nuclear-news

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

Staggering amount for guns, bullets, bombs, space superiority

$1.5 Trillion Budget Request Prioritizes Service Members, Modernization

U.S. Department of War, April 21, 2026 

“We are delivering on President [Donald J.] Trump’s commitment to expand American military dominance for decades to come,” said Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. “Previous administrations underinvested in our military while our enemies grew stronger and more dangerous, so we are now changing the game. This budget builds this arsenal without compromising readiness that will ensure we remain the world’s premier fighting force, we protect the homeland, and we create peace through strength now and into the future.” 

The FY27 budget request represents a sizable increase over last year’s budget, said Jules W. Hurst III, performing the duties of the War Department comptroller. 

“This is a generational investment in the United States military— the arsenal of freedom,” Hurst said. “This 42% increase will supercharge our defense industrial base by expanding production of major weapon systems, while strengthening supply chains and supporting tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses. It secures our homeland and military advantage through investments in the Golden Dome missile defense system, drone dominance and space superiority.” 

This year’s budget request puts a huge focus on buying and investing in actual hardware, Hurst said. About 52% of the total budget request is aimed at buying munitions, planes, tanks and ships. 

“The FY27 defense budget will be the largest investment in military capabilities in over a generation,” Hurst said. “This budget allocates over $750 billion … just in capability development and procuring weapons systems.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4465551/15-trillion-budget-request-prioritizes-service-members-modernization/

April 26, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

No Peace, Only Escalation: The Push Toward Total War With Iran

April 22, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/22/no-peace-only-escalation-the-push-toward-total-war-with-iran/

As ceasefire talks collapse, retired Col. Douglas Macgregor warns that Washington is not negotiating—it’s preparing for a devastating, infrastructure-targeting war that could reshape the global order.

The language of peace still lingers in official statements—but on the ground, the machinery of war is accelerating.

In this stark and deeply unsettling conversation, retired U.S. Colonel Douglas Macgregor joins Glenn Diesen to dismantle the illusion of diplomacy surrounding the Iran conflict. What’s being sold as negotiation, he argues, is little more than theater—designed to calm markets, not stop bombs.

Behind the headlines, a far more dangerous reality is taking shape: a coordinated buildup for what Macgregor describes as a potential “total war” scenario, one that moves beyond military targets and toward the destruction of an entire state’s infrastructure.

If he’s right, the question is no longer whether the war will escalate—but how far it will go, and how much of the world it will drag with it.

A cause for major concern—one that cannot be repeated enough—is this warning from Macgregor:
“There was no real path to an agreeable solution—because there was no real negotiation. When the vice president steps out mid-meeting to take a call from Netanyahu, it tells you everything. These aren’t negotiations. It suggests that Netanyahu—not Trump—is effectively calling the shots on whether we go to war.”

Highlights

  • “There were no real negotiations.”
    Macgregor argues the so-called peace talks were never genuine, describing them as political theater meant to project stability while preparing escalation.
  • Power behind the scenes:
    He suggests decision-making is not fully in Washington’s hands, pointing to Israeli influence shaping U.S. military direction.
  • From war to state destruction:
    The next phase, he warns, targets not just military assets—but bridges, power plants, oil infrastructure, and civilian systems—a shift toward dismantling Iran as a functioning state.
  • A global economic shockwave:
    Disruptions in the Persian Gulf could trigger fuel shortages, fertilizer collapse, and famine risks across the Global South.
  • The limits of U.S. power:
    Fighting thousands of miles from supply lines while Iran operates defensively at home creates what he calls a “home court advantage” that undermines U.S. strategy.
  • End of the old order:
    Macgregor frames the conflict as part of a larger collapse of U.S. dominance—warning that the petrodollar system and global unipolarity may already be breaking down.
  • No clear path to victory:
    Even with overwhelming force, he sees no realistic military outcome that delivers control—only deeper instability.

April 25, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

We are one crisis away from a nuclear point of no return

As global stability erodes, the greatest danger now comes not from rogue states, but from stable nations driven to the brink by fear

David BlairChief Foreign Affairs Commentator

 Of all the branches of the United Nations, none has a higher calling than
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In the end, its job is to
preserve humanity from nuclear destruction and embody the survival instinct
of our species.

Yet the whole intricate system designed to prevent calamity
is crumbling before our eyes. Rafael Grossi, the director general of the
IAEA, describes in his Telegraph interview how “important countries in
Europe, in Asia minor and in the Far East” are publicly debating whether
to build nuclear weapons, despite having promised never to do so.

America and Russia have allowed all their nuclear disarmament treaties either to
collapse or expire without replacement. After invading Ukraine in 2022,
Vladimir Putin took another step towards the brink by suspending the
“strategic stability” arrangements with the US, under which the
world’s biggest nuclear powers had previously reassured one another by
sharing information about exercises and missile deployments.

One by one, the risk-reduction measures have fallen away, even as more countries
consider building nuclear arsenals. That leaves only one question: Have we
already passed the point of no return, or does humanity retain its survival
instinct?

 Telegraph 20th April 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/20/one-crisis-away-nuclear-point-no-return/

April 24, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

PATRICK LAWRENCE: Iran & Ukraine — Two Theaters in the Non–West’s Single War for Parity

At that gathering of European officials in Berlin Wednesday, immediate pledges of new weapons supplies came to $4.7 billion, and there is more, much more, coming as Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, mooches his way around the European capitals.

Are the Western powers aware of the magnitude of the moment? I do not see how this can be anything other than so. Setting aside the Zionists’ obsessions and the visceral hatred Ukraine’s neo–Nazi regime nurses toward Russia and Russians, these conflicts are, when viewed broadly, about the defense of Western hegemony in its declining years.

In Iran and Ukraine, what is at stake — what is fought for and against — is a rebalancing of power that will prove of world-historical magnitude when it is at last accomplished.‘

By Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News, April 18, 2026, https://consortiumnews.com/2026/04/18/patrick-lawrence-iran-ukraine-two-theaters-of-non-wests-single-war-for-parity/

First came news that, on April 8, Israeli jets bombed what is known as the China–Iran railway, a key component of Beijing’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. Of all the targets the Zionist terror machine might have hit, why a Chinese-sponsored infrastructure project, you had to wonder.

Then on Wednesday came reports that officials from nearly 50 nations — I would love a list of these 50 — met in Berlin to make sure the fires of war against Russia do not flicker out. “We cannot lose sight of Ukraine,” Mark Rutte, NATO’s new secretary-general, declared a little forlornly. 

There are other reports such as these of late. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced Thursday that the Pentagon has authorized the Pacific Fleet to interdict ships in the Indian and Pacific oceans if they are deemed to be carrying Iranian oil to Asian ports or “material support” from Asia — read China — to the Islamic Republic. 

It is time for a stock-take.  


The war in Ukraine drones (literally) on and on, the West showing no inclination whatsoever to take the Russian position seriously. In West Asia we find a variant: The United States and the rabid dog that Bibi Netanyahu has made of Israel have no intention of considering the 10–point document wherein Iran states its conditions for ending a war it appears perfectly willing to continue waging.

What are we looking at? What animates these two confrontations such that to understand our moment we must see Ukraine and Iran as two theaters of a single war?

I do not care for self-referencing commentators, but an exception to my rule is the swiftest way to my reply to these questions. 

I have argued since the turn of the millennium that parity between the West and the non–West is the foundational imperative of the 21st century. Any given nation or bloc may favor or oppose this eventuality, but there will be no stopping the turn of history’s wheel: This was my take at the opening of the era that announced itself with the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

And it is the painful birth of this new time we witness as the wars in Europe and West Asia grind on. In each case what is at stake, what is fought for and against, is a rebalancing of power that will prove of world-historical magnitude when it is at last accomplished.

What have the Russians sought since Donald Trump began his second term and declared his intention to end the war in Ukraine and restore relations with Moscow to some kind of equilibrium?

It is the same thing Moscow hoped for at the Cold War’s end, and the same thing they proposed when, in December 2021, they sent draft treaties, one to Washington and one to NATO headquarters in Brussels, as the basis of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement between the Russian Federation and the West.

Moscow’s Push for Equal Standing 

Moscow has been clear on this point the whole of the post–Soviet era: It seeks a security architecture that takes cognizance of its interests and, so, recognizes Russia as an equal partner in its relations with the West.

President Putin and Sergei Lavrov, his able foreign minister, speak of the “root causes” of the war in Ukraine and insist these must be addressed if any kind of enduring settlement between East and West is to be achieved. This is merely another way of saying what the Russians have said for the past 30–odd years.  [See: Ukraine Timeline Tells the Tale]

Neither has the West’s reply been any different: It amounts to one long list of refusals, however directly, dishonestly or incompetently these have been conveyed.

Last November the Trump regime issued a 28–point peace plan that was not less than shocking when cast against the past three and some decades of history. It called for a nonaggression pact Russia, Europe and Ukraine were to negotiate and sign. “All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled,” it read in part. 

And further in this line:

“A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO… to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security…” 

These 28 provisions proved too good to be true. The Americans who developed this document, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the incompetent Trump insists must act as his “peace envoy,” simply did not know where the fence posts lie: While they almost certainly did not understand this, implicit in their 28 points was an East–West relationship based on parity. 

Out of the question, as was immediately evident. 

The Trump regime quickly abandoned its plan, despite its favorable reception in Moscow, and seems to have dropped all thought of “a deal” with Russia. The Europeans, freaked out at the very thought of a negotiated settlement, now resort to upside-down versions of reality I find it hard to believe they even try on. 

At that gathering of European officials in Berlin Wednesday, immediate pledges of new weapons supplies came to $4.7 billion, and there is more, much more, coming as Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, mooches his way around the European capitals.  

Boris Pistorius seems to have spoken for the group when the subject of peace talks arose. “The truth is, anyway, Russia has never taken them seriously,” the German defense minister declared. “This is why it is all the more important to support Ukraine.”

Russia has never taken negotiations seriously: Can you imagine how this kind of talk lands in Moscow? Can you imagine how low are the Russians’ expectations that the West will take their legitimate interests seriously until events on the battlefield force them to do so?

Tehran’s Conditions

The Iranians, it seems to me, are in a similar predicament. 

Read the text of the 10–point plan wherein Tehran advances its demands for ending the war with the United States and Israel. An end to U.S. and Israeli attacks is merely the Iranians’ opener. The withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the region, a nonaggression pact with the United States, recognition of Iran’s rights on the nuclear side, war reparations: To borrow from the Russians, this is a demand to address root causes, a demand for “a new security architecture,” a demand — returning to my principal point — for parity as a non–Western power.

There is a lot in the press these days about a return to negotiations after Vice–President J.D. Vance’s debacle in Islamabad last weekend. I have no trouble imagining the Iranians are eager to avoid more of the savage, indiscriminate bombing their civilian population suffered prior to the two-week ceasefire that went into effect April 8. But I do not think, at the horizon, they will abandon the 10 demands they have advanced any more than the Russian will abandon theirs.

Both nations appear to have concluded it is time to confront the West in the name of that 21st century imperative I noted earlier. Two reasons. One, Russia and Iran have both gathered strength as non–Western powers in recent years, forged in the heat of incessant confrontations. This, indeed, is what history’s wheel looks like as it turns.

Declining Coherence & Power

Two, it is not difficult to recognize the declining coherence and power — and so the creeping desperation — of the United States and its European allies.

Are the Western powers aware of the magnitude of the moment? I do not see how this can be anything other than so. Setting aside the Zionists’ obsessions and the visceral hatred Ukraine’s neo–Nazi regime nurses toward Russia and Russians, these conflicts are, when viewed broadly, about the defense of Western hegemony in its declining years.

This is how I read that attack on the China–Iran railway. O.K., the Israelis did the wet work, as they say, but the bombing of a significant Chinese asset was not without intent: It reflects the United States’ mounting anxiety as the non–West’s premier power advances an imaginative global agenda that has the policy cliques in Washington, now that they belatedly recognize its significance, quaking. 

Look at the map in this link. This rail line is key to China’s long-term plan to build efficient connections through southeastern Europe and on to the European capitals. To date, Beijing has reportedly spent 40 billion yuan, about $6 billion, on the project. This is part of the $400 billion investment agreement Beijing and Tehran signed in June 2020.

A little to my surprise, the Chinese have not reacted since the Israelis bombed their asset. There are several considerations at work here, but the most operative appears to be Beijing’s desire to assist in diplomatic mediations while presenting itself as a responsible world power in the face of the Trump regime’s serial insanities. 

China Daily ran an editorial cartoon in its Tuesday editions that sheds useful light on Beijing’s perspective. It shows Uncle Sam profligately scattering money and weapons as he bounds through a field marked “War, Hate, Chaos and Greed.” The headline at the top is “The U.S. Reaps What It Sows.”

It is a darkly humorous reminder that Beijing knows very well what the war against Iran is fundamentally about and what time it is on history’s clock. You can always count on the Chinese to take the long view.  

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, lecturer and author, most recently of Journalists and Their Shadows, available from Clarity Press or via Amazon.  Other books include Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His Twitter account, @thefloutist, has been restored after years of being censored. 

April 24, 2026 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons may be the sane choice for the world’s maddest regime

For North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, the lesson from Iran shows that if your
goal is survival the more dangerous the arsenal the better.

 Times 19th April 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/kim-north-korea-nuclear-trump-iran-6s7gjkqns

April 23, 2026 Posted by | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

THE US HAS NO ROUTE TO VICTORY IN IRAN WHICH WILL LIKELY EMERGE STRONGER

THIS ADVENTURE MAY DO TO AMERICAN COLONIALISM WHAT SUEZ DID TO THE BRITISH AND THE FRENCH

Ian Proud, Apr 19, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/the-us-has-no-route-to-victory-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=194637482&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I was pleased to meet Laith Marouf, a War Correspondent and Executive Director of Free Palestine TV for the first time.



As Laith is based in Lebanon, we discussed the recently announced 10 day ceasefire with Israel, and whether it might endure. This ceasefire had clearly been imposed on Netanyahu by Trump, but what was the prevent Israel from returning to position normal after any putative peace deal over Iran? Laith laid out the historical and religious reasons why Iran would never abandon Lebanon purely to obtain a peace deal with the USA. Other people I have spoken to talk about the muti-confessional nature of Lebanon but that, come what may, Hezbollah remains a powerful force in politics, that won’t be eradicated by air strikes.

So, Israeli conquest of Lebanon will likely never be possible for as long as Iran remains a powerful force in the region.

We therefore discussed the US and Israel’s inability to inflict a defeat on Iran. There is no evidence that the US has the capability or the political capital at home to endure an extended military engagement with a country, thousands of miles from the US, geographically and by population size far bigger than any adversary confronted in the twenty first century, and with the support of the two big regional military and economic powers, Russia and China.

The only way that the US can impose a defeat on Iran is to precipitate regime change and despite Trump’s ramblings about regime change equating to a change of leader (sic!) the proposition that a modern-day Shah can be returned to the throne in Tehran have never looked possible or remotely likely.

That leaves the US militarily stuck in a conflict that is causing global economic shocks that are mobilising both the developing world and parts of the western world against American hegemony. Iran may be to US colonialism what Suez was to the British and French.

Laith situated this latest war in the context of what he describes as the 100 years of humiliation for the Muslim world.

Iran differs from the Arab world in having civilisational integrity and history that will endure this latest attempt at subjugation by western powers. War in the other hand is putting significant pressure on the smaller more fragmented governments across the Arab world which are reliant for survival on the umbrella of US hegemony which is collapsing.

We briefly considered the risk of nuclear escalation in Iran and the likelihood that this, ultimately, would backfire spectacularly on the west with a potentially enormous flood of refugees heading west, not to mention the intense ecological damage and the impact that would have on the global economy. Lots of people pontificate about Israel using tactical nukes, which, while I consider Netanyahu desperate to cling to power, I consider unlikely if only because it would likely sever the hitherto ironclad relationship with the US and lead to more immediate and existential risks to the functioning and integrity of Israel as a state.

We discussed Israel’s nuclear capability and how it can coexist in a more peaceable way with other countries in the region. Laith drew on the example of Apartheid South Africa which was also nuclear armed but which gave up its nuclear programme and completely shifted its model of governance to abandon the rule of white supremacists.

In the completely hypothetical scenario of Israel doing the same – which looks wholly unlikely anytime soon – I asked about the position of Jewish people in Israel under theoretical Palestinian rule. We considered the outlier role of the Jewish community in Iran which is the only major subset of Judaism that isn’t hardwired into the ecosystem of Zionism as a potential model.

In the final analysis, whenever the war against Iran ends, however it ends, Iran appears likely to emerge in a stronger position as a regional superpower than it held before the war started, indeed, before Donald Trump abandoned the JCPOA deal. US power and influence, on the other hand, continues to shatter, ushering in a multipolar world with greater clarity.

A genuinely thought-provoking discussion which I’d encourage you to watch via the link above. I had a microphone problem so my audio is terrible, though still audible.

April 22, 2026 Posted by | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

America’s pro-Israel J Street says Israel should pay out-of-pocket if it wants US weapons

The pro-Israel advocacy group likely changed its tune after widespread popular opposition to taxpayer-funded weapons

By MEE staff, 13 April 2026 , https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/j-street-says-israel-should-pay-out-pocket-if-it-wants-us-weapons

The pro-Israel advocacy group J Street is now calling for an end to “direct” US military support to Israel, per a new policy document published on Monday. 

The group had previously backed Washington’s continued provision of defensive weapons systems, such as the replenishment of Israel’s Iron Dome, at no cost to Israelis. 

Now, it says the US “should continue to sell” short-range air and ballistic missile defence capabilities to Israel, but Israel should use its own money to pay for them. 

“Israel faces real security challenges that require a significant defense investment. With a per capita GDP comparable to leading US allies such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan, as well as an annual defense budget of over $45 billion, it has the financial means to address these challenges,” J Street said. 

“It does not require almost $4 billion per year in US financial subsidies to purchase weapons,” it added.

“Continuing this assistance is both unnecessary and politically counterproductive, creating avoidable tensions in US domestic politics and in the bilateral relationship.”

The way the current military aid package operates is that the US provides Israel with American taxpayer funds, and those funds are put into US weapons companies to acquire equipment. 

On its website, J Street says that it “organizes pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans to promote US policies that embody our deeply held Jewish and democratic values and that help secure the State of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people”. 

Political tide turns

J Street’s shift follows a distinct change in attitudes towards Israel among the American public after the genocide in Gaza, where over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel’s war on the enclave broke out in October 2023. 

But perhaps more importantly for the group, whose support base is made up of Democrats, the party’s future is changing course.

Progressive New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is widely believed to be seeking higher office, announced earlier this month that she would no longer vote for any US military support to Israel, despite having previously backed the provision of defensive weapons, much to the disappointment of many of her supporters. 

It is notable, however, that her statement followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s surprise declaration earlier this year that Israel will not seek to renew its military aid package with the US in 2028.

“I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” all the way down to zero, Netanyahu told The Economist in January. 

J Street’s new position demands that any future US arms sales that Israel pays for out-of-pocket “be fully consistent with American law”, which echoed Ocasio-Cortez’s statement.

US law prohibits security assistance to any country whose government engages in a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations or blocks or restricts the transport or delivery of US-backed humanitarian aid.

“US arms sales to Israel should be further conditioned to incentivize alignment with American interests and laws – as has been the case with other allies and partners – when their behavior is inconsistent with US interests,” J Street said. 

At the same time, the group acknowledges that Washington and Israel generally share the same interests anyway.

“The US also benefits meaningfully from the relationship. Intelligence sharing has been critical in campaigns such as the fight against ISIS, while joint operations such as Israel’s 2006 strike on Syria’s secret nuclear facility have advanced shared security goals.”

It added that because “approximately 500,000 American citizens live in Israel”, selling it weapons should continue to be a US national security priority. 

April 22, 2026 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

With 38,000+ Dead, Women and Girls Make Up Over Half of Those Killed in Israel’s US-Backed War on Gaza: UN

“Not a single combatant among them,” said one human rights activist. “Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians.”

Brad Reed for Common Dreams, Apr 17, 2026 https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-war-women

Israel’s yearslong assault on Gaza has killed more than 38,000 women and girls, according to a report released Friday by the United Nations.

In total, the UN found that at least 22,000 women and 16,000 girls have been killed in the conflict, an average of nearly 50 women and girls per day.

Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action at UN Women, said the report shows how Israel’s war on Gaza “has affected every aspect of life, with its most horrific toll seen in the scale of death.”

“Women and girls accounted for a proportion of deaths far higher than those observed in previous conflicts in Gaza,” Calltorp emphasized. “Those killed were mothers, they were daughters, sisters, and friends—deeply loved by those around them. They were individuals with lives and with dreams.”

More than 72,000 people in total have been killed since Israel launched its attack on Gaza in October 2023, after Hamas invaded Israeli territory and killed approximately 1,200 Israelis. Experts warn that the current known death toll is likely an undercount.

While Palestinian women and girls represent more than half of those who have been killed, according to the report, Israeli and US officials have persisted in claiming the US-backed assault has targeted Hamas fighters.

“Not a single combatant among them,” said Ramy Abdul, chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. “Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians.”

Although a ceasefire has been in place since October 2025, the report notes that an estimated 730 Gaza residents have been killed over the last six months. Additionally, the report says the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire.

“Nearly one million women and girls have been displaced, repeatedly,” said Calltorp. “Access to water and food have been severely limited, with nearly 790,000 women and girls experiencing crisis-level or catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Extensive damage to infrastructure has made it almost impossible for women and girls in Gaza to access their basic needs, like healthcare.”

Calltorp demanded that the ceasefire deal “be fully implemented,” and that “respect for international law must be upheld” to ease the suffering in Gaza.

“Humanitarian assistance must reach those in need—at scale and without obstruction,” Calltorp said. “And women and girls must be placed at the center of response and recovery efforts.”

In addition to causing a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, Israel in recent weeks has also been waging an aerial bombing and ground invasion in Lebanon that has killed thousands of people and displaced more than 1 million. US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that Israel and Lebanon came to a ceasefire agreement that is set to last for 10 days.

At the same time, Israeli settlers have been waging a campaign of increased violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank, and veteran Israeli war correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai on Thursday declared that the actions of the settlers look like “ethnic cleansing.”

April 22, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

Trump warns Iran of ‘nuclear holocaust’ hours after bragging about peace.

President Donald Trump warned Iran of a potential ‘nuclear holocaust’ while announcing a 10-day ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, claiming credit for brokering the peace deal.

Jeremiah Hassel Senior U.S. News Reporter and Callum Hoare, 16 Apr 2026, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/trump-warns-iran-nuclear-holocaust-37029877

President Donald Trump has warned Iran of a “nuclear holocaust” unless it reaches an agreement with the US, just hours after bragging about peace.

Speaking to journalists before boarding Marine One heading to Las Vegas, the President claimed the US is “very close to making a deal with Iran” before outlining what he described as the benefits of such an arrangement.

Speaking to journalists before boarding Marine One heading to Las Vegas, the President claimed the US is “very close to making a deal with Iran” before outlining what he described as the benefits of such an arrangement.

“If that happens, oil goes way down, prices go way down, inflation goes way down, and much more importantly, you won’t have a nuclear holocaust,” Trump stated.

Israel and Lebanon have reportedly struck a ceasefire deal following weeks of reciprocal strikes and an Israeli bombing campaign that has claimed the lives of over 2,100 people in the Middle Eastern nation that shares a northern border with Israel.

Trump revealed the exact time the 10-day ceasefire would take effect, sharing a message hours earlier on Truth Social and taking credit for brokering the agreement.

“I just had excellent conversations with the Highly Respected President Joseph Aoun, of Lebanon, and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel,” Trump wrote. “These two Leaders have agreed that in order to achieve PEACE between their Countries, they will formally begin a 10 Day CEASEFIRE at 5 P.M. EST.

“On Tuesday, the two Countries met for the first time in 34 years here in Washington, D.C., with our Great Secretary of State, Marco Rubio,” he continued. “I have directed Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Rubio, together with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Razin’ Caine, to work with Israel and Lebanon to achieve a Lasting PEACE.

“It has been my Honor to solve 9 Wars across the World, and this will be my 10th, so let’s, GET IT DONE! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” he added.

A ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon could have significant implications for any potential peace settlement between the US and Iran. Tehran made it clear during the initial, unsuccessful peace negotiations between the US and Iran in Pakistan that a ceasefire in Lebanon was a fundamental requirement, without which Iran would refuse any American demands.

Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, that Tehran is advocating for a permanent ceasefire “in all conflict zones.” He added that a ceasefire in Lebanon is “just as important” as in Iran.

Trump invites leaders of Israel, Lebanon to the White House for direct peace talks Trump issued invitations to the leaders of both Israel and Lebanon to participate in direct peace talks at the White House, sharing an additional message on his Truth Social platform. “In addition to the statement just issued, I will be inviting the Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, and the President of Lebanon, Joseph Aoun, to the White House for the first meaningful talks between Israel and Lebanon since 1983, a very long time ago,” he posted. “Both sides want to see PEACE, and I believe that will happen, quickly! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

Nevertheless, the last substantial negotiations between the two countries were in fact conducted in 1993, not 1983 as Trump claimed. It remains uncertain whether this was a typing mistake or an intentional reference to the period of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Aoun declines direct discussions with Netanyahu

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun rejected direct engagement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday. The alleged comments were delivered during a phone conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Aoun asserting that Washington “understands Lebanon’s position.”

Aoun’s office verified that a conversation with Rubio had occurred, yet made no reference to any prospective talks with Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s office likewise stayed quiet on the issue. Lebanon and Israel held their first direct diplomatic talks in decades on Tuesday in Washington, following more than a month of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon has insisted that a ceasefire must be in place to stop the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah before any direct negotiations can get under way, while pledging to commit to disarming the group. Washington has yet to publicly announce its support for a ceasefire as a prerequisite, while the Israeli government has characterised the talks as peace negotiations centred on the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Israel and Hezbollah continued to exchange fire across the border, with Hezbollah firing rockets and drones at towns in northern Israel. Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon intensified, particularly around the cities of Tyre, Nabatieh and the strategically significant town of Bint Jbeil, situated close to the Israeli border.

Israel and Lebanon have technically remained at war since Israel’s establishment in 1948, with Lebanon remaining deeply split over any form of diplomatic engagement with Israel.

Israeli forces have pushed further into southern Lebanon in an effort to establish what officials have described as a “security zone,” which Netanyahu has stated will extend at least 5 to 6 miles into Lebanese territory.

April 21, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Horror as Russia ‘plans nuclear weapon in space’ that could cause global chaos

Gen Whiting believes the next major global conflict will “likely be a war that starts in space”. He said rival nations have watched how heavily the US and its allies rely on satellites and space technology for modern warfare

General Stephen Whiting, head of US Space Command, said America was ‘very concerned’ about Russian plans to put a nuclear weapon in space that would target satellites

 Tim Hanlon News Reporter and Catherine Mackinlay, 16 Apr 2026

Russia is feared to be planning to put a nuclear weapon in space that is capable of sparking global chaos by targeting satellites.

A United States military chief has warned Moscow is considering using a nuclear anti-satellite weapon which could destroy thousands of satellites and cause communications disruption across the world, dubbing it a “Space Pearl Harbor”.

General Stephen Whiting, head of US Space Command, said America was “very concerned” about the Kremlin’s plans, which he said form part of a wider pattern of Russian aggression in space since the war in Ukraine began.

The four-star general warned Russia has already been carrying out “sustained satellite communication and GPS jamming” on such a scale that it is “putting civilian airliners at risk”.

Speaking on The Times podcast The General & The Journalist, Gen Whiting said: “Russia remains a sophisticated space power and they continue to invest in counter-space weapons. They are thinking about placing in orbit a nuclear anti-satellite weapon that would hold at risk everyone’s satellites in low Earth orbit, and that would be an outcome that we just couldn’t tolerate.”

He said Russia sees the US and NATO as too strong in conventional warfare and believes attacking space systems could “level the battlefield”.

Gen Whiting said: “From a Russian perspective, they look at the United States, they look at NATO and they see an overmatch there of conventional arms.

“And they believe that novel ways of trying to undermine the United States and NATO, such as by neutralising our space capabilities, helps them to level the battlefield. I won’t speak about our intelligence sources and methods, but obviously it’s a report that we’re very concerned about.”

A nuclear weapon in orbit would be a major breach of the Outer Space Treaty, which Russia has signed. The warning is the strongest public intervention yet from a senior US military officer on the threat posed by Moscow.

Russia’s alleged ambitions first emerged in February 2024 when Pentagon officials briefed members of Congress behind closed doors. Since then, the US House intelligence committee has been pressing the White House to declassify information about the project so politicians can discuss the scale of the threat.

Experts fear a nuclear blast in low Earth orbit could destroy up to 10,000 satellites – around 80% of all those currently in space. Military intelligence, communications, internet, mobile phone services and GPS could all be crippled.

Gen Whiting also warned Russia’s GPS jamming is already affecting civilian flights across eastern and southern Europe. He said: “When we put at risk civilian airliners full of citizens just trying to go on business or holiday, that’s incredibly problematic.”

He said both Russia and China are rapidly building space weapons, with Beijing developing jammers, directed energy weapons and anti-satellite rockets. The general urged Sir Keir Starmer’s government to spend far more on Britain’s space defences, with the UK spending less than 1% of its defence budget on space, compared with 4% in Germany and 3% in France.

Gen Whiting believes the next major global conflict will “likely be a war that starts in space”. He said rival nations have watched how heavily the US and its allies rely on satellites and space technology for modern warfare.

Despite the growing space arms race, he insisted a conflict in orbit is “not inevitable”. He added: “Our goal each and every day is to wake up and deter that from happening so that mankind can continue to take advantage of all the benefits of space.”

April 21, 2026 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel May Be Preparing to Permanently Reoccupy Southern Lebanon

Negotiations may end up stopping bombs on Beirut, but are unlikely to end Israel’s expanding south Lebanon occupation

.By Shireen Akram-Boshar , Truthout, April 16, 2026

n April 16, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon, set to begin later that day. Although Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed this announcement, it is unlikely to put a stop to Israel’s expanding occupation of south Lebanon. In the hours before the announcement, Israel continued to bomb Lebanon’s south, bombing a school as well as the last main bridge connecting the south of the country to the rest of Lebanon.

The announcement came after a meeting on April 14, in which U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted Lebanon and Israel’s ambassadors for the first diplomatic talks between the two countries since the early 1990s, a move that is likely to cause further turmoil in Lebanon. In a statement after the meeting, the U.S. explained that direct negotiations would be launched at a later date, and that objectives included the disarming of Hezbollah. Additionally, it asserted that mediation would be limited to the U.S., and that Lebanon’s reconstruction would be linked to negotiations with Israel.

A day after the envoys met in Washington, D.C., Israel launched another round of strikes on southern Lebanon, pushing forward with its invasion of the south even as it purportedly moves toward “peace.” Israel’s strikes reportedly killed 20; at the same time, Israel issued yet another forced displacement order for residents of the south. Days earlier, protesters in Beirut mobilized against the Lebanese government’s planned negotiations with Israel.

The push for direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon came after Israel’s massive attacks on Lebanon on April 8. Hours after a fragile ceasefire took effect in the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran on April 7, Israel escalated its attacks on Lebanon, unleashing the most violent assault of its six-week war on the country. Iran and Pakistan — which mediated the U.S. ceasefire with Iran — insisted that a halt to attacks on Lebanon was part of the agreement, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump claimed otherwise. Israel’s military declared that “the battle in Lebanon is ongoing,” while renewing expanded evacuation orders for southern Lebanon.

Israel’s wave of attacks on April 8 clearly aimed to pressure the Lebanese government to further capitulate to Israel’s wishes. Throughout that morning, Israel bombed areas of southern Lebanon, attacking residential buildings as well as medical vehicles and a medical center. In the early afternoon, Israel escalated, unleashing more than 100 airstrikes in less than 10 minutes, bombing residential and commercial areas across Beirut as well as in southern Lebanon and the eastern Bekaa Valley. These airstrikes killed at least 357 people and wounded more than 1,200, marking the deadliest day of Israel’s current assault on the country. Airstrikes struck residential complexes, bridges, grocery stores, a funeral procession in a cemetery, and a university hospital………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

A Genocidal Aggression

Israel began its latest escalation in its war on Lebanon on March 2, when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel after the U.S.-Israeli assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei. In reality, Israel had already been waging a protracted war on southern Lebanon since 2024. The ceasefire that marked the end of Israel’s 2024 war on Lebanon did not see an end to Israel’s attacks on the south of the country. In a familiar pattern from Gaza, the agreement essentially became a one-way ceasefire, with Israel attacking south Lebanon on a regular basis and continuing to occupy areas of the south between November 2024 and March 2026. According to the UN, Israel violated the 2024 ceasefire more than 15,000 times.

Since March 2, Israel has carried out a campaign of collective punishment, particularly of the Shia-majority regions of Lebanon, and has expanded its occupation of the south of the country. Israel’s assaults, and in particular its occupation of the south, have forced 1.2 million people — 20 percent of the country’s population — to flee their homes, creating a severe displacement crisis. Israel is also working to exploit frustrations with Hezbollah and sectarian tensions within Lebanon to push the country toward civil strife or even civil war.

This current war adds to the prolonged list of catastrophes that Lebanon has already been facing:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Israel’s expansion of its war on Shia-majority areas of Lebanon uses methods from its genocidal war on Gaza. Israel has waged mass ethnic cleansing of the population of the south of Lebanon, as well as the southern suburbs of Beirut — both of which have largely been depopulated throughout the course of the war. The Israeli military has issued numerous expulsion orders as it invades and pushes towards the Litani River — some 20 miles north of Lebanon’s border with Israel — while destroying civilian infrastructure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://truthout.org/articles/israel-may-be-preparing-to-permanently-reoccupy-southern-lebanon/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=8b318324c6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_04_16_09_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-8b318324c6-650192793

April 20, 2026 Posted by | MIDDLE EAST, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘THIS IS NOT SELF-DEFENSE’: UN EXPERTS BLAST ISRAEL’S ASSAULT ON LEBANON AS WAR CRIME

April 16, 2026, ScheerPost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/16/this-is-not-self-defense-un-experts-blast-israels-assault-on-lebanon-as-war-crime/

As Israel intensifies its bombardment of Lebanon, a group of United Nations experts is now saying plainly what much of the political class refuses to: this is not self-defense—it is a violation of international law.

In a sharply worded joint statement, two dozen UN special rapporteurs condemned the ongoing assault as “a blatant violation of the UN Charter” and “an affront to the international legal order,” warning that the scale and timing of the attacks—launched even as ceasefire talks were underway—represent a deliberate destruction of any remaining path to peace.

What’s unfolding is not just escalation—it’s acceleration.

According to reports, Israeli forces unleashed one of the largest coordinated strike campaigns in Lebanon in decades, leveling towns, hitting civilian infrastructure, and killing rescue workers in so-called “triple-tap” strikes—attacks that target first responders arriving at the scene.

The human toll is staggering. Over a million people—more than a fifth of Lebanon’s population—have been displaced since March. Thousands are dead. Hundreds of thousands of children have been forced from their homes, with UNICEF warning that “nowhere is safe.”

But beyond the numbers is the pattern.

The Israeli and Lebanese governments are once again attempting to come together for peace—at least on paper.

But even that fragile possibility comes wrapped in uncertainty. In a Truth Social post published just before midnight, Donald Trump said he was “trying to get a little breathing room between Israel and Lebanon.”

“It has been a long time since the two leaders have spoken—like 34 years,” he added, without specifying who would attend or where the talks would take place. As the death toll has now risen to 2,164, with 7,061 wounded as of today.

UN experts point to what they describe as “domicide”—the systematic destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure—combined with mass displacement orders that leave entire populations with nowhere to return. Under international law, they warn, this constitutes crimes against humanity and war crimes.

UN human rights experts are now sounding the alarm in unmistakable terms: Israel’s latest wave of strikes on Lebanon—launched within hours of a ceasefire announcement—constitutes not self-defense, but a “blatant violation of the UN Charter” and a direct assault on the international legal order. In a coordinated bombardment hitting more than 150 locations in minutes, hundreds were killed and injured, entire neighborhoods were reduced to rubble, and over a million people have been driven from their homes—an unprecedented displacement crisis that experts warn reflects a deliberate pattern of “domicide” and collective punishment. The scale, timing, and targeting of civilian areas, they argue, not only undermine any remaining prospects for peace but rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law, raising urgent questions not just about the attacks themselves—but about whether any system of global accountability still exists.

And yet, the bombs continue to fall.

The statement does not just call out Israel—it directly challenges the United States, Israel’s primary military backer, urging Washington to use its leverage to halt the assault. That pressure, so far, has not materialized in any meaningful way.

Instead, the gap widens—between what international law says and what global power allows.

April 20, 2026 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Art of the Deal Is War

April 11, 2026, ScheerPost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/11/the-art-of-the-deal-is-war/


In a moment that was supposed to signal de-escalation, the United States and Iran announced a temporary two-week ceasefire—only for it to begin unraveling almost immediately. Within hours, accusations of violations surfaced, Israeli airstrikes hit Lebanon, and the fragile illusion of diplomacy gave way to a more familiar reality: war continuing under a different name. As makes clear, this is not an end to conflict—it is a transition into a more dangerous and uncertain phase.

Ben Norton’s latest analysis cuts through the fog with clarity and urgency. His reporting lays out a pattern that is as old as U.S. foreign policy itself: agreements made publicly, undermined privately, and ultimately discarded when they no longer serve imperial interests. Norton points to immediate violations following the ceasefire announcement, particularly Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon, which Tehran argues was explicitly included in the terms of the deal. Washington denies this. Both sides claim victory. Both cannot be telling the truth.

At the heart of Norton’s analysis is a deeper indictment—not just of this ceasefire, but of a broader strategy. The so-called diplomacy surrounding Iran, he argues, often functions less as a path to peace and more as a tactical pause: a chance to regroup, rearm, and reposition. This aligns with a long historical record in which negotiations are used as cover for escalation rather than resolution. From the collapse of the nuclear deal to repeated ceasefire breakdowns in Gaza, the pattern is consistent—and deadly.

But this moment is not just about broken promises. It is about shifting global power. Norton highlights how Iran has leveraged its strategic position—particularly control over the Strait of Hormuz—to exert real pressure on global energy markets. The consequences are already rippling outward: rising oil prices, supply chain disruptions, and the early tremors of what could become a global economic crisis. Even in the unlikely event that peace were to hold, the damage has already been set in motion.

Perhaps most striking is the contradiction at the center of this ceasefire. The U.S. reportedly issued sweeping demands—limiting Iran’s military capacity, restricting enrichment, and reshaping regional alliances—while Iran presented its own conditions, including the lifting of sanctions, withdrawal of U.S. forces, and a halt to all aggression, including in Lebanon. Each side claims the other agreed. The reality, as Norton bluntly frames it, is simple: someone is lying.

This is why Norton’s video is essential viewing. It doesn’t just recount events—it exposes the mechanics of power behind them. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: What does a ceasefire mean when bombs continue to fall? What is diplomacy worth when it is used as a weapon? And how should the world respond when the architects of “peace” are the same actors perpetuating war?

For ScheerPost, reposting and amplifying this analysis is not just about sharing information—it is about challenging the narratives that normalize endless conflict. Because if this moment teaches us anything, it is that war no longer begins with declarations. It begins with agreements.

And sometimes, it never really stops.

From the very start of his video, Norton underscores a crucial reality often buried beneath headlines: this ceasefire is temporary, fragile, and possibly strategic rather than sincere. He warns that even in a “best-case scenario,” the war has already triggered a global energy shock—one that will take months, if not years, to fully unfold. Inflation, supply chain breakdowns, and rising food and fuel prices are not side effects—they are central consequences of this conflict. The war doesn’t pause when bombs stop falling; it continues through markets, shortages, and economic strain felt worldwide.

At the heart of Norton’s analysis is a deeper indictment—not just of this ceasefire, but of a broader strategy. The so-called diplomacy surrounding Iran, he argues, often functions less as a path to peace and more as a tactical pause: a chance to regroup, rearm, and reposition. He points specifically to how a two-week ceasefire could allow U.S. and allied forces to restock depleted weapons systems and prepare for the next phase of escalation. This aligns with a long historical record in which negotiations are used as cover for escalation rather than resolution.

Norton also highlights one of the most revealing contradictions: both Washington and Tehran claim the other agreed to their demands. The U.S. reportedly pushed a sweeping 15-point plan, while Iran published its own 10-point proposal, including sanctions relief, recognition of its regional position, and an end to attacks across all fronts—including Lebanon. These positions are fundamentally incompatible. As Norton bluntly frames it, one side is not telling the truth—and history suggests where skepticism should fall.

Perhaps most striking is his breakdown of what he calls Trump’s “art of the deal” in practice: agreements are made, selectively followed, and then reinterpreted to justify further escalation. It is not diplomacy—it is leverage through deception. And in this case, it may already be unfolding again.

But this moment is not just about broken promises. It is about shifting global power. Norton emphasizes that Iran has demonstrated significant leverage through its control of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. That leverage has already disrupted global markets and forced the U.S. to the negotiating table—whether in good faith or not.

This is why Norton’s video is essential viewing. It doesn’t just recount events—it exposes the mechanics of power behind them. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: What does a ceasefire mean when bombs continue to fall? What is diplomacy worth when it is used as a weapon? And what happens when economic warfare becomes indistinguishable from military conflict?

April 19, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A conflict of attrition: Iran’s bet on asymmetric warfare

Destabilizing the global economy is perhaps Iran’s most visible and salient use of asymmetric warfare. Tehran has used artillery strikes, sea mines, and electronic warfare to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz, dominating a vital maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s fossil fuels and fertilizers transit.

By Spenser A. Warren | Analysis | April 7, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/a-conflict-of-attrition-irans-bet-on-asymmetric-warfare/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Iran%20s%20bet%20on%20asymmetric%20warfare&utm_campaign=20260409%20Thursday%20Newsletter

Around midnight on March 30, crewmembers on the bridge of the oil tanker Al Salmi were rocked by a large explosion. Hours later, fires still raged on the ship’s deck. The explosion was caused by an Iranian drone strike. The Al Salmi is not an adversary warship; its crew are not enemy combatants—it is a civilian vessel owned by the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.

Like others on civilian oil tankers, this attack was intended to disrupt energy supplies and threaten regional security. In short, it’s part of Iran’s asymmetric warfare effort—which includes the use of several types of disruptive technologies—over the course of its ongoing conflict with the United States and Israel.

For Iran—in overall military terms far weaker than the United States—an asymmetry strategy attempts to counter expensive, often exquisite US capabilities with cheaper, lower-tech weapons and tactics designed to target critical American vulnerabilities. Most visibly, this strategy has included the use of mines, drone boats, and anti-ship missiles to close the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, Iran has used drone strikes against US assets and those of its regional partners, cyberwarfare, and missile strikes against economic and civilian targets in Israel and the Gulf States. These drone attacks deplete the stockpiles of interceptor missiles defending US and allied bases and infrastructure, degrading air-defense capabilities and increasing political and economic pressure against continued American engagement.

The Trump administration appears to have been taken off guard by at least some of Iran’s tactics, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. A degree of uncertainty is unsurprising given the nature of both asymmetric warfare and disruptive technologies. However, such tactics have been at the center of Iranian strategy for decades, and analysts have explicitly predicted the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a US-Iran war.

Thus far, Iran’s warfare has to some degree degraded American and Israeli capabilities, increased pressure on Washington, and hampered the global economy. While Iran has employed emerging or evolving technologies as part of its efforts, it is also using older technologies to significant effect. But Tehran’s strategy has serious limits, and the United States and Israel have exacted a significant toll on Iran’s military capabilities over the course of the war, now in its sixth week. Overall, this war has shown both the ways that weaker opponents can leverage asymmetric advantages to significant effect and how stronger opponents may still be able to limit the ultimate impact of asymmetric tactics.

Use of asymmetric warfare and disruptive tech. Recognizing its marked conventional imbalance against countries such as the United States and Israel, Tehran has been preparing to fight such a war for years and thus developing a range of technologies and strategies. Iran’s war effort has one overarching goal: survival. To try to achieve it, Iran has pursued tactics that appear to be aimed at three instrumental sub-goals: it has sought to degrade American and Israeli offensive capabilities; attempted to increase political pressures to end the war quickly; and sought to disrupt the global economy to increase economic pressure on Washington.

To target American, Israeli, and partner assets, Iran has used both ballistic missiles and drones. Coming into the war, Iran had a large and diverse missile force that included short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Some estimates placed the number of the Iranian ballistic missile arsenal at around 3,000. Recently, Iran showcased a possibly extended range for some of its ballistic missiles, firing two at a joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia, well beyond the stated maximum range of their capabilities. At this range, Iranians could strike parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia, as well as naval targets in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean, previously thought safe. To conduct the attempted strike, it’s possible that Iran modified space-launch assets. However, the reliability of such strikes is questionable: One of the two missiles broke up during flight, while the second proved vulnerable to air and missile defenses from Diego Garcia.

Iran’s drone arsenal, which dates to the 1980s, has yielded significant innovations despite producing mostly cheap and expendable, drones. The low cost of these systems, combined with their accuracy and reliability, has allowed Iran to deploy large numbers of them against specific targets, overwhelming defenses. This means Iran can launch enough drones to make a survival rate of only 10 to 20 percent acceptable.

Israel, the United States, and other American partners in the Persian Gulf have succeeded in intercepting many Iranian missiles and drones, limiting the effectiveness of Iran’s strikes. But the interceptions have taken a significant toll on American and partner forces. The United States reports a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) intercept success rate of 90 percent. But this level of effectiveness comes at a high burn rate, potentially using more than 30 percent of its total stockpile of THAAD interceptors in the first 96 hours of Operation Epic Fury alone.

The financial burden of interception alone is staggering. Iran’s Shahed-136 and several other of its variants are estimated to cost between $20,000 and $50,000 per unit. Interceptor costs vary significantly depending on which system a defender is using but can involve multimillion-dollar assets. Beyond the financial bottom line, the depletion of interceptor stockpiles will take many years to rectify, substantially weakening the United States regionally and globally. A reportspecifically on Terminal High Altitude Area Defense depletion suggests that just replacing these assets could take three to eight years.

Iran initially used its improving missile force and drone capabilities to strike American bases in the region but pivoted towards softer civilian targets. Among Iran’s nonmilitary targets is water infrastructure in the Gulf.  On March 8, it struck a critical desalination plant in Bahrain. This strike exhibited a level of symmetry instead of asymmetry, with the attack occurring after Iran accused the United States of striking an Iranian desalination plant. Iran’s other targets have included airports and hotels, disrupting travel, tourism, and the domestic economies of several Gulf Arab states, as well as global air travel and logistics networks.

Destabilizing the global economy is perhaps Iran’s most visible and salient use of asymmetric warfare. Tehran has used artillery strikes, sea mines, and electronic warfare to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz, dominating a vital maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s fossil fuels and fertilizers transit.

Civilian ships have reported strikes from unknown projectiles that are likely mobile or shore-based artillery. Iranian forces have also rammed vessels with explosive-laden uncrewed “kamikaze boats.”


As of March 24th, Iran has also laid approximately a dozen Maham 3 and Maham 7 limpet mines in the Strait. Further, Tehran has made extensive use of electronic warfare targeted at military and civilian assets in and around the Gulf. While the broader use of electronic warfare has had limited effects, it has proven significantly successful in targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Maritime data and intelligence company Lloyd’s List Intelligence has tracked Iranian’s global navigation satellite systems in and around the Strait, logging more than 1,700 jamming incidents affecting 655 vessels, usually lasting around three to four hours each.

The Strait of Hormuz is not completely shut. Iran is allowing shipping from some friendly or neutral states to transit the waterway, so long as vessels comply with IRGC requirements and acquiesce to their inspections. Previous Iranian strikes on neutral shipping, however, has limited the credibility of this claim. As such, the threat of Iranian strikes, concern for seafarer safety, and exorbitant insurance costs have resulted in transit grinding to a near halt.

New and old technologies. Much has been written about the impacts of emerging and novel technologies on strategic outcomes, escalation dynamics, stability, and warfighting. Some of the technologies that Iran has used, such as uncrewed speedboats, are emerging—or at least evolutionary. However, Tehran has proven that many of its old, dated technologies, such as artillery, can still be effective tools of asymmetric warfare.

Both drones and cyber capabilities figure heavily in past literature on emerging disruptive technologies. It may be difficult to describe either, as well as electronic warfare systems, as emerging or novel today. But Iran’s capabilities are evolutionary, with its drone, cyber, and electronic warfare systems becoming increasingly advanced and effective over the past several decades. This is particularly true for Iran’s drone forces, with the country being among the pioneers of drone warfare.

Ballistic missiles, which Iran has used for strikes against US bases and softer, nonmilitary targets, are fundamentally a mid-20th century technology, even if Iran took longer to develop them. Short-range ballistic missiles and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, in particular, emerged more than 70 years ago. Similarly, sea mines are an old technology, not an emerging one, and their impact on the US-Iran war has been limited not by their technological characteristics, but by intentional American strikes against minelaying vessels.

Global impact and wider implications. Iran’s asymmetric warfare has implications beyond the ongoing war and the greater Middle East. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has led to an increase in global oil prices. And those prices are threatening to rise further if the war doesn’t end or the strait isn’t reopened. Additionally, food prices are likely to rise due to a shortage of fertilizer, as the region is one of the main producers of nitrates necessary for crops. Further, up to 20,000 seafarers and several ships are stranded in the Persian Gulf, complicating global shipping, while the inaccessibility of Middle Eastern airports has exacerbated supply chains around the world.

The conduct of the war also provides possible lessons for future conflicts. The use of cheap drones and relatively rudimentary ballistic missile capabilities to draw down interceptor stores is indicative of forthcoming issues that United States would have if fighting a larger conventional adversary unless the American defense industrial base can rapidly ramp up production. Even then, Iran’s successes with $35,000 Shahed drones against multimillion dollar interceptors indicates a balance that favors offensive capabilities in the missile-interceptor race. Conversely, the unwillingness of the United States Navy to traverse the Strait or attempt to clear it alone indicates a balance favoring defensive capabilities and Anti-Access/Area Denial (which restricts adversaries in an area by prohibiting or limiting their ability to operate at a level of acceptable risk) strategies in naval warfare. Iran has successfully limited the world’s most powerful navy’s freedom of navigation despite losing most of its own navy—as well as most of its air force—in the war’s opening days.


Iran’s asymmetric successes may provide lessons for a potential United States-China conflict, though experts should use caution when trying to understand the similarities between the current crisis and a hypothetical one in the Taiwan Strait. First, the United States is likely to bring more forces to bear on China than it has against Iran. Second, the Taiwan Strait is far wider than Hormuz, making certain capabilities that China may use less effective. Third, additional actors—including the Taiwanese and Japanese—would play a significant role, with Taiwan seeking to counter Chinese movements in the Strait and the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force potentially joining the fight, one much larger than partner navies are currently playing in the Persian Gulf. Finally, the Chinese military, especially the Chinese Navy, is far more capable than their Iranian counterparts. Despite these important differences, the United States should draw lessons about the missile-interceptor balance and the effectiveness of adversary Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities.

Analyzing Iran’s many tactical and operational successes and their implications for future conflicts may be conducive to overstating their broader military successes. Despite blocking off the strait, depleting United States’ and partner interceptor stocks, and hitting military, political, and economic targets with kinetic and cyberattacks, Iran has had several military and political setbacks and has faced stark losses.

The United States has attacked Iranian minelaying ships attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, potentially destroying several dozen of such vessels, if the Defense Department estimates are accurate. The destruction of so much of Iran’s minelaying force has likely contributed to its inability to deploy more than maybe a dozen mines in the Strait. While Iran has continued missile strikes against American, Gulf Arab, and Israeli targets, American and Israeli precision strikes and sabotage have degraded Iran’s missile capabilities, placing a ceiling on their ultimate effectiveness.

Militarily, Iran is likely to be defeated in this war, facing mounting losses with mounting time. But the war is also taking a major strategic toll on the United States. The cost of achieving America’s shifting war aims—including the decapitation of Iran’s pre-war leadership, degrading Iran’s missile forces, and potentially weakening its ability to restart a nuclear program—has been steep. The United States has burned through a large portion of its interceptor stockpile. The war has placed a high level of stress on the U.S.S. Gerald Ford aircraft carrier and its crew, hampering its future readiness. And Iran has struck and destroyed some critical assets, most important an E-3 Sentry aircraft that is part of the airborne warning and control system. Each of these losses reduces American readiness to respond to crises or counter great power adversaries in the short to mid-term future.

April 19, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

THE WAR THEY STARTED—AND LOST: HOW THE U.S. AND ISRAEL TRIGGERED A CRISIS THEY CAN’T CONTROL

April 13, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/13/the-war-they-started-and-lost-how-the-u-s-and-israel-triggered-a-crisis-they-cant-control/

On April 11, independent outlet Consortium News aired a stark assessment of the war on Iran—one that cuts through official narratives and exposes a far more dangerous reality.

Hosted by Joe Lauria and featuring Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Chris Hedges, the program delivers a blunt conclusion:

The United States and Israel have already lost.

Not in rhetoric. Not in headlines.

But in material, strategic, and geopolitical terms.

What is now being presented as diplomacy is, in truth, an attempt to manage the fallout from a war that spiraled beyond control—a war built on flawed assumptions, misread intelligence, and political arrogance.

A WAR BUILT ON FANTASY

The premise was simple: strike Iran, decapitate its leadership, and trigger internal collapse.

It didn’t happen.

Despite assassinations and sustained bombardment, Iran’s government held. Its military capacity remained intact. Its alliances across the region—particularly with groups like Hezbollah—did not fracture.

Instead, the war produced the opposite effect.

Power consolidated internally. Hardline factions strengthened. And Iran adapted quickly, shifting to asymmetrical tactics that exposed vulnerabilities across U.S. and Israeli systems.

U.S. bases in the region were hit. Radar systems were degraded or destroyed. Israeli defenses were strained.

And most critically—Iran retained control over the Strait of Hormuz, the single most important energy chokepoint in the world.

IRAN HOLDS THE LEVERAGE

This is the turning point.

Iran doesn’t need to win a conventional war. It only needs to control the flow of global trade—and it does.

By restricting access to the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has already demonstrated its ability to disrupt global markets, spike energy prices, and threaten cascading economic instability.

The consequences are immediate and global:

  • Oil and gas supply disruptions
  • Rising food prices tied to fertilizer shortages
  • Semiconductor production slowdowns
  • Supply chain breakdowns

This is not speculation.

It is already unfolding.

And it is why the United States—despite public posturing—has been pushing urgently for a ceasefire.

NEGOTIATING FROM WEAKNESS

According to Consortium News, Iran entered negotiations holding “almost all of the cards.”

The talks, mediated by Pakistan, reflect not a diplomatic breakthrough but a strategic necessity for Washington.

Iran’s demands are sweeping:

  • Guarantees of no further aggression
  • Continued control over the Strait of Hormuz
  • Recognition of its right to uranium enrichment
  • Removal of sanctions
  • Withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region
  • Compensation for war damages

The U.S. position, by contrast, demands Iran dismantle the very capabilities that now give it leverage.

The result is a fundamental impasse.

ISRAEL’S DIVERGENCE: SABOTAGING THE CEASEFIRE

If Washington is seeking an exit, Israel is moving in the opposite direction.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who played a central role in pushing the United States into the war, has shown no intention of de-escalating. Even as negotiations unfold, Israeli strikes in Lebanon continue—undermining the fragile ceasefire framework.

According to reporting highlighted on the program, Israel’s objective remains unchanged: not containment, but the destruction or fragmentation of Iran as a regional power.

This divergence creates a dangerous dynamic:

  • The U.S. seeks de-escalation
  • Israel seeks continuation
  • Iran demands enforcement

And the entire process hinges on whether Washington can—or will—restrain its closest ally.

Iran has made its position clear: if Israel’s attacks continue, the talks collapse.

A GLOBAL ECONOMIC TIME BOMB

The implications of this conflict extend far beyond the Middle East.

Countries across Asia—Japan, South Korea, India—depend heavily on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Even limited disruption forces emergency responses, including the release of strategic reserves.

The longer instability continues, the greater the risk of systemic economic shock.

We are not looking at a regional downturn.

We are staring at the potential for a global depression-level crisis.

And unlike previous conflicts, this one intersects directly with already fragile supply chains, inflation pressures, and geopolitical fragmentation.

THE COLLAPSE OF U.S. AUTHORITY

Perhaps the most profound consequence of this war is not military—it is structural.

The United States entered the conflict without meaningful consultation with allies. Gulf states—long dependent on U.S. protection—found themselves exposed and targeted. NATO distanced itself. Regional confidence eroded.

The message was unmistakable:

American power no longer guarantees stability.

In some cases, it produces the opposite.

This moment has been compared to the 1956 Suez Crisis—a historical inflection point where imperial limits were exposed to the world.

The comparison is not hyperbole.

A SHIFTING WORLD ORDER

Behind the immediate conflict, a larger transformation is underway.

  • China and Russia are increasingly aligned with Iran
  • Trade routes are shifting away from dollar dominance
  • Regional alliances are recalibrating
  • U.S. military infrastructure is being reassessed as a liability

Even financial systems are beginning to reflect the shift, with transactions in key corridors moving away from the dollar.

The foundations of U.S. global dominance—military, economic, and political—are all under strain.

WHAT COMES NEXT

The ceasefire is fragile.

The negotiations are unstable.

And the outcome remains uncertain.

Iran has made clear it is prepared to escalate if its demands are not met. Israel appears willing to continue pushing toward broader conflict. The United States is caught between its strategic commitments and the growing recognition that this war cannot be won.

Any miscalculation—from any side—could trigger a far more catastrophic phase.

THE REALITY THEY CAN’T SPIN

This was not a victory.

It was a miscalculation of historic proportions.

A war launched on the belief that power could dictate outcomes—only to reveal that power itself is shifting.

The language of diplomacy may attempt to soften that reality. But the facts remain:

The United States and Israel initiated a war they could not control.

Iran emerged stronger.

The global economy now hangs in the balance.

And the world, whether Washington acknowledges it or not, is already moving into a new era.

April 19, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »