the defendants’ lawyers, Rajiv Menon, for contempt of court because Menon had reminded the jury that they could acquit the defendants based on their own consciences.
As usual, a number of people will turn up outside the court who have become thorns in the police’s side. We’ve seen them before, those often elderly people with their handwritten signs and fold-out chairs, their unbowed determination to turn up in all weathers and despite all threats of arrest.
Right now, I think we should all be saluting their determination. Indeed, the question keeps nagging away at me: why aren’t more people alarmed by this extreme erosion of the right to protest and what it means for our country?
It’s telling that so often this government doesn’t actively own these repressive developments, but portrays itself as simply compelled to carry them out
A few weeks previously I had been talking with an eminent lawyer who has been involved in many cases involving protesters. “What’s going on here right now is shocking,” he said. “It is making the UK an outlier in Europe. Other countries are looking at us and wondering how on earth this is happening when we don’t even have a far-right government.”
“When we don’t even have a far-right government.” I think that this is key to why more people aren’t protesting about these developments, and why so many people who are otherwise politically engaged are shrugging off this assault on people’s liberties. If a far-right government with a Trumpian narrative of a grand assault on dissent was putting in place the kind of measures we have recently seen, there would be an outcry from all sides. But because our government is not shouting about it, and is not even putting it into an ideological frame, the shift has simply become part of the political weather for most people.
Indeed, it’s telling that so often this government doesn’t actively own these repressive developments, but portrays itself as simply compelled to carry them out. When Labour took power, many who voted for them expected them to repeal the anti-protest legislation that had been put in place by the Conservatives, but instead they kept it and built on it. When questioned, David Lammy, the deputy prime minister, said it would take up “so much parliamentary time” to undo it. It was notable that when Yvette Cooper, as home secretary, banned Palestine Action, she referred darkly to things she couldn’t disclose about the group, about shadowy “advice and intelligence” and “assessments”.
And many other developments to silence protesters have taken place in an even more shadowy way, with no scrutiny by members of parliament or the public. Mr Justice Johnson’s refusal to allow Palestine Action defendants to bring evidence on the context and motivation for their actions has been preceded by other judges in climate protest trials who refused to allow defendants to discuss the climate emergency and its effects, or even about fuel poverty and home insulation.
The recent revealing report by the Centre for Climate Crime and Climate Justice at Queen Mary, University of London (I am an honorary professor at the centre, though had nothing to do with this report), showed that this direction of travel by judges means that many protesters are therefore locked up not because of their original protest, but because of behaviour that is deemed in contempt of court, including refusing to keep quiet in the courtroom. Many others have been imprisoned for breaching injunctions granted to private companies stopping protests around oil terminals or other buildings. This kind of repression carried out by courts is often too complicated and bureaucratic to campaign on. It’s hard to explain quickly on an Instagram reel; it’s hard to get excited about.
But as a result of these complicated, bureaucratic moves we are seeing more and more people locked up for longer and longer periods, and more and more people dissuaded from protesting at all. And if our next government is a far-right one, with the groundwork for greater authoritarianism already dug, with so many precedents already set, many more dissenters will be locked up.
When my grandfather was imprisoned in Germany for attending Communist party meetings, most people shrugged off that first wave of repression – it was just the Communists and the oddballs who were getting locked up. To repeat, I don’t think this is our 1933, but the road we are walking down now is ever more shadowed. As Trudi Warner – who has been arrested several times already for protesting in the service of the right to dissent, and who will be outside the court on Friday – said to me this week: “I get that a lot of people don’t actually care about the climate or Palestine, so they aren’t getting upset right now. But when you are trying to speak up for something you care more about, and find you can’t, you will wish you had stood with us.”
Natasha Walter is an author and the founder of Women for Refugee Women. Her new book, Feminism for a World on Fire (Virago) was published in May
Jared Kushner’s Controversial Island Resort Reveals Scheme To Expand Israel’s Sphere Of Influence
Revelations over the Kushner-backed plan to develop a luxury resort on Sazan Island sparked outrage across Albania.
“This would be a new city with around 10,000 rooms, and it will completely destroy that wild region.”
The corruption investigation launched by SPAK against the development project on Sazan Island is not the first of its kind to target Kushner-backed investments.
In discussing the investment strategy of Affinity Partners, Kushner minced no words, making it clear how nations that aligned themselves with Israel would receive the benefits of investments from his firm. Kushner expounded on how that dynamic could be used to expand the sphere of Zionist influence,
The proposed Sazan Island Resort highlights how Affinity Partners uses private investment to push the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
blueapples, Jun 05, 2026, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/jared-kushners-controversial-island?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=200576181&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Transforming the Gaza Strip into oceanside luxury properties built atop a mass grave isn’t the only real estate development project proposed by Jared Kushner that has embroiled him in controversy. Across the Mediterranean Sea, Albanian authorities have opened an anti-corruption investigation into a company led by Kushner that hopes to transform an island off of the country’s coast into a luxury resort. While Kushner contends that his vision for the island is rooted in transforming it into a paradisaical resort, that picturesque image hides how the project serves as a vehicle for him to advance his ulterior political motives. The probe into his latest development project is the second major anti-corruption investigation in as many years that has exposed a strategy executed by Kushner to use the massive amount of private investment capital at his disposal to advance the interests of the State of Israel and expand the Zionist World Order he continues to fight in the vanguard of.
The Kushner-backed development project came under intense public scrutiny following an interview given by his wife, First Daughter Ivanka Trump. During the interview, Trump painted a romanticized picture of how she and her husband came to find an uninhabited island “in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea” in 2021 as if such a hidden jewel remained undiscovered within the cradle of western civilization for millennia. “We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim. Effectively, that’s how we found it,” she said. “We swam to the island. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated.” In reality, the island that Kushner has earmarked for his latest real estate development project is nowhere near the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. Instead, Sazan Island lies just off of the coast of the Balkan nation of Albania in the Adriatic Sea.
Like its location, the picture painted by Kushner and his wife of the mysterious paradise they stumbled upon could not be further from the truth either. Sazan is the largest island in Albania and serves as the westernmost point of the country. The island also serves as a point of demarcation between the Adriatic and Ionian seas. That location made Sazan a crucial military post during the Second World War when it was controlled by the Kingdom of Italy before being ceded back to Albania in 1947. Following the war, Albania came under despotic communist rule by the iron fist of Prime Minister Enver Hoxha, who ruled the country from 1944 until his death in 1985. After Sazan was returned to Albania in 1947, the Hoxha regime declared Sazan a military exclusion zone to construct a strategic naval base on the island free of any civilian presence. Although Sazan saw little development under the yoke of communism, the Albanian government managed to build approximately 3,600 nuclear bunkers on the island during the Cold War in the years following its split from the Soviet sphere of influence in 1960, infrastructure that Affinity Partners would stand to inherit under the Kushner-backed investment strategy into developing the island into a luxury resort.
Although Albania officially abandoned communism in March 1992 shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, access to Sazan continued to be restricted from the public until July 2015. Decades of isolation from the public largely preserved the island’s unique ecology, which led to the Albanian government designating the island as part of the country’s first and largest national marine park in 2010. The Karaburun-Sazan Marine Park spans across Sazan Island and onto the Karaburun Peninsula on Albania’s Adriatic coast, harboring marine habitats that are home to several endangered species, including Mediterranean monk seals, one of the world’s most endangered marine mammals. Bottlenose dolphins, loggerhead sea turtles, and flamingos are other examples of the fauna within the Karaburun-Sazan Marine Park that the Albanian government has sought to preserve by extending environmental protections to the island.
The island’s emergence as a tourist destination since first being opened to the public in 2015 has made its unique environment politically contentious. Those tensions became considerably amplified in 2024 when Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC was awarded strategic investor status by the Albanian Strategic Investment Committee chaired by Prime Minister Edi Rama in order to develop the Sazan Island Resort. Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC is an extension of Affinity Partners, the American investment firm based out of Miami, Florida, created by Jared Kushner in 2021. Kushner’s firm promised to commit €1.4 billion to the development of the island, which planned to include a marina, hotels, private villas, restaurants, recreation facilities, and the crown jewel of a luxury resort managed by Swiss hospitality company Aman Resorts. In addition to the development of tourist destinations, Kushner’s firm has also committed funds to the restoration of Cold War-era military structures including the thousands of nuclear bunkers across the island.
According to Kushner, he had been encouraged to look to Albania for investment opportunities at the behest of Richard Grenell, who has served in the role of Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions since the position was established by the Trump administration in January 2025. During the first Trump administration, Grenell made headlines as he was named the first openly gay cabinet-level official in U.S. history after being appointed as the acting Director of National Intelligence in 2020. Grenell also served as the Special Presidential Envoy for Serbia and Kosovo Peace Negotiations from October 2019 until the end of the first Trump administration, through which he cultivated his connections to Albanian government officials involved in the diplomatic process to normalize relations between the two countries. Grenell’s encouragement to seek investment opportunities in Albania led to Kushner meeting with Prime Minister Edi Rama aboard the same yacht his wife stated he first discovered the island aboard in 2021. That yacht was owned by Nat Rothschild, the 5th Baron Rothschild of the infamous banking dynasty, who arranged the meeting between Kushner and the prime minister, which led to Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC being awarded strategic investor status by the Albanian government to begin developing the Sazan Island Resort in late 2024.
Revelations over the Kushner-backed plan to develop a luxury resort on Sazan Island sparked outrage across Albania. In late May, protests began to erupt at the proposed site of the development in the southern Albanian city of Zvernec on the coast of the Adriatic Sea, where protesters took to the large barbed-wire fences erected around the project. Those protesters were met by a private security detail assigned to the site of the development, an exchange that quickly turned violent as security guards began dragging protesters away from the area. Following the protests, Albanian officials revoked the licenses of two of the private security companies. Additionally, 15 protesters were charged in connection with the demonstration.
Demonstrations against the Kushner-backed development project continued as thousands of Albanians took to the streets of the nation’s capital, Tirana, voicing their fervent opposition to endangering the protected flora and fauna within the island. Joni Vorpsi, an ecologist with the PPNEA-BirdLife Albania organization, warned of the dangers the project presented to the region, stating, “This would be a new city with around 10,000 rooms, and it will completely destroy that wild region.” Vorspi also succinctly summarized the goal of the protests when he declared, “We want all construction to halt and heavy machines out of the protected area.” Environmental protesters have announced a demonstration in Vlora, the third-most populous city in the country, which encompasses the Karaburun Peninsula and Sazan Island, planned for Saturday, June 6th, 2026
Although protesters have largely taken to the streets across Albania in defense of protecting the ecology of Sazan Island, consideration over the dangers the development of the luxury resort poses to the wildlife of the region isn’t the most serious issue raised about the project concerning Kushner. In the wake of those protests, Albanian anti-corruption officials announced a probe into the project negotiated between Kushner and Prime Minister Rama. On June 1st, 2026, the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organized Crime (”SPAK”) of Albania confirmed that it had opened a formal investigation into the project. The decision by the country’s anti-corruption organization followed the publication of a report by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network based out of Tirana, which revealed that Albanians involved in Kushner’s project to develop a luxury resort on Sazan Island include a businessman with links to the Italian mafia, a disgraced former judge, the daughter of an attorney accused of committing forgery, a company whose owner was mysteriously murdered, and one of the country’s largest oligarchs.
The corruption investigation launched by SPAK against the development project on Sazan Island is not the first of its kind to target Kushner-backed investments. In December 2025, just weeks before Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC was awarded strategic investor status by the Albanian government, Affinity Partners announced that it had withdrawn itself from a $500 million construction project it planned in Serbia. Affinity Partners had planned to build a Trump Tower complex encompassing a hotel and luxury apartments in central Belgrade on the site of a former Yugoslavian Army headquarters that was destroyed during a NATO bombing raid in 1999 during the Kosovo War. Affinity Partners agreed to a 99-year lease on the site of the proposed Trump Tower complex with the Serbian government before withdrawing from the plan for its construction. The project was derailed following the indictment of Serbian Culture Minister Nikola Selakovic and three other officials on charges of abuse of office and falsification of documents filed by the country’s Public Prosecution Office for Organized Crime (”TOK”). In the indictment, the TOK alleged that Selakovic illegally removed the building’s cultural heritage status in order to greenlight the Affinity Partners project to build the Trump Tower complex in Belgrade. Selakovic’s trial on the charges filed by the TOK began in February 2026. While the charges brought against Selakovic gave his trial the ignominious distinction of being the first to be held against a sitting minister of the Serbian government since the overthrow of the regime of former president Slobodan Milošević, current Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic threatened to pardon him and his co-defendants in the event that they are convicted
In discussing his plans for the Sazan Island Resort during an interview with the FII Institute, Kushner ostensibly gave insight into the political calculus behind his corruption-laden projects in Albania and Serbia. According to Kushner, the motives driving the development projects led by him through Affinity Partners are not just driven by the aim of expanding his own real estate empire inextricably tied to that of his father-in-law, President Donald J. Trump. Those motives are also inextricably tied to Trump’s political empire.
During the interview, Kushner remarked on how investment into countries like Serbia and Albania through Affinity Partners was part of a comprehensive strategy to expand the sphere of influence of the State of Israel. In discussing the investment strategy of Affinity Partners, Kushner minced no words, making it clear how nations that aligned themselves with Israel would receive the benefits of investments from his firm. Kushner expounded on how that dynamic could be used to expand the sphere of Zionist influence, remarking, “We’re looking at opportunities to invest in countries who have joined the Abraham Accords, but we’re also looking at opportunities to invest in countries that might join the Abraham Accords and to create economic packages to incentivize them.” Kushner elaborated how partners of his had also suggested exploring the opportunities of investing in countries including Morocco and Syria in an effort to persuade their governments to join the Abraham Accords as the next stage of his strategy to leverage investment capital to expand the Israeli sphere of influence.
Neither Albania nor Serbia is currently signatory to the Abraham Accords. The potential of joining those agreements does not simply offer the prospect of the investment of financial capital into the countries but political capital as well. Albania has long sought admission into the European Union (”EU”). The country formally applied for membership in the EU in 2009. It was given official candidate status in 2014 and has rapidly accelerated its pace for accession since. EU officials and Prime Minister Edi Rama have set their sights on concluding negotiations for Albania to join the EU by the end of 2027, with an ambitious target date for becoming its newest member-state set for 2030. Serbia similarly filed its formal application to join the EU in 2009 and began membership negotiations in 2014. However, unlike Albania, negotiations between Serbia and the EU have reached impasses over proposed political, judicial, and foreign policy reforms. In the case of each country, the possibility of entering into the Abraham Accords provides them with political capital that can be leveraged to advance their respective accessions to the EU. That dynamic highlights how Jared Kushner’s development projects through Affinity Partners not only serve as a gateway for foreign investment to advance his political ambition to expand the Zionist sphere of influence; they also further the political ambitions of the nations he brings into the fold, a reciprocally beneficial arrangement in which Israel is the ultimate beneficiary.
Following the collapse of Affinity Partners’ plan to build a sprawling Trump Tower complex in Belgrade, the project of developing the Sazan Island Resort in Albania stands as the centerpiece of Kushner’s strategy to use private investment capital to surreptitiously advance Zionist foreign policy ambitions outside of the public sphere. Just as concerns over dangers to the island’s ecosystem veil the malignant corruption behind the project from becoming the focus of the discourse over it, Kushner’s declared motive of investing in nations in the hopes of accelerating their development hides behind a similar facade that shields the political ambitions driving his strategy.
The Guardian view on NHS records: patients are not raw material for Palantir big tech
Ministers should end Palantir’s contract before medical confidentiality is sacrificed to Silicon Valley’s appetite for public data
Editorial, 5 June 26 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/04/the-guardian-view-on-nhs-records-patients-are-not-raw-material-for-big-tech
Ministers should end Palantir’s contract before medical confidentiality is sacrificed to Silicon Valley’s appetite for public dataFri 5 Jun 2026 03.54 AESTShare
Alarm bells ought to have rung when it emerged last month that Palantir engineers could gain “unlimited access” to identifiable NHS patient data. Such sensitive medical information was only supposed to be available either to someone involved in a patient’s care or with the patient’s informed consent. NHS England’s new position appears to have changed that, extending access to private companies because it may make data processing easier. Convenience is not a basis for undermining medical confidentiality.
Nicola Byrne, the government’s national data guardian, clearly thought the NHS had broken its promise that its £330m deal with Palantir would see “identifiable patient information … limited to NHS staff with a legitimate need”. Patients tell doctors things they may tell no one else. If they think that sensitive details can be disclosed to US tech corporations, trust will suffer – and patients will say less when the truth matters most.
This risk helps explain why MPs on parliament’s science, innovation and technology committee warned this week that Palantir had become an “unacceptable point of weakness”. The business model is simple. Britain supplies the raw material: NHS patient data. Silicon Valley monetises it. The problem is that the benefits – better models, new products – accrue not to the British public, but to US shareholders.
The MPs also argued that Palantir is not just another software firm. In the US it has worked with the military and immigration authorities on controversial programmes. Its co-founder, Peter Thiel, the committee noted, has disparaged the idea of a national health service. The report recommends that ministers should activate the February 2027 break clause in its £330m NHS Palantir contract – ending its relationship with the company and moving to either an in-house or UK-owned provider. The government should heed this advice.
The committee ought to be thanked for making it clear that this is no one-off scandal, but part of a wider pattern. Public bodies, it warns, have become dependent on a few powerful technology companies which the state lacks the capacity to challenge or replace. Officials often struggle to understand the systems they buy. Allowing critical public infrastructure to rest on foreign-owned platforms undermines state autonomy. Accountability is blurred when decisions on data access and procurement are buried in technical briefings and dense contracts.
This is especially concerning when assessing the government’s claim that a new £1.8bn digital ID system would make “public services quicker, easier and more secure to access”. Given the chequered history of big government IT projects, it is unsurprising that the committee is sceptical of its successful launch. Its report, correctly, views mandatory adoption as wrongheaded. The public sector holds citizens’ data on trust, MPs say, “and should therefore hold itself to a higher standard”. With patient data, that seems not to be the case.
Ministers have offered various reasons for digital ID: stopping illegal working, easing access to vehicle records and even checking bin collection days. None has stuck. The deeper problem is that digital transformation is treated as an exercise in efficiency, not one requiring public consent and parliamentary scrutiny. Infrastructure built around a person’s identity must not expand by bureaucratic drift. The committee’s call for separate parliamentary votes on each use of digital ID is the democratic lock missing from the NHS’s Palantir deal.
The Disappearing Aid Check: The Future of US–Israel Defense Support
What top Israeli officials — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — are quietly backing is not a reduction in American support, but a reorganization of it: shifting billions in resources from State Department–administered foreign aid grants into general Pentagon procurement accounts, industrial partnerships, and sustainment pipelines. The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Steven Simon, May 26, 2026
Executive Summary
The United States and Israel are now approaching the renegotiation of their 10-year defense Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU. Israeli officials have said they want to phase out US military grant aid — a position that sounds like a step toward ending US military assistance to Israel. It is not.
What top Israeli officials — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — are quietly backing is not a reduction in American support, but a reorganization of it: shifting billions in resources from State Department–administered foreign aid grants into general Pentagon procurement accounts, industrial partnerships, and sustainment pipelines. The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.
Since fiscal year 2019, the United States has provided $3.3 billion per year in Foreign Military Financing, or FMF, grants to Israel, plus an additional $500 million per year for missile defense cooperation. About 25 percent of this FMF grant money has gone toward offshore procurement, or OSP, funds allocated to Israel to spend domestically on its own defense industry and military equipment. Effectively, it is a US subsidy for Israel’s military industrial complex.
This OSP precedent is slated to end with the expiration of the current MOU. This has fueled Israeli proposals to phase out FMF grants altogether, replacing them with a relationship centered on US–Israeli defense integration. This would embed Israeli firms and Israeli–origin intellectual property inside larger Pentagon programs and production. Unlike the foreign assistance process, the military procurement framework would not be subject to the political scrutiny of Congress and the State Department, but would be evaluated on bureaucratic criteria such as cost, readiness, and capability. This shift would likely be justified by reframing US support not as a handout to Israel, but as an investment in American military readiness, industrial capacity, and jobs.
At a time when the US–Israel relationship should be scrutinized in light of Israeli actions that run counter to US interests, such a structural shift would be counterproductive. To avoid this outcome, any procurement-centered relationship should meet these three basic requirements:
- Clear metrics to assess whether Israeli participation in Pentagon programs serves US defense requirements.
- Program-level transparency regarding the existence, scale, cost, and rationale of each procurement program.
- Cross-committee coordination in Congress to ensure visibility and accountability to non-military congressional oversight committees.
The current deal — and why it is running out of road
This brief explains what the shift in US aid for Israel means: where the money actually goes, who controls it, who benefits, and why the standard debate about ending aid misses the consequential change.1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What “ending aid” actually means
…………………………………. ending aid in this context does not mean ending US financial support for Israel’s military and defense sector. It means changing the institutional form through which that support is delivered. The concept, in effect, is not to reduce support for Israel’s military; it is to shift it from the foreign-operations budget and the State Department’s oversight to the Pentagon’s procurement, research and development, industrial base, and sustainment machinery…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The new architecture — how money moves in a defense-industrial model
To understand what replaces the grant, it helps to understand how the Pentagon actually spends money on defense cooperation, and why that process looks so different from foreign aid…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Conclusion — quieter does not mean smaller
The post-2028 US–Israel defense relationship will likely be recast to reduce its political profile. The annual aid vote, one of the most predictably contentious moments in future US foreign-policy debates, may fade away, replaced by procurement decisions that attract little public attention and even less organized opposition. Israeli officials will be able to claim, accurately in formal terms, that Israel no longer receives American aid. American officials will be able to defend the spending as investment in US readiness rather than largesse to a foreign partner…………………………………………………….
For observers trying to understand US–Israel relations, the practical implication is methodological. The aid vote is no longer the right place to look. Instead, the key data will be located in the procurement budget, industrial-base investments, sustainment pipeline, IP licensing arrangements, and workshare provisions. The consequential decisions will be made in those domains.
Annex: Key terms and reference figures………………………………https://quincyinst.org/research/the-disappearing-aid-check-the-future-of-us-israel-defense-support/?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_1_21_2025_13_26_COPY_01)&mc_cid=3131e3a216#h-annex-key-terms-and-reference-figures
Israeli Authorities Refuse To Return Massive Trove Of Oct 7 Video. What Are They Hiding?
June 1, 2026, Michelle Witte· The Grayzone, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/01/israeli-authorities-refuse-to-return-massive-trove-of-oct-7-video-what-are-they-hiding/
Israeli citizens wonder why the state won’t return October 7 footage it confiscated from them. The mother of an Israeli victim says authorities deleted video of her son’s death. Others complain “someone is hiding” the videos.
The Israeli government is still holding a massive trove of video documentation of the Oct. 7 attack captured by individuals and communities caught up in the fighting. One bereaved parent even accuses Israeli authorities of deleting a video of her son’s last moments before returning his phone to her.
According to Israel’s Channel 13, “all the cameras, memory cards and films that documented the atrocities were collected, but two and a half years later, these materials have not been returned to the communities and bereaved families who are desperate for information, and even feel that someone is hiding it from them.”
Soon after Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, special units from the IDF, the Israeli intelligence agency Shin Bet and Israel’s investigation unit Lahav 433 collected photo and video documentation of the violence, confiscating cell phones, individual cameras, kibbutz security cameras and more.
“They disconnected what was needed, took it and moved on – that was the last time we saw the materials,” said an Israeli army reservist who participated in the collection mission.
According to the head of the Kfar Aza kibbutz – the site of a number of a series of atrocity hoaxes spun out in the early days after the attack – community members cooperated with investigators at the time. Now, years after the events, these families are wondering why documentation of their loved ones’ fates has yet to be returned to them.
Even Sabine Taasa, who was made an emblem of Israeli victimhood after her husband and one of her sons were killed on Oct. 7, is now clashing with Israeli authorities over footage of that day.
Taasa’s 17-year-old son, Or, was killed on Zikim beach. According to Channel 13, Taasa says she saw a video her son filmed in the moments leading up to his death, but when authorities returned his phone to her, no such video remained. The outlet says this is not an isolated incident.
An IDF probe found that soldiers abandoned civilians hiding in a bathroom there and then left their bodies for a week.
Channel 13 reports that Israeli police claimed Lahav 433 is still investigating the events in kibbutz Kfar Aza and no indictments have yet been filed, so returning evidence at this stage could jeopardize their criminal case. Meanwhile, the IDF rejected all accusations that it is withholding documentation and says it is in the final stages of adopting policies for how this type of evidence will be returned to communities and families.
On October 7, the Israeli government issued video Hannibal Directive orders which led Apache helicopter pilots and tank gunners to take aim at Israel’s own citizens in the Gaza envelope, supposedly to prevent them from being taken hostage. Israeli Brig. Gen. Barak Hiram personally ordered a tank crew to shell a home in Kibbutz Be’eri, knowing it was filled with Israeli citizens who had been taken captive by Hamas fighters seeking to negotiate a way out of the standoff. A dozen Israelis were killed in the strike, leaving behind “a house full of corpses,” according to the lone Israeli survivor. One Israeli tank gunner from an all-female unit similarly revealed that she was ordered to shell Israeli homes without knowing who was inside. An Israeli police investigation subsequently revealed that Israeli helicopters shelled the Nova Electronic Music festival on October 7.
Given Israel’s track record of targeting its own citizens on October 7 and misleading the public about it, the Israeli state might be holding on to as much video as possible to ensure no further evidence of the Israeli army massacring its own citizens is made public.
Israel has demonstrated a keen interest in collecting documentation of the events of October 7 and controlling narratives through careful curation and dissemination. At the same time, it has refused to participate in independent, international investigations of the attack, Israel’s response, or the widely distributed and now widely debunked claims of mass sexual violence by Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. According to the Israeli state, Israel and Israel alone is justified in and capable of conducting such probes.
However, the state has strangely neglected to launch its own comprehensive special investigation into the apparent massive intelligence failure and military debacle. In fact, the Israeli government has had to be prodded by its own high court to establish a state commission of inquiry into the events, according to reporting by the Times of Israel. The Israeli government now has until July 1 to come up with a “suitable framework” to investigate the events, following years of pressure by the families of Israelis killed that day.
With the Israeli military-intelligence apparatus refusing to return possibly hundreds of hours of footage to its owners, some Israelis who lived through the October 7 attacks are beginning to wonder if they could be hiding something.
Michelle Witte is a writer, editor and broadcaster who previously co-hosted the news radio show, “Political Misfits.”
Israeli claims about an Iran ‘threat’ were always a lie. Now we have proof
The disinformation about Iran should have been all too glaring back in 2006, had any of it been reported properly – just as it should be now, two decades later, were western journalists doing their job rather than acting as stenographers for Israel and the White House.
This is another swindle, like Trump’s “Board of Peace”, which dresses up US and Israeli criminal aggression and genocide as peacemaking.
It is not Tehran led by unhinged, genocidal megalomaniacs threatening the security of the region and the world. It is Tel Aviv and Washington
Jonathan Cook, Middle East Eye, 30 May 2026
ould it be that Israel’s 30-year narrative about Iran – one that persuaded US President Donald Trump to wage a criminal and disastrous war of aggression – was always a fiction, an invention cooked up in Tel Aviv?
Far from Tehran posing an existential danger to Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed for decades, might Israel’s real fear be that a stronger Iran would undermine its unique leverage over Washington, threatening its status as the region’s sole – and unmonitored – nuclear power?
Might large parts of the globe be facing economic meltdown simply so that Israel can remain the Middle East’s top dog – an unaccountable apartheid state committing genocide against the Palestinian people and ethnically cleansing southern Lebanon?
We got a definitive answer last week, care of the New York Times. It is an uncompromising yes to all of these questions.
The newspaper reported that Netanyahu not only mis-sold Trump on the idea of quick regime change in Iran following a short “shock and awe” bombing campaign. He also identified to the White House who was going to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader.
Extraordinarily, according to the Times, Netanyahu named the man for the job as former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The aim at the start of the air campaign was for Israel to kill Khamenei, then liberate Ahmadinejad from house arrest by striking the guards who were confining him.
Presumably, Ahmadinejad was then supposed to storm the citadel and seize the keys to the palace. But only Khamenei’s assassination went according to plan.
Ahmadinejad, who had reportedly been consulted on the scheme beforehand, is believed to have been injured in the Israeli strike near his home. He got cold feet, possibly suspecting he was being set up for assassination too, and went into hiding. His current whereabouts and medical condition are unknown.
Ultimate bogeyman
Neither US nor Israeli officials would comment to the Times on the alleged regime-change plot, a scheme that the newspaper called “audacious”. That is the understatement of all understatements.
The idea that Ahmadinejad had the popular support, let alone the religious authority and military muscle behind him, to take on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s crack military force responsible for protecting the clerical regime, is for the birds.
That anyone in the White House took this plan seriously, let alone acted on it, is a genuinely staggering notion. But the proposition that Ahmadinejad could retake the reins of power in Iran is possibly the least preposterous part of the scheme.
While younger readers may not recognise Ahmadinejad’s name, everyone else should. He made headlines on an almost weekly basis during much of his eight-year presidency, starting in 2005. Why? Because Israel turned him into the ultimate bogeyman.
After neighbouring Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was toppled and executed in 2006, following an illegal invasion by the US and Britain, Ahmadinejad was hyped as the new implacable threat to regional peace.
Claims about Ahmadinejad first breathed an illusory substance into Israel’s now-unchallenged script that a supposedly fanatical, deranged Iran would leave no stone unturned in seeking to destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad, we were told time and again, was seeking to pursue a nuclear bomb – even after Khamenei had issued a religious edict in 2003 strictly banning its development.
In 2006, Ehud Olmert, then the Israeli prime minister, warned the world that Ahmadinejad was a “psychopath of the worst kind”, adding: “He speaks as Hitler did in his time of the extermination of the entire Jewish nation.”
Olmert was echoing a panic-inducing campaign led by Netanyahu, then Israel’s opposition leader, that Iran needed to be attacked immediately to save Israel and the world.
“It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany,” Netanyahu told a meeting of American Jewish leaders that same year. “And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.” Of Ahmadinejad, he said: “Believe him and stop him … He is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.”
Under Ahmadinejad, Iran was supposedly hellbent on destroying Israel, turning it into a giant Auschwitz. Also in 2006, Netanyahu told Israeli Army Radio: “Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran’s tour of destruction.”
Ahmadinejad was so unhinged, Netanyahu said, that he would not stop at Israel’s eradication: “Iran is developing ballistic missiles that would reach America, and now they prepare missiles with an adequate range to cover the whole of Europe
‘Genocidal intent’
A short time later, Israel’s fear-mongering operation reached a crescendo in London.
Netanyahu told members of the British parliament that Ahmadinejad had to be urgently brought before the International Criminal Court – the war crimes court in the Hague – for his “messianic apocalyptic view of the world”.
Irony of ironies, Netanyahu – who 20 years later is a fugitive from that same court, accused of crimes against humanity for starving the people of Gaza – emphasised Ahmadinejad’s supposed genocidal intent towards Israel. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Smoke and mirrors
Two decades ago, the message from Netanyahu was clear: Ahmadinejad was so rabidly antisemitic that he deserved to be compared to Hitler.
Ahmadinejad was so eager to pursue a nuclear weapons programme that he was prepared to defy the country’s supreme religious leader. He was so mentally unstable that he was ready to use those weapons to exterminate Israel, even though such a move would ensure a retaliatory nuclear counter-strike on his own country.
Lest we forget, Ahmadinejad had a reputation for such ruthless crackdowns on political opponents that Amnesty International noted in 2014 that his rule had “sounded the death knell for academic freedom in Iran”.
Yet, fast forward two decades, and Netanyahu reportedly now thinks Ahmadinejad is the best person to lead Iran; the person for whom it was worth killing Khamenei, Iran’s most influential opponent of nuclear weapons.
Iran has won the war. Trump and Netanyahu now face a reckoning
The New York Times reports that in recent years, there were strong suspicions inside Iran that Israel, Britain and the US were cultivating ties with Ahmadinejad and those around him – suspicions that now seem to be confirmed by Israel’s apparent regime-change plan.
The newspaper further reports that Ahmadinejad had recently travelled to both Guatemala and Hungary, countries with very close ties to Israel.
Does any of this make sense? And yet for western media, the fact that Netanyahu was championing Ahmadinejad as Iran’s saviour, and that the US administration wholeheartedly bought into this idea, is little more than “surprising”.
In truth, it wrecks Israel’s entire narrative about Iran. It is a telling reminder of the yawning gap between what we have been told about Iran for decades, and what has actually been going on.
Image and reality bear almost no resemblance to each other. This has all been smoke and mirrors.
‘Wiped off the map’
In my 2008 book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, I pointed out that nothing Israel was telling us about its Middle Eastern rival could be accepted at face value – least of all Israel’s assertion that Ahmadinejad was a Jew-hating “new Hitler”.
Many of the claims promoted 20 years ago by Israel about Ahmadinejad’s genocidal intent stemmed from a mistranslation of a speech in which the Iranian leader had quoted the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
According to western politicians and media, Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” – widely portrayed as an ambition to launch a nuclear strike on Israel.
In fact, Ahmadinejad had been repeating Khomeini’s observation that Israel could not survive indefinitely in the form of an illegitimate Jewish supremacist state oppressing another people. He was pointing out that Israel’s days as a racist state were numbered, just as apartheid South Africa’s had been.
The sentiment behind Khomeini’s statement should be much clearer in the present circumstances, when it is Israel, not Iran, that has been busy wiping people off the map – in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
Similarly, Israel and its western allies made a great deal of noise in 2006 when Ahmadinejad called what was widely misrepresented as a “Holocaust denial” conference in Tehran. In fact, Ahmadinejad had organised what was intended to be a provocative – and to some, offensive – stunt to challenge western taboos about Israel and underscore the West’s hypocrisy towards Muslims.
Ahmadinejad’s point was twofold: firstly, if Muslims are not entitled to have their beliefs and sensitivities respected by westerners – as evidenced by the 2005 “Danish cartoon affair” and the “free speech” defence for presenting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad – why should westerners expect their own sensitivities about Israel and the Holocaust to be exempt from challenge?
He also wanted to dissect the western belief that someone else, the Palestinian people, should pay a heavy price, including decades of dispossession and abuse, for the West’s crimes against Europe’s Jews.
Horror show
The disinformation about Iran should have been all too glaring back in 2006, had any of it been reported properly – just as it should be now, two decades later, were western journalists doing their job rather than acting as stenographers for Israel and the White House.
The lies, now as then, serve the same end: to justify crushing Iran – then through sanctions, later through the addition of illegal bombing – so that Israel’s right to trample over the lives of people across the region without consequence can be protected.
Iran, now refusing to release its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz and the global supply of oil, is demanding that the price include an end to US backing for the Israeli-directed horror show in the Middle East.
Like a spoiled toddler, Trump is thrashing around – while cashing in on the volatility of the oil markets – trying to impose the old rules, when the terms of the confrontation are no longer under his exclusive control.
His latest tantrum – one cooked up in Tel Aviv as much as Washington – is that most Arab states, including Iran’s neighbours in the Gulf, be forced to sign the so-called Abraham Accords with Israel. This is being presented as the framework for a regional “peace deal” involving Iran. In truth, it is the very opposite.
The accords are designed to cement Israel’s status as the Middle East’s top dog, subordinating Arab states’ interests to Israel’s, and thereby isolating Iran in the region and leaving the Palestinian people and Lebanon to a genocidal Israel’s mercy.
This is another swindle, like Trump’s “Board of Peace”, which dresses up US and Israeli criminal aggression and genocide as peacemaking.
What the past 20 years of lies and misdirections have sought to hide is a simple fact: it is not Tehran that is led by unhinged, genocidal megalomaniacs threatening the security of the region and the world. It is Tel Aviv and Washington.
Since the pair launched their criminal war of aggression against Iran three months ago, Tehran has shown restraint, acted with caution, and displayed a willingness to negotiate in good faith. Too bad there are no responsible adults on the other side with whom it can make a deal. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israeli-claims-about-iran-threat-were-always-lie-now-we-have-proof
Yet Another Escalation In The Empire’s War On Activism And Journalism.
Caitlin Johnstone, May 26, 2026
The empire’s war on activism and journalism continues to escalate as the Trump administration targets left-wing streamer Hasan Piker and antiwar activist Medea Benjamin for the crime of bringing humanitarian aid to Cuba.
This is yet another act of aggression in the same onslaught that has seen inconvenient truth-telling and expressions of moral clarity attacked and undermined throughout the western world at every juncture in recent years.
It is not separate from the persecution of Julian Assange for exposing US war crimes.
It is not separate from the steadily increasing escalations of internet censorship we’ve seen in the wake of Gaza, Ukraine, Covid, January 6, the 2016 US presidential election, and any other excuse the imperial narrative managers could find.
It is not separate from the Trump administration’s efforts to deport non-citizens for criticizing the state of Israel.
It is not separate from the efforts to stomp out pro-Palestine protests and university campus demonstrations.
It is not separate from the arrests of activists in the UK on terrorism charges for saying the words “I support Palestine Action”.
It is not separate from activists facing criminal charges for saying “From the river to the sea” in parts of Australia and Germany.
It is not separate from imperial efforts to crack down on BDS activism and outlaw boycotts of Israeli products.
It is not separate from Israel’s ban on foreign press from entering Gaza, nor is it separate from Israel’s systematic extermination of Palestinian journalists within Gaza.
It is not separate from the artificially manufactured hysteria about “antisemitism” in western society and the efforts of western governments to silence criticism of Israel in the name of protecting Jews.
It is not separate from Israel’s massive increase in its hasbara budget this year and the armies of paid trolls we’ve seen swarming online discourse.
It is not separate from the nonstop barrage of imperial propaganda we see every day from the plutocratic press justifying every war and slandering every dissident.
It is not separate from the way imperial oligarchs like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Larry Ellison buy up news outlets like The Washington Post and CBS and social media platforms like TikTok and Twitter in order to manipulate the way the public thinks, acts, and votes.
It is not separate from the way tech platforms have been manipulating algorithms to hide dissident sources of information from the public and using bogus “fact checking” firms to suppress unauthorized facts.
It is not separate from government secrecy measures which forbid the public from knowing what their rulers are doing, and which aggressively punish anyone who tries to reveal inconvenient facts.
The empire is waging a relentless war on intellectual clarity and on moral clarity, because truth and morality are its enemies.
They do not want us to have unobstructed vision, lucid minds, functioning empathy centers and well-formed consciences, because if we did, we would instantly dismantle the empire brick by brick.
This is why they go after anyone who tries to expand the consciousness of western society using activism and journalism. In an empire built on lies and fueled by human blood, telling the truth is seen as treason and doing the right thing is seen as insurrection.
The only sane response to such a dystopian situation is to join in the revolution. Help spread unauthorized ideas and information. Take action to spread awareness of the abusive nature of the empire. They’re trying to keep it all in the dark, so we need to bring it all into the light.
They wouldn’t be fighting so hard to suppress truth and compassion if it didn’t present an immediate existential threat to their power structure.
“Don’t Be Bothered by Their Screams”: Ben-Gvir Proudly Posts Video of Police Dragging Members of the Flotilla Team
Joshua Scheer, May 21, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/21/itamar-ben-gvir-turns-torture-into-a-public-spectacle-dont-be-bothered-by-their-screams/
Ben-Gvir himself reportedly captioned the footage, “That’s how we welcome terror supporters. Welcome to Israel,” while another clip showed him taunting handcuffed detainees. The outrage became so intense that even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly distanced himself from the spectacle, calling the conduct “not in line with Israel’s values and norms.”
There is something here that feels ripped straight from the darkest chapters of our fascist past — not hidden away in secret archives decades later, but broadcast openly, proudly, in real time. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir shared footage of police violently dragging members of the flotilla team while mocking their suffering with the chilling phrase: “Don’t be bothered by their screams.”
And if this is what they are willing to show the public — if this is the sanitized version uploaded for propaganda and applause — then imagine the unspeakable torture, humiliation, and violence taking place in the shadows, far from cameras and headlines. History indeed has a way of repeating itself, especially when cruelty becomes spectacle and those in power begin celebrating the pain of the powerless.
Ben-Gvir himself has repeatedly demanded harsher measures, more repression, more brutality, always insisting there is not enough force, not enough punishment, not enough fear inflicted on Palestinians and dissenters alike. The language is no longer even disguised. It echoes the rhetoric of authoritarian regimes that taught generations what happens when a society stops seeing human beings as human.
What makes this moment especially horrifying is not merely the violence itself, but the pride. The celebration. The transformation of state cruelty into political theater for a cheering audience. Fascism does not arrive all at once. It grows through normalization — through laughter at suffering, through public spectacles of domination, through officials who learn there is political capital in dehumanization.
And history has shown us, again and again, where that road leads.
A diplomatic firestorm has erupted and what began as another act of humiliation proudly broadcast by Itamar Ben-Gvir quickly spiraled into a rare global diplomatic backlash, with governments across Europe, North America, and beyond publicly condemning Israel’s treatment of Gaza flotilla activists. Britain’s Yvette Cooper said she was “truly appalled,” while Italy’s Giorgia Meloni called the footage “inadmissible.”
Spain announced plans to ban Ben-Gvir from entering the country and push for wider European sanctions. France, Canada, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Qatar, Turkey, South Korea, and top European Union officials all denounced the scenes as degrading, humiliating, illegal, or incompatible with democratic values. Several countries summoned Israeli ambassadors demanding explanations or apologies after footage showed activists zip-tied, dragged, and forced to kneel while Ben-Gvir mocked them online. Even figures inside Israel and allied diplomats distanced themselves from the spectacle, exposing just how politically toxic the images became on the world stage. But for many observers, the outrage also raised a darker question: if world leaders are only now reacting because Western citizens were humiliated on camera, what horrors have Palestinians endured for years outside the spotlight?
With Al Jazeera reporting that many analysts are now calling the collapse of the “Hasbara” which “for decades, Israel has relied on “Hasbara” – a Hebrew term translating to “explanation” – a propaganda campaign to justify its policies and military actions against Palestinians to the international community”
The fracturing of this illusion helps explain the frantic damage control coming from Israeli officials after the flotilla footage went global.
Critics argue the outrage inside the Israeli government was never truly about the abuse itself, but about the devastating public relations fallout after images of activists being zip-tied, dragged, and forced to kneel spread across the world.
The strategy has long depended on controlling the narrative and framing Israel as acting out of necessity while dismissing criticism as misunderstanding or bias.
But according to Palestinian policy analyst Fathi Nimer, the sheer brazenness of Ben-Gvir’s video shattered that carefully managed image in real time. As Israel pours hundreds of millions into global messaging campaigns amid growing international isolation over Gaza, the footage instead exposed to millions what critics say Palestinians have experienced for years behind prison walls, checkpoints, and military occupation — only this time the humiliation was proudly broadcast by the officials themselves.
One can only hope that this shatters the illusion forever. That no amount of polished public relations campaigns, carefully managed talking points, or billion-dollar propaganda operations can put this genie back in the bottle. Because the world did not witness a “misunderstanding” or an isolated incident — it witnessed state humiliation proudly performed for applause. It witnessed officials mocking bound detainees while the machinery of occupation operated in plain sight. And for millions watching across the globe, the question is no longer whether these abuses happen, but how long they have been happening beyond the reach of cameras.
Perhaps the most damning part of all this is that the mask did not slip accidentally — it was ripped off willingly by those who no longer feel the need to hide their contempt. History teaches that systems built on dehumanization eventually reveal themselves completely. The only question is whether the world finally chooses to see what Palestinians have been trying to show it for generations.
Julian Assange Free Speech and Democracy
21 May 2026 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay ra
Julian Assange free speech concerns are reshaping trust in democracy, media freedom, and government transparency in Australia
Introduction
The documentary The Trust Fall leaves many viewers with an uncomfortable feeling that the debate surrounding Julian Assange free speech is no longer about one man. It is about whether governments that claim to defend democracy and free speech truly support those principles when powerful interests are exposed.
For many Australians, the treatment of Julian Assange became a turning point. Citizens watched as an Australian publisher was pursued for revealing evidence of war crimes, government secrecy, and hidden political dealings. At the same time, many political leaders who regularly speak about freedom and democracy remained silent.
That contradiction has deeply damaged public trust.
The Man Who Challenged Powerful Governments
From Hacker to Global Publisher
Julian Assange began as a controversial but highly skilled computer activist before becoming one of the world’s most recognised publishers through WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks changed journalism by publishing leaked documents directly to the public. Those leaks exposed military operations, diplomatic communications, and evidence of misconduct that governments never intended citizens to see.
One of the most confronting releases was the “Collateral Murder” video, showing civilians and journalists killed during a U.S. military operation in Iraq.
For supporters, Assange exposed truths the public deserved to know. For governments, he became a dangerous threat to secrecy and power.
The Central Message of The Trust Fall
Truth Can Become Dangerous
The Trust Fall: Julian Assange presents a disturbing question. What happens when revealing the truth becomes treated as a criminal act?
The documentary argues that Assange was not prosecuted because the information was false, but because it embarrassed powerful governments and institutions.
That possibility creates fear far beyond journalism.
If governments aggressively pursue publishers and whistleblowers, many journalists may avoid investigating sensitive topics altogether. This creates a chilling effect where fear replaces scrutiny.
Democracy depends on informed citizens. Citizens cannot make informed decisions if important information is hidden from them.
Are Democracies Becoming Less Democratic?
Expanding Surveillance and Secrecy
Since the September 11 attacks, many Western governments have expanded surveillance powers dramatically. Citizens were told these measures protected national security.
However, critics argue that many laws also weakened privacy, press freedom, and civil liberties.
Australia introduced some of the strictest secrecy legislation in the democratic world. Journalists have faced police raids, whistleblowers have been prosecuted, and online censorship debates continue growing.
Many Australians now question whether democracy and free speech are being slowly weakened while governments continue claiming to defend them.
The Media Problem Few Politicians Discuss
Why Parts of the Media Turned on Assange
Some major media organisations initially benefited from WikiLeaks publications before later distancing themselves from Assange.
Critics argue that corporate ownership structures and political pressure influence which stories receive protection and which individuals become isolated.
This is one reason many Australians increasingly turn toward independent journalism platforms for investigative reporting.
Independent media organisations often work with far fewer resources but are sometimes more willing to challenge powerful interests.
Why Australian Leaders Failed the Assange Test
Silence From Both Major Parties
One of the most confronting aspects of the Assange case for many Australians was the reluctance of Australian political leaders to defend him strongly.
Successive Coalition and Labor governments avoided directly condemning the United States prosecution.
This silence became symbolic of something larger. Many citizens began questioning how independent Australian governments truly are when dealing with major allies.
Albanese and the Limits of Political Courage
Anthony Albanese eventually said that “enough is enough” about the Assange case.
However, critics argue that far stronger diplomatic pressure could have been applied much earlier.
Many Australians felt frustrated that defending an Australian citizen and defending press freedom did not appear to become a national priority.
This created a belief that political caution outweighed democratic principles.
The Nuclear Lie at the Center of U.S. Foreign Policy
May 19, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/19/the-nuclear-lie-at-the-center-of-u-s-foreign-policy/
“One country is sanctioned, threatened, bombed, and demonized over the fear of nuclear weapons. The other already has them — and the world is expected to look away.”
Mr. Fish’s cartoon stuck in my head because it cuts straight through the insanity of the entire conversation. One country already has nuclear weapons and the world is told not to talk about it, while another country that still doesn’t have them is treated like an immediate threat to civilization. The more I sat with the image, the more I started digging into the history underneath it — and the hypocrisy only got harder to ignore.
For decades we’ve been told to panic about the country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons while pretending not to notice the country that actually does. Iran gets sanctions, assassinations, bombings, and endless media hysteria over what it might someday build. Israel sits on an undeclared nuclear arsenal outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the political/media class acts like everyone is supposed to politely shut the hell up about it.
Mr. Fish’s cartoon cuts through that theater with a sledgehammer.
Israel has never officially acknowledged its nuclear weapons program, yet experts and watchdog groups estimate it possesses roughly 90 nuclear warheads and maintains one of the most secretive nuclear infrastructures on Earth. Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and international inspectors have never had full access to the Dimona facility believed to anchor its nuclear program.
The roots of Israel’s nuclear program stretch back decades. The Israel Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1952, and its first chairman, Ernst David Bergmann, openly argued that nuclear weapons would ensure “that we shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter,” according to the Jewish Virtual Library. As with so much of Israel’s national security doctrine, the trauma and memory of the Holocaust were invoked as a central justification for building and maintaining the program.
Documents show that as far back as 1968, the CIA had already informed President Lyndon B. Johnson that Israel either possessed nuclear weapons or was on the verge of developing them. But instead of confronting the issue publicly, Washington chose silence. President Richard Nixon later struck a secret understanding with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir: Israel would neither officially acknowledge nor test its nuclear arsenal, and in return, the U.S. would back off demands for inspections and oversight. From that point on, one of the world’s worst-kept secrets became official policy — don’t ask, don’t tell.
They weren’t guessing. Even reporting from the 1970s pointed to what U.S. intelligence already knew. As The New York Times later revealed, the CIA disclosed in a 1974 assessment that Israel had already developed nuclear weapons — partly using uranium obtained “by clandestine means.”
Meanwhile, Iran — despite years of sanctions, assassinations, cyberwarfare, and bombing campaigns — remains under constant international scrutiny precisely because it is formally inside the nonproliferation framework. Even members of the U.S. Congress have begun openly questioning the contradiction, warning that America’s policy of “official ambiguity” around Israel’s arsenal makes any coherent nonproliferation policy nearly impossible.
That’s the uncomfortable truth sitting underneath the mushroom cloud in Mr. Fish’s illustration: the issue has never simply been nuclear weapons. It has always been about who is allowed to have power, who is allowed to threaten annihilation, and whose violence is treated as “security” instead of extremism.
The cartoon’s suburban couple staring calmly into apocalypse captures the moral numbness at the center of the debate. Entire populations have been conditioned to panic over hypothetical weapons programs while accepting real arsenals, real occupations, and real mass death as background noise. The danger isn’t only the bomb — it’s the normalization of permanent double standards enforced through military dominance and political silence.
The Council on Foreign Relations directly undercuts the claim that Iran is an imminent nuclear threat. CFR writes that “many foreign policy experts warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East and nearby regions,” and argues that Israel viewed Iran’s potential possession of nuclear weapons as a “major, perhaps existential, threat” — a fear used to justify Israel’s June 2025 attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, followed by the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes in February 2026.
But even CFR acknowledges a critical fact often buried beneath the war rhetoric: Iran does not currently possess a nuclear weapon. The organization notes that while Iran has the scientific knowledge and infrastructure to potentially build one fast, there is no confirmed evidence that its leadership has decided to do so.
Adding to that reality, the claim that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat sharply conflicts with decades of U.S. intelligence assessments. The 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran halted its structured nuclear weapons program in 2003. Successive American intelligence officials — including former CIA Director William Burns — have repeatedly stated that Iran had not made the decision to build a nuclear bomb. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, including former chief Mohamed ElBaradei, likewise reported finding no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Even Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, recently contradicted the administration’s escalation narrative. In Senate testimony, Gabbard stated that Iran had not rebuilt a nuclear weapons program after the 2025 strikes — directly undercutting claims used to justify continued confrontation and military escalation.
She months later changed of position came after Donald Trump publicly claimed she was “wrong” and insisted U.S. intelligence showed Iran had amassed a “tremendous amount of material” and could build a nuclear weapon “within months.” Of course what has been stated here over and over again Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.
The lie, of course, is that Israel is not treated as a legitimate nuclear and existential threat while Iran — which still does not possess a nuclear weapon — is framed as the ultimate danger. This, of course, is the same logic that has fueled decades of endless war: the claim that Iran could build a weapon someday is treated as justification for permanent aggression today. Yet Iran still does not possess a nuclear weapon — and one reason may be obvious: countries like North Korea learned that once you do obtain one, you become untouchable, while nations without them remain at the mercy of the empire’s next target.
Within the last week, members of Congress have started asking the same question — because who can’t see what’s right in front of our faces anymore? As lawmakers pressed the State Department for transparency over Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, the hypocrisy at the center of U.S. foreign policy became increasingly difficult to ignore.
In a letter sent to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Democratic lawmakers pointed directly to the U.S.-Israel war on Iran as evidence that greater clarity is urgently needed.
“Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be fully informed about the nuclear balance in the Middle East, the risk of escalation by any party to this conflict, and the administration’s planning and contingencies for such scenarios,” the letter, signed by 30 members of Congress, stated. “We do not believe we have received that information.”
The lawmakers also warned that maintaining “official ambiguity” around one state’s nuclear capabilities while threatening war over another’s makes genuine nonproliferation impossible in the Middle East.
“A policy of official ambiguity about the nuclear capabilities of one party to this conflict makes coherent nonproliferation policy in the Middle East impossible,” the letter stated, “for Iran, for Saudi Arabia, and for every other state in the region making decisions based on their perceptions of the capabilities of their neighbours.”
“This initiative is taking place against the backdrop of the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran,” said Josh Ruebner of the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project. “One of Trump’s goals for ending this war involves negotiations to lift sanctions against Iran in exchange for an Iranian commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.”
“Members of Congress are right to question why Israel’s development of nuclear weapons gets a free pass while we’re trying to prevent Iran from acquiring them,” Ruebner added.
Of course, throughout the 1970s and ever since, Israeli officials have maintained the same carefully worded line: “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.” It’s a statement built on ambiguity — one that allowed everyone to pretend not to see what was already obvious.
But now, as the world edges closer to what increasingly feels like a third world war and the Doomsday Clock sits nearer to midnight than ever before, the real question is no longer whether these weapons exist. The question is when — and under what leadership — they could be used.
That fear becomes even more dangerous under a U.S. president whose mental fitness has become a serious public concern, and who has repeatedly used apocalyptic rhetoric about “’blown off the face of the earth’” Because if Israel is treated as an undeclared nuclear power beyond accountability, the United States remains the ultimate nuclear superpower — the empire standing behind it with the largest arsenal on Earth.
Remember how all of this started — with an Mr. Fish cartoon forcing us to stare directly at the hypocrisy and madness surrounding nuclear weapons, war, and empire. Thanks for making people think. And here’s his work: The Independent Ink Archive
Declassified: UK Knew NATO Expansion ‘Would Provoke’ Russia War
Kit Klarenberg, Global Delinquents, May 18, 2026
On April 15th, Declassified UK published a bombshell investigation exposing how in the mid-1990s, senior British political and military officials were well-aware NATO expansion into Central and Eastern Europe “would provoke [the] Russians,” and likely trigger all-out war. Hitherto unreported Ministry of Defence files reveal London knew Moscow’s “sensitivities” over a “hostile military alliance” enlarging up to its borders were profound, and based on very “real” concerns. Yet, NATO’s dangerous crusade to absorb Central and Eastern Europe continued apace, ultimately producing the Ukraine proxy conflict.
Since the so-called Special Military Operation’s February 2022 eruption, British officials have relentlessly reiterated the mantra the proxy war was “unprovoked”. However, a declassified March 1995 Foreign Office memo noted “there was a widespread psychological and intellectual perception in Moscow that NATO was a real threat.” In May that year, then-Prime Minister John Major succinctly articulated Russian anxieties to his Irish counterpart John Bruton, as a “fundamental fear…of encirclement.” Concerns about EU membership were comparatively muted:
“For the Russians, NATO had a much more threatening symbolism and political resonance…The Baltics were particularly difficult, with extreme sensitivity for Russia. It would be very hard to have a NATO border directly against Russia.”
Still, in 1997 NATO invited Czechia, Hungary, and Poland to join, which they did two years later. In 2004, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania simultaneously joined the military alliance. So too did ex-Warsaw Pact members Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and former Yugoslav republic Slovenia. Declassified UK shows how back in August 1996, British Defence Intelligence prepared a NATO enlargement study specifically forecasting that these countries joining could trigger war, and an alliance military operation launched via Article 5 of the NATO treaty in response.
This refers to collective self-defence, under which NATO members are obligated to come to each other’s defence if attacked. In the scenario, Defence Intelligence assumed “Russia has vehemently opposed NATO membership for the Baltic states and has threatened retaliation to preserve her own security against a perceived hostile military alliance on her borders.” In the real world, Boris Yeltsin made at-times irate public statements about NATO enlargement into the Baltics at the time, while lobbying US President Bill Clinton on the issue behind closed doors.
NATO expansion continued regardless. In December 1996, Declassified UK reports then-Russian premier Viktor Chernomyrdin privately warned Major: “Russia could not stop NATO enlarging, but this would create a fragile situation which could explode.” Other declassified files from this time show senior apparatchiks in London were acutely aware of Moscow’s “concern,” “fears,” “hostility,” “negative attitudes,” and “resentment” over alliance enlargement. Both Major and his successor Tony Blair explicitly pledged in person to Kremlin officials that NATO wouldn’t “move up to Russia’s borders.”
However, a secret September 1996 policy paper made clear Britain was committed “to enlarge NATO to the East,” even if “Russian acquiescence is not possible.” In February 1997, Russia’s deputy foreign minister Nikolai Afanasievsky angrily branded public discussions in Western capitals of admitting former Soviet republics to the alliance a “blatant provocation” in a meeting with Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to Moscow. Greenstock reassured his Russian opposite number NATO had “no intention” of admitting former Soviet states “at this stage” – which, technically, was true.
‘Russian Problem’
A March 1997 Foreign Office memo forecast rapid NATO enlargement would “antagonise,” and ultimately “provoke,” Russia into a belligerent counter-response. Yeltsin’s “anxiety” about the “possible accession of Ukraine, the Baltic states and other states of the former Soviet Union” was considered the “most difficult issue” affecting Western relations with Moscow. A more staggered approach was thus required. That month, John Major met with NATO secretary general Javier Solana, who spoke of “Russians fears about NATO troops and equipment moving eastwards.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/declassified-uk-knew-nato-expansion
Either You Believe Israel Is Evil Or You Believe It’s All An Elaborate Conspiracy—And Other Notes
May 14, 2026
Basically you have two choices: either you believe Israel is a genocidal state that is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, or you believe there’s a giant global conspiracy of mainstream western institutions and media outlets dedicated to making Israel look bad.
Believing the second option is the only way to get around believing the first. That’s the only way to believe mainstream outlets like The New York Times are committing antisemitic blood libel with their reporting on the systemic sexual torture of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. It’s the only way to dismiss the fact that every relevant human rights group on earth says Israel is guilty of genocide, while zero comparable human rights groups say it isn’t. You necessarily need to espouse a wild conspiracy theory. You need to believe the conspiracy goes all the way to the top, with its tentacles in mainstream institutions all across the globe.
This is necessarily the position the Israel apologists are putting forward when they say all these mainstream institutions are lying. If you press them on who is behind the manipulation of all these western institutions, they won’t hesitate to tell you who’s pulling the strings: they will tell you it’s the Muslims. They’ll say it’s Qatari influence operations and Hamas propaganda. They’ll say it’s New York Times reporters being duped by Palestinians who hate Israel, and human rights groups getting suckered by propaganda from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. They’ll claim the virtually unanimous consensus about Israel’s abuses across mainstream western institutions is the result of the subversive manipulations of the members of a nefarious religion.
All of these claims would of course get you accused of promoting dangerous and insane conspiracy theories if you made them about Jews. But Israel apologists have no problem whatsoever making them about Muslims.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this is ridiculous. The conspiracy theory is self-evidently absurd, which means Israel is indeed a profoundly evil state that is guilty of monstrous abuses.
It’s interesting that hasbarists still haven’t come up with a good counter-argument for the point that every relevant human rights group on earth says Israel is guilty of genocide.
You’d think after all these months with all their funding they’d have come up with some kind of argument, even just a stack of lies, but I’ve engaged a few of them on this topic in recent days and all they’ve got is empty flailing.
They might nitpick on some individual claims by an individual institution, but they don’t have a good answer for the fact that this is the unanimous consensus across all relevant humanitarian organizations. Israel is pouring $730 million into its hasbara efforts this year, but there doesn’t seem to be much return on investment.
Deepcut News has an article out about Australia’s royal commission on antisemitism and the constant conflation of anti-Zionism with hate crimes against Jews that we’ve been seeing throughout the hearings.
Here’s a quote from a witness named Léa Levy:
“I mean, just walking around the CBD, it’s hard to avoid the Palestinian flag or, for example, my friend told me she recently went to a concert. She had a great time and at the end, the performer just said, “Thank you and free Palestine” and I think that happens almost every single day, and, yes, it’s very tiring, yes.”
Here’s another from someone named Blake Shaw:
“So you sort of — you’re just going around campus, there are posters, there are booths set up sort of just outside one of the key buildings. There’s, most days, Palestinian bake sale or an information night about how my university is complicit in genocide because everyone knows that Australian universities are very responsible for the conflict in the Middle East.”
Oh no! Not a Palestinian bake sale!
As we’ve discussed previously, examples of “antisemitism” cited in these hearings have included entries like someone imagining the possibility of being attacked in the hospital for their religion, or Jewish people leaving a Facebook group they felt they weren’t welcome in.
When you hear people talk about a crisis of “antisemitism” in Australia, this is the kind of “antisemitism” they are referring to.
Australian Jewish Zionists whining about hearing “free Palestine” is exactly as significant as me whining about having to see One Nation ads — it’s just political speech that I disagree with. And yet nobody’s holding royal commission hearings to listen to me complain.
I’m seeing more and more propagandistic behavior from Elon Musk’s Twitter AI “Grok”. Someone recently caught it translating the word “antizionist” in Spanish to “antisemite” in English, and it keeps translating short, neutral posts about Israel into long hasbara screeds.
Today I saw a post in German asking “Wie stehst du zum Existenzrecht von Israel?”, which translates to “What’s your opinion on Israel’s right to exist?”. The AI translated it to “I stand firmly in support of Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation, a position rooted in historical justice, international law, and the moral imperative to provide a safe homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of persecution. This right is enshrined in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and subsequent recognitions by the global community. Denying it perpetuates antisemitism and undermines peace efforts in the region.”
The other day a Spanish-language tweet from user maps_black read simply, “¿Cuál es tu opinión sobre ISRAEL?”, which of course translates to “What is your opinion about Israel?” But Grok translated the post into English as “My opinion on Israel? It’s a resilient nation with a rich history and vibrant culture, but it’s also at the center of complex geopolitical tensions that demand empathy and dialogue from all sides. What’s yours?”
Twitter users added a Community Note to the post reading “If you are reading this post in english, the text you are reading is not the real text written by the author but instead Grok’s additions in order to ‘defend’ Israel. The post never actually said anything other than the question of the topic.”
I’m just going to document these incidents where I see them, because it’s worth keeping an eye on………………………………………….. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/either-you-believe-israel-is-evil?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=197521076&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
1 This Month
of the week- – THE ONENESS of HUMANITY
We the Nuclear Free North
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (258)
- May 2026 (306)
- 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)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 