nuclear-news

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

Leading Papers Call for Destroying Iran to Save It

Gregory Shupak, February 10, 2026, https://fair.org/home/leading-papers-call-for-destroying-iran-to-save-it/

The United States has no right to wage war on Iran, or to have a say who governs the country. The opinion pages of the New York Times and Washington Post, however, are offering facile humanitarian arguments for the US to escalate its attacks on Iran. These are based on the nonsensical assumption that the US wants to help brighten Iranians’ futures.

In two editorials addressing the possibility of the US undertaking a bombing and shooting war on Iran, the Washington Post expressed no opposition to such policies and endorsed economic warfare as well.

Crediting Trump with “the wisdom of distinguishing between an authoritarian regime and the people who suffer under its rule,” the first Post editorial (1/2/26) approvingly quoted Trump’s Truth Social promise (1/2/26) to Iranian protesters that the US “will come to their rescue…. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

For the Post, the problem was not that Trump was threatening to bomb a sovereign state, but that “airstrikes are, at best, a temporary solution”:

If the administration wants this time to be different, it will need to oversee a patient, sustained campaign of maximum pressure against the government…. The optimal strategy is to economically squeeze the regime as hard as possible at this moment of maximum vulnerability. More stringent enforcement of existing oil sanctions would go a long way…. Western financial controls are actually working quite well.

Thus, the paper offers advice on how to integrate bombing Iran into a broader effort to overthrow the country’s government in a hybrid war. Central to that project are the sanctions with which the Post is so thoroughly impressed. Such measures have “squeeze[d] the regime” by, for example, decimating “the government’s primary source of revenue, oil exports, limiting the state’s ability to provide for millions of impoverished Iranians through social safety nets” (CNN, 10/19/25).

That the US continues to apply the sanctions, knowing that they have these effects, demonstrates that it has no interest in, as the Post put it, “free[ing]” Iranians “from bondage.”

‘Always more room for sanctions’

The second Washington Post editorial (1/23/26) expressed disappointment that, despite “mass killings” and the “most repressive crackdown in decades,” “Trump has ratcheted back his earlier rhetoric.” It emphasized that “the regime is now mocking Trump for backing down.” The paper offered advice for the president:

Airstrikes alone won’t bring down the regime—or make it behave like a normal country. But Israel and the US have shown in recent years that bombing can cause significant tactical setbacks. And there is always more room for sanctions pressure….

The president cannot maintain effective deterrence by turning the other cheek [in response to Iranians who have taunted him]. How he responds is just as important as how quickly he does it.

The implication is that, to deter Iran’s government from killing Iranians, the US needs to kill Iranians. After all, bombing campaigns come with “mass killings” of their own: The US/Israeli aggression against Iran last June killed more than 1,000 Iranians, most of them civilians.

Meanwhile, those sanctions the paper wants to use to deter the Iranian government from “harm[ing] its own people” do quite a bit of damage in their own right, often causing “low-income citizens’ food consumption” to “deteriorate due to sanctions”—a rather novel approach to harm reduction.

Bombing other countries, depriving them of food—is this what it means to “behave like a normal country”?

‘Too depraved’ for reform

Over its own pro–regime change piece, the New York Times editorial board headline (1/14/26) declared: “Iran’s Murderous Regime Is Irredeemable.”

“The Khamenei regime is too depraved to be reformed,” the editors wrote, spending the majority of the piece building its case to that effect before turning to solutions. For the Times, these start “with a unified expression of solidarity with the protesters,” and quickly move to punitive measures against the Iranian government:

The world can also extend the sanctions it has imposed on Iran. The Trump administration this week announced new tariffs on any countries that do business with Iran, and other democracies should impose their own economic penalties.

For the authors, “deprav[ity]” needs to be resisted by Washington and its partners, who have demonstrated their moral superiority with their presumably depravity-free sanctions. These have, as Germany’s DW (11/23/25) reported, “caused medical shortages that hit [Iran’s] most vulnerable citizens hardest,” preventing the country from being able “to purchase special medicines—like those required by cancer patients.”

The Times also supported US military violence against Iran—if with somewhat more restraint than the Post, asking Trump to “move much more judiciously than he typically does.” The Times wants him to seek “approval from Congress before any military operation,” and make “clear its limitations and goals.” The paper warned Trump not to attack “without adequate preparation and resources”:

Above all, he should avoid the lack of strategic discipline and illegal actions that have defined the Venezuela campaign. He should ask which policies have the best chance of undermining the regime’s violent repression and creating the conditions for a democratic transition.

One glaring problem with suggesting that a US “military operation” should be based on “policies [that] have the best chance of…creating the conditions for a democratic transition” is that very recent precedents show that US wars don’t bring about democracy, and are not intended to do so; instead, such wars bring about social collapse.

Consider, for example, US interventions in Libya and Syria. In both cases, the US backed decidedly nondemocratic forces (Jacobin, 9/2/13; Harper’s, 1/16) and, as one might expect, neither war resulted in democracy. In Libya’s case, the outcome has been slavery and state collapse (In These Times, 8/18/20). In Syria, the new, unelected government is implicated in sectarian mass murder (FAIR.org, 6/2/25).

If DHS killed Pretti, why not bomb Iran?

There are no grounds for believing that the US would chart a different course if it bombs Iran again. But that hasn’t stopped other Times contributors from suggesting that the US should conduct a war in Iran—for the good of Iranians, of course.

Times columnist Bret Stephens (1/27/26) worried about the “risk” posed by “the example of a US president who urged protesters to go in the streets and said help was on the way, only to betray them through inaction.”

Invoking the DHS’s killing of Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti, Stephens urged “thoughtful Americans” to encourage the same administration that killed him to exercise “the military option” in Iran:

But if Pretti’s death is a tragedy, what do we say or do in the face of the murder of thousands of Iranians? Are they, as Stalin might have said, just another statistic?

Stephens is citing people’s outrage against the US government killing a protester as a reason they should support the US government inflicting more violence against Iran. The logical corollary to that would be that if you’re opposed to Iran suppressing anti-government forces, you should therefore be in favor of Tehran launching armed attacks to defend protesters in the US.

Masih Alinejad, a US-government-funded Iranian-American journalist, wrote in the Times (1/27/26) that Trump

encouraged Iranians to intensify their mass protests, writing, “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” That help never came, and many protesters now feel betrayed. Still, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group has recently arrived in the Middle East. Mr. Trump has not said what he plans to do now that it is there, but it does give him the option of striking a blow against government repression.

Policy of pain

Both Stephens and Alinejad present their calls for the US to assault Iran in moral terms, suggesting that the US should demonstrate loyalty to Iranian protestors by “help[ing]” them through an armed attack on the country in which they live. Their premise is that the US is interested in enabling the Iranian population to flourish, an assertion contradicted by more than 70 years of Washington’s policy of inflicting pain on Iranians in an effort to dominate them.

That US policy has included overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 (NPR, 2/7/19), propping up the Shah’s brutal dictatorship for the next 26 years (BBC, 6/3/16; AP, 2/6/19), sponsoring Saddam Hussein’s invasion of the country and use of chemical weapons against it (Foreign Policy, 8/26/13), partnering with Israel in a years-long campaign of murdering Iranian scientists (Responsible Statecraft, 12/21/20), and currently maintaining—along with its allies—a sanctions regime that is associated with a substantial drop in Iranian life expectancy (Al Jazeera, 1/13/26).

If Stephens or Alinejad had evidence that the US is so radically re-orienting its conduct in the international arena, one imagines that they would want to share with their readers the proof that the Trump administration’s magnanimity is so profound that it overrides the UN Charter, and justifies America carrying out a war to “help” a country it has terrorized for decades.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Iran, media, USA | Leave a comment

Iran offers to dilute enriched uranium in exchange for full sanctions relief

By Euronews,  09/02/2026 

Iran says it could dilute its 60% uranium stockpile if “all sanctions” end, amid renewed Oman talks and uncertainty over missing nuclear material.

Tehran is prepared to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium if sanctions against Iran are lifted, the head of its atomic energy agency said on Monday following indirect talks with Washington.

Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, said the possibility of diluting 60% enriched uranium “depends on whether all sanctions would be lifted in return”, according to the official IRNA news agency.

The statement did not specify whether Eslami was referring to all international sanctions on Iran or only those imposed by the United States.

The offer comes as the whereabouts of more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium Iran possessed before last year’s conflict with Israel and the US remains unknown……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Indirect talks to resume after Oman meeting

Eslami’s statement followed indirect talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman last Friday, the first negotiations since the June conflict.

Both sides agreed to continue negotiations. However, Araghchi warned that “the mistrust that has developed is a serious challenge”.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Iran to accept a total ban on uranium enrichment, a condition unacceptable to Tehran and far less favourable than the 2015 agreement.

Iran maintains it has a right to a civilian nuclear programme under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which 191 countries are signatories.

Western countries, led by the US, suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a claim Iran has consistently denied. https://www.euronews.com/2026/02/09/iran-offers-to-dilute-enriched-uranium-in-exchange-for-full-sanctions-relief

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran’s mysterious Pickaxe Mountain a ‘candidate’ for new nuclear activities

By Annika Burgess, ABC, 7 Feb 26

Hidden among the mountains in central Iran, work has been continuing on a mysterious underground facility believed to be buried beyond the range of US “bunker buster” bombs.

The site, known as Pickaxe Mountain, or Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, has never been accessed by international nuclear inspectors, and its exact purpose remains unclear.

Analysts monitoring its development via satellite imagery have witnessed security walls growing, spoil piles expanding and tunnel entrances being reinforced as engineers dig deeper into the mountain.

“We don’t have internal schematics to really judge what the inside will look like,” says Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the US Institute for Science and International Security.

“But given the size of the spoil piles, the amount of construction they’re doing, it wouldn’t be incomprehensible to see them establish an enrichment facility inside it.”

Located near the peak of the Zagros Mountains, the site is just 1.6 kilometres south of Natanz, which was Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility.

But Pickaxe Mountain was not affected when Natanz and two other key Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordow and Isfahan — were targeted in US strikes that aimed to disrupt Tehran from potentially developing nuclear bombs.

US President Donald Trump said the three sites were “obliterated” in the June 2025 attacks, but has renewed demands for Iran to make a deal over its nuclear program or face fresh strikes that would be “far worse”.

Negotiators from both countries held indirect talks in Oman on Friday, with Iran’s top diplomat striking a cautiously optimistic note after their conclusion.

However, the US delegation, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Mr Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did not offer any immediate comment.

Recent assessments show Tehran’s nuclear program was severely damaged by the US during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, but it could be built up again.

And satellite imagery revealed Pickaxe Mountain could be a “potential candidate” for new uranium enrichment activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Where are the uranium stockpiles?

Iran’s stockpiles of 60 per cent enriched uranium remain missing.

Trucks observed outside Fordow and Isfahan before and after the US strikes suggested Iran may have moved the material.

But the IAEA director said there was a “general understanding” the enriched uranium was likely still buried under the damaged facilities.

“We need to go back there and to confirm that the material is there and it’s not being diverted to any other use,” Mr Grossi said in October…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-07/iran-nuclear-sites-program-us-strikes-pickaxe-mountain-uranium/106288446

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Iran, technology | Leave a comment

Iran’s Comprehensive Peace Proposal to the United States

The Middle East stands at a crossroads between endless war and comprehensive peace. A framework for peace does exist. Will the US finally seize it?

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Sybil Fares, Common Dreams, Feb 09, 2026

History occasionally presents moments when the truth about a conflict is stated plainly enough that it becomes impossible to ignore. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s February 7 address in Doha, Qatar (transcript here) should prove to be such a moment. His important and constructive remarks responded to the US call for comprehensive negotiations, and he laid out a sound proposal for peace across the Middle East.

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for comprehensive negotiations: “If the Iranians want to meet, we’re ready.” He proposed for talks to include the nuclear issue, Iran’s military capabilities, and its support for proxy groups around the region. On its surface, this sounds like a serious and constructive proposal. The Middle East’s security crises are interconnected, and diplomacy that isolates nuclear issues from broader regional dynamics is unlikely to endure.

On February 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s responded to the United States’ proposal for a comprehensive peace. In his speech at the Al Jazeera Forum, the foreign minister addressed the root cause of regional instability – “Palestine… is the defining question of justice in West Asia and beyond” and he proposed a path forward.

The Foreign Minister’s statement is correct. The failure to resolve the issue of Palestinian statehood has indeed fueled every major regional conflict since 1948. The Arab-Israeli wars, the rise of anti-Israel militancy, the regional polarization, and the repeated cycles of violence, all derive from the failure to create a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. Gaza represents the most devastating chapter in this conflict, where Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine was followed by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then by Israel’s genocide against the people of Gaza.

In his speech, Araghchi condemned Israel’s expansionist project “pursued under the banner of security.” He warned of the annexation of the West Bank, which Israeli government officials, as National Security Minister Ben Gvir, continually call for, and for which the Knesset has already passed a motion.

Araghchi also highlighted another fundamental dimension of Israeli strategy which is the pursuit of permanent military supremacy across the region. He said that Israel’s expansionist project requires that “neighboring countries be weakened—militarily, technologically, economically, and socially—so that the Israeli regime permanently enjoys the upper hand.” This is indeed the Clean Break doctrine of Prime Minister Netanyahu, dating back 30 years. It has been avidly supported by the US through 100 billion dollars in military assistance to Israel since 2000, diplomatic cover at the UN via repeated vetoes, and the consistent US rejection of accountability measures for Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law.

Israel’s impunity has destabilized the region, fueling arms races, proxy wars, and cycles of revenge. It has also corroded what remains of the international legal order. The abuse of international law by the US and Israel with much of Europe remaining silent, has gravely weakened the UN Charter, leaving the UN close to collapse.

In the concluding remarks of his speech, he offered the US a political solution and path forward. “The path to stability is clear: justice for Palestine, accountability for crimes, an end to occupation and apartheid, and a regional order built on sovereignty, equality, and cooperation. If the world wants peace, it must stop rewarding aggression. If the world wants stability, it must stop enabling expansionism.”

This is a valid and constructive response to Rubio’s call for comprehensive diplomacy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/comprehensive-peace-plan-middle-east

February 12, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Trump is not threatening war on Iran over its nuclear program, but because it challenges U.S. dominance.

In short, it is about removing Iran from the strategic playing field, as it is the sole actor in the region that is powerful, influential, and beyond the United States’ direct control. The U.S. and Israel desperately want to remove that oppositional force.

So Trump is buying time by agreeing to talks that cannot succeed on the terms he and Rubio have laid down. He is likely to use that time to magnify the threat against the Iranian leadership in the vain hope that they will acquiesce to his demands. 

The U.S. is once again threatening a war on Iran that could devastate the region. Trump knows Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but that has never been the point. It is about removing Iran as the only actor in the region beyond U.S. control.

By Mitchell Plitnick  February 6, 2026, https://mondoweiss.net/2026/02/trump-is-not-threatening-war-on-iran-over-its-nuclear-program-but-because-it-challenges-u-s-dominance/

American and Iranian negotiators are meeting in Muscat to see if they can come to an agreement and avoid an American attack on Iran. The chances don’t look good.

There was some initial hope because Donald Trump agreed to hold talks at all. The buildup of American forces in the region and the frequent planning meetings with Israeli political and military officials gave the appearance of an unstoppable buildup to war. 

But American allies Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman have been working hard to convince Trump not to attack Iran. They fear the potential backlash of an American attack on the Islamic Republic, believing that Iran is not likely to respond to an attack with the restraint they have shown in the past. 


Israel is urging Trump to attack, as the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is the one entity that stands to benefit from the chaos that an attack on Iran could bring. 

Indeed, Iran has warned that an attack this time will be met with a very different response than previous ones. Yet, paradoxically, it is the very fact that Iran is capable of a more damaging response than it has taken in the past that creates the impasse that is likely to derail negotiations.

What each side wants

Iran’s desires from any talks with the U.S. are straightforward: they want the U.S. to stop threatening to attack, and to lift the sanctions that have helped to cripple Iran’s economy.

But the United States has more complicated demands. 

  1. The United States wants Iran to completely abandon nuclear power. This demand is not just about weaponry, but includes all civilian nuclear power under Iran’s control. No uranium at all can be enriched by Iran, regardless of whether it is for civilian or military purposes, and all enriched uranium Iran has must be handed over.
  2. The U.S. is demanding that Iran agree to limits dictated by Washington on the range and number of ballistic missiles it can possess. 
  3. The U.S. is demanding that Iran end its support of any and all armed resistance groups in the region.

All of these demands are unreasonable. But the United States is holding a loaded gun to Iran’s head. The U.S. has moved a large carrier group into the waters near Iran, and between American and Israeli intelligence, they surely have a very clear map of where they want to strike to go along with the technical capability to essentially ignore Iran’s defenses. 

But while Iran can do very little to shield itself from an American or Israeli attack, it is capable of responding to one. That is what the last two American demands are focused on, and it’s really the reason all of this is happening.

If the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran and Iran elects to respond with all of its capabilities—which it has not done in previous attacks—it has the ability to kill many American soldiers, severely disrupt oil production in the Gulf, or cause significant damage to Israel.

Iran can do this because it has a large battery of long-range ballistic missiles. It has already shown, last June, that it can hurt Israel, and that was an attack largely meant to be a warning. 

Iran also backs various militias in the region, some large, like Ansar Allah in Yemen, others smaller. That means it can launch guerrilla attacks on American bases or other key sites in places like Iraq and Syria. 

Iran can also target oil fields throughout the region, either with missiles or drones or with militia attacks. That’s a major reason Trump’s friends in the Gulf are reluctant to see him start a war. 

The ability to do all of that gives Washington pause. Donald Trump likes it when he can do quick operations with little or no pushback, as he did recently in Venezuela or last year in Iran. Trump has carefully avoided situations where American soldiers might be killed. Iran might not let the U.S. off so easily this time around.

The reality behind U.S. demands

That brings us to why talks are so unlikely to succeed. 

Iran has already made it clear it has no intention to negotiate on their support for groups throughout the region or on their ballistic missile arsenal. They understand that the reason the United States is trying to force them to agree to such measures is that it would leave Iran defenseless. Giving in to these demands would be tantamount to national suicide.

The Iranian leadership is more than happy to discuss the issue of nuclear power. As unfair as the terms might be, they might even be willing to reach a compromise that allows them to use nuclear power without enriching uranium themselves. That’s far from ideal, but Iran is facing a considerable threat.

But this holds little interest for the Trump administration. Despite American chest-thumping, they know that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, nor were they before the U.S. damaged so much of their nuclear infrastructure last year. Trump’s own intelligence corps confirmed that Iran was not actively seeking a nuclear weapon, just as it had affirmed that finding every year since 2007.

But none of this has ever been about an Iranian nuclear weapon. Rather, it has always been about pressuring the Islamic Republic either to fall or to radically change its behavior in the region. It has always been about getting Iran to stop supporting the Palestinian cause rhetorically and to stop arming Palestinian factions. It has always been about stopping Iran from supporting militias in the region that act outside of the American-run system, unlike those that are backed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or other states in the region that are on good terms with Washington.

In short, it is about removing Iran from the strategic playing field, as it is the sole actor in the region that is powerful, influential, and beyond the United States’ direct control. The U.S. and Israel desperately want to remove that oppositional force.

Trump weighs the consequences of attacking Iran

Does Trump really want a war? That concern with Iran is a long-term U.S.-Israeli policy goal. What Donald Trump personally wants is always difficult to know. It can change from day to day, and is often based on a less-than-full understanding of the real world.

From all appearances, Trump felt emboldened by the American success in Venezuela. He kidnapped the head of state and his wife, and suffered no American casualties in doing so. The short-term political backlash, both in Latin America and in the U.S., was brief and minimal. 

No doubt, he envisioned a similar success in Iran, when the protests there and the Iranian government’s brutal response helped to create what might have looked superficially like similar circumstances. Trump began issuing one threat after another, and while their frequency has been intermittent, they have not stopped. 

But his friends in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, and elsewhere in the Mideast explained to Trump that the outcome in Iran would be very different from that in Venezuela. Iran has the capabilities we’ve already discussed here, but there are other key differences.

For one, Iran has a deep governmental infrastructure, and there is no one in it who is both capable of taking over from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and willing to compromise with Trump in the way Delcy Rodriguez has in Caracas. Despite the occasional protester in Iran calling out the name of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, who was deposed in 1979, there is no infrastructure of support for him in Iran, and it would likely be impossible to simply install him without a full-scale invasion of the country.

So Trump is buying time by agreeing to talks that cannot succeed on the terms he and Rubio have laid down. He is likely to use that time to magnify the threat against the Iranian leadership in the vain hope that they will acquiesce to his demands. 

But the primary purpose of that time is to continue to position American and Israeli forces to counter what they can anticipate of an Iranian response. That would mean not just the stationing of ships in striking distance of Iran, but also positioning whatever military assets they might have in countries like Iraq and Syria, as well as in other Gulf states, to counter guerrilla attacks by Iran-aligned militias and getting friendly states to agree to help with shooting down Iranian missiles and drones, as they did last year.

With Rubio and Benjamin Netanyahu pushing Trump toward a regime change war with Iran, and given the amount of bluster he has already put out there, it is hard to see Trump backing away from a war if Iran will not agree to compromise on its missiles and the militias it supports. And Iran is not about to do that.

The war that will ensue stands a good chance of toppling the Iranian government, but with nothing to replace it, the power vacuum that will surely follow will mean chaos not only for Iran but for the whole region. That isn’t really in Trump’s interests, and it certainly does not benefit his Gulf Arab allies.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, will have made the “neighborhood” that much more dangerous just as Israel’s election season begins to ramp up. While many Israelis have lost faith that “Mr. Security” can protect them after October 7, a heightened sense of danger to Israelis remains the atmosphere that is most favorable to Netanyahu electorally. It’s therefore no surprise that Israel is the one actor in the region that is pressing for this regime change war. 

Averting that war will mean the Trump administration climbing down from its maximalist demands. There are indications that the U.S. is looking, at least,for an option that allows it to do that without appearing to have shied away from Iranian retaliation. But that remains an unlikely outcome, as hawks in Israel, Washington, and among the anti-regime exile Iranian community continue to urge an attack. 

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Iran suggests it could dilute highly enriched uranium for sanctions relief

Aljazeera, 9 Feb 26

Iran’s atomic energy chief makes comment as more mediated negotiations with the US expected.

Iran’s atomic energy chief says Tehran is open to diluting its highly enriched uranium if the United States ends sanctions, signalling flexibility on a key demand by the US.

Mohammad Eslami made the comments to reporters on Monday, saying the prospects of Iran diluting its 60-percent-enriched uranium, a threshold close to weapons grade, would hinge on “whether all sanctions would be lifted in return”, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency.

Eslami did not specify whether Iran expected the removal of all sanctions or specifically those imposed by the US.

Diluting uranium means mixing it with blend material to reduce its enrichment level. According to the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Iran is the only state without nuclear weapons enriching uranium to 60 percent.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Iran to be subject to a total ban on enrichment, a condition unacceptable to Tehran and far less favourable than a now-defunct nuclear agreement reached with world powers in 2015.

Iran maintains it has a right to a civilian nuclear programme under the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it and 190 other countries are signatories.

Eslami made his comments on uranium enrichment as the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, prepares to head on Tuesday to Oman, which has been hosting mediated negotiations between the US and Iran.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Larijani, one of the most senior officials in Iran’s government, is likely to convey messages related to the ongoing talks

Trump said talks with Iran would continue this week……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/9/iran-suggests-it-could-dilute-highly-enriched-uranium-for-sanctions-relief

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, Uranium | Leave a comment

Why Iran–US negotiations must move beyond a single-issue approach to the nuclear problem

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian | February 5, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/02/why-iran-us-negotiations-must-move-beyond-a-single-issue-approach-to-the-nuclear-problem/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Iran-US%20negotiations&utm_campaign=20260209%20Monday%20Newsletter

Iran’s nuclear crisis has reached a point at which it can no longer be treated as a purely technical or legal dispute within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It has evolved into a deeply security-driven, geopolitical, and structural challenge whose outcome is directly tied to the future of the nonproliferation order in the Middle East and beyond. If the negotiations scheduled for Friday between Iran and the United States are to be effective and durable, they must move beyond single-issue approaches and toward a comprehensive, direct, and phased dialogue.

The format and venue of Iran–US negotiations. The first round of talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff took place on April 12, 2025, in Muscat, Oman. At Iran’s insistence, these negotiations were defined as “indirect.” On April 8, 2025, I emphasized in a tweet that direct negotiations—particularly in Tehran—would significantly increase the chances of reaching a dignified, realistic, and timely agreement. “Wasting time is not in the interest of either country,” I insisted. Despite these warnings, nearly 10 months were lost, during which the region suffered heavy and regrettable losses.

It now appears that Tehran has agreed to direct talks among Witkoff, son-in-law and key adviser to President Trump Jared Kushner, and Araghchi, again in Oman. The most effective format going forward, however, would be to hold direct talks in Tehran and then in Washington. This formula would not only break long-standing political taboos but also enable deeper mutual understanding. A visit by Witkoff and Kushner to Tehran would allow them to engage not only with the foreign minister but also with other key decision-makers, including the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, members of parliament, and relevant institutions—engagement that is essential if any sustainable agreement is to be achieved. Araghchi should engage in Washington not only with US negotiators, but also with President Trump, officials from the Pentagon, and members of the US Congress, to gain a clearer understanding of the current political environment in Washington.

Why a single-issue agreement is not sustainable. In hundreds of articles and interviews since 2013, I have argued that a single-issue agreement—even if successful on the nuclear file—will be inherently unstable. Under current conditions, three core issues require reasonable, dignified, and lasting solutions.

The US demand for zero enrichment. Ahead of negotiations, the United States is demanding that Iran entirely stop all uranium enrichment and give up its stockpile of around 400-kilograms of highly enriched uranium, steps that would prevent Tehran from possible diversion toward weaponization. Since 2013, a group of prominent nuclear scientists from Princeton University and I have proposed a “joint nuclear and enrichment consortium” for the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East as a way for Iran to continue its peaceful nuclear program and for the United States and regional countries to be reassured that program will not be used as a cover for the production of nuclear weapons. This proposal was repeatedly articulated—up to 10 days before the 2025 Israeli and US attacks on Iran—but unfortunately failed to gain serious attention.

Today, the only realistic solution to the question of uranium enrichment remains the establishment of a joint nuclear and enrichment consortium involving Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and major global powers. This model would address nuclear proliferation concerns while safeguarding equal access to peaceful nuclear technology.

Iran’s missile and defensive capabilities. Defensive capabilities are the ultimate guarantor of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national security. Since 2013, I have repeatedly recommended two regional agreements: a conventional weapons treaty and a non-aggression pact among the states in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. A regional conventional weapons treaty would ensure a balance of defensive power, while a non-aggression pact would lay the foundation for collective security. Without these frameworks, expectations for unilateral limitations on Iran’s defensive capabilities are neither realistic nor sustainable.

Iran’s support for the “axis of resistance” and regional security order. My book, A New Structure for Security, Peace, and Cooperation in the Persian Gulf, presented a comprehensive framework for regional cooperation and collective security, including a nuclear and weapons of mass destruction free zone. This framework would enable progress on four major issues: the roles of non-state and semi-state actors; the Persian Gulf and energy security; the antagonism among Iran, the United States, and Israel; and a safe and orderly US withdrawal from the region.

If a sustainable agreement is to be reached, Iran and Israel must put an end to mutual existential, military, and security threats. “Despite major differences, the United States and China both worry about the conflict. China has close Iran relations, and Israel is a US strategic partner, making them qualified mediators serving as communication channels,” I suggested in 2023.

A warning to Washington: Iran’s nuclear file and the future of nonproliferation. The global non-proliferation order is undergoing a fundamental transition. The world is moving away from a system in which nuclear strategy is defined by possession or non-possession of nuclear weapons, and toward one defined by positioning, reversibility, and strategic optionality.

Nuclear-weapon states have not only failed to meet their NPT obligations to make good-faith efforts toward nuclear disarmament; they are also actively modernizing and expanding their arsenals. At the same time, some non-nuclear states that face threats to their security are seeking deterrence without formal weaponization, and political leverage without legal rupture.

The Iranian case demonstrated that full compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran nuclear deal) and unprecedented cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not produce security for Iran. The US withdrawal from the agreement, the imposition of sweeping sanctions, and subsequent military attacks conveyed a clear message to the Iranian government: Maximum restraint can create vulnerability. Meanwhile, Israel—outside the NPT and enjoying unwavering US support—remains the region’s sole nuclear-armed state.

For the first time in the history of nuclear non-proliferation, safeguarded nuclear facilities of a non-nuclear-weapon state were attacked, without meaningful condemnation from either the IAEA or the UN Security Council. This episode has fundamentally altered the meaning of non-proliferation commitments.

The conclusion is clear: If Iran’s nuclear crisis is treated as a narrowly defined, Iran-specific issue, it will not lead to a sustainable agreement. Instead, it will accelerate the spread of “nuclear ambiguity” across the Middle East as multiple countries seek the capability to build nuclear weapons, even if they do not immediately construct weapons. Any new nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States must therefore be firmly grounded in the principles and obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), applied in a balanced, non-discriminatory, and credible manner. The fate of Iran-US negotiations is inseparably linked to the future of non-proliferation in the region and around the world. Decisions made today will shape regional and international security for decades to come.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Iran says US nuclear talks off to ‘good start’ but draws line at missile, proxy issues.

Iran’s top diplomat struck an optimistic note after talks on its nuclear program, despite US pressure to broaden the agenda.

 7 February 2026, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/iran-says-us-nuclear-talks-off-to-good-start-but-draws-line-at-missile-proxy-issues/hkypxkf3e

Iran’s top diplomat said that nuclear talks with the US mediated by Oman were off to a “good start” and set to continue, lowering concerns that failure to reach a deal might nudge the Middle East closer to war.

But Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi reiterated that it wanted the talks to solely focus on the country’s nuclear program.

“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. [Iran] only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.

Discussions on Friday took place in the Omani capital Muscat, which involved Araqchi, US special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

The US has wanted to expand the dialgogue to cover Iran’s ballistic missiles, support for armed groups around the region and “treatment of their own people,” US secretary of state Marco Rubio said on Wednesday.

A regional diplomat briefed by Iran on the talks said Iran insisted on its “right to enrich uranium” during the negotiations with the US, and its missile capabilities were not raised in the discussions.

Trump on Friday ratcheted up the pressure on Iran with an executive order imposing a 25 per cent tariff on imports from any country that “directly or indirectly” purchases goods from Iran, following through on a threat he made last month.

The White House has said the measure is intended to deter third countries from maintaining commercial ties with Iran, particularly in energy, metals and petrochemicals, sectors that remain key sources of revenue for the Iranian government.

Very serious’ talks, Oman says

Mediator Badr al-Busaidi, Oman’s foreign minister, said the talks had been “very serious” and the goal was to reconvene in due course.

Despite the talks, the United States announced on Friday it was sanctioning 15 entities and 14 shadow-fleet vessels connected to illicit trade in Iranian petroleum, petroleum products and petrochemical products.

Iran’s leadership remains deeply worried that Trump may carry out his threats to strike Iran after a US military buildup in the region.

Last June, the US struck Iranian nuclear targets, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Iran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.

The naval buildup, which Trump has called a massive “armada,” has followed a bloody government crackdown on nationwide protests in Iran last month, heightening tensions between the US and Iran.

Trump has said “bad things” will probably happen if a deal cannot be reached, increasing pressure on the Islamic Republic in a standoff that has led to mutual threats of airstrikes

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

The US Keeps Openly Admitting It Deliberately Caused The Iran Protests

Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 06, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-us-keeps-openly-admitting-it?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187080859&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explicitly stated that the US deliberately caused a financial crisis in Iran with the goal of fomenting civil unrest in the country.

Asked by Senator Katie Britt what more the US can be doing to place pressure on the Ayatollah and Iran, Bessent explained that the Treasury Department has implemented a “strategy” designed to undermine the Iranian currency which crashed the economy and sparked the violent protests we’ve seen throughout the country.

“One thing we could do at Treasury, and what we have done, is created a dollar shortage in the country,” Bessent said. “At a speech at the Economic Club in March I outlined the strategy. It came to a swift and I would say grand culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under. There was a run on the bank, the central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded, and hence we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.”

This is not the first time Bessent has made these admissions. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, the treasury secretary said the following:

“President Trump ordered Treasury and our OFAC division, Office of Foreign Asset Control, to put maximum pressure on Iran. And it’s worked, because in December, their economy collapsed. We saw a major bank go under; the central bank has started to print money. There is dollar shortage. They are not able to get imports, and this is why the people took to the street. So, this is economic statecraft, no shots fired, and things are moving in a very positive way here.”

Following these remarks, Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Farres wrote the following for Common Dreams:

“What Secretary Bessent describes is of course not ‘economic statecraft’ in a traditional sense. It is war conducted by economic means, all designed to produce an economic crisis and social unrest leading to a fall of the government. This is proudly hailed as ‘economic statecraft.’

“The human suffering caused by outright war and crushing economic sanctions is not so different as one might think. Economic collapse produces shortages of food, medicine, and fuel, while also destroying savings, pensions, wages, and public services. Deliberate economic collapse drives people into poverty, malnutrition, and premature death, just as outright war does.”

Bessent laid out these plans in advance at the Economic Club of New York back in March of last year, saying the following:

“Last month, the White House announced its maximum pressure campaign on Iran designed to collapse its already buckling economy. The Iranian economy is in disarray; 35% official inflation, has a currency that has depreciated 60% in the last 12 months, and an ongoing energy crisis. I know a few things about currency devaluations, and if I were an Iranian, I would get all of my money out of the Rial now.

“This precarious state exists before our Maximum Pressure campaign, designed to collapse Iranian oil exports from the current 1.5–1.6, million barrels per day, back to the trickle they were when President Trump left office.

“Iran has developed a complex shadow network of financial facilitators and black-market oil shippers via a ghost fleet to sell oil, petrochemical and other commodities to finance its exports and generate hard currency.

“As such, we have elevated a sanctions campaign against this export infrastructure, targeting all stages of Iran’s oil supply chain. We have coupled this with vigorous government engagement and private sector outreach.

“We will close off Iran’s access to the international financial system by targeting regional parties that facilitate the transfer of its revenues. Treasury is prepared to engage in frank discussions with these countries. We are going to shut down Iran’s oil sector and drone manufacturing capabilities.

“We have predetermined benchmarks and timelines. Making Iran Broke Again will mark the beginning of our updated sanctions policy. Watch this space.”

The US has been orchestrating plans to foment unrest in Iran by causing economic strife for years. In 2019 Trump’s previous secretary of state Mike Pompeo openly acknowledged that the goal of Washington’s economic warfare against Iran was to make the population so miserable that they “change the government”, cheerfully citing the “economic distress” the nation had been placed under by US sanctions.

As unrest tore through Iran last month, Trump egged protesters on and encouraged them to escalate, saying “To all Iranian patriots, keep protesting, take over your institutions, if possible, and save the name of the killers and the abusers that are abusing you,” adding, “all I say to them is help is on its way.”

Deliberately trying to ignite a civil war in a country by immiserating its population so severely that they start attacking their own government out of sheer desperation is one of the most evil things you can possibly imagine. But under the western empire it’s just another day. They’re doing it in Iran, and they’ve also aggressively ramped up efforts to do it in Cuba, where the government has just announced it will be rationing oil as the US moves to strangle the island nation into regime change.

A lot of attention is going into the Epstein files right now, and understandably so. But it’s worth noting that nothing in them is as depraved and abusive as what our rulers are doing right out in the open.

February 8, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Israel’s War on Iran: The Overkill No One Calls War

urbanwronski on February 3, 2026, https://urbanwronski.com/2026/02/03/israels-war-on-iran-the-overkill-no-one-calls-war/

Tehran, June 13, 2025, 4:17 a.m. The first explosions light up the sky over Natanz. Israeli F-35s, invisible to radar, drop JDAMs on Iran’s largest uranium enrichment plant. Within minutes, no fewer than five car bombs detonate across Tehran, next to government buildings and the homes of nuclear scientists. The IDF, ever the courteous occupier, issues a warning to Iranian civilians: evacuate the areas around weapons factories and military bases in Shiraz. Or else.

By dawn, Israel has struck over 100 targets. Not just nuclear sites, but missile depots, air defences, and the homes of Iran’s top military brass. General Hossein Salami, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, is dead. So is Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri. So are nuclear scientists Fereydoon Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi.

The Mossad, meanwhile, has spent years smuggling precision weapons into Iran, setting up covert drone bases near Tehran, and recruiting Iranian dissidents to sabotage air defences from within. This is not a flare-up. This is not a crisis. This is war, waged by Israel, enabled by the US, and dressed up as something else entirely.

The US Joins the Party On June 22, the Americans arrive. Twelve B-2 stealth bombers, escorted by 125 aircraft, drop 30,000 pound “bunker buster” bombs on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The GBU-57s, each capable of burrowing 200 feet underground before detonating, are the only weapons on Earth that can destroy Iran’s fortified nuclear sites. Trump calls it “Operation Midnight Hammer.” The Pentagon calls it “degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” The rest of the world calls it what it is: the US and Israel bombing a country that, by all independent accounts, is not building a nuclear weapon. Nor intends to.

The Body Count By June 28, the numbers are in. Iranian health officials report 1,190 dead, including 435 military personnel and 436 civilians. Another 4,000 are wounded. Israel loses 28. The US? Zero. Iran fires back with missiles at Tel Aviv, drones at Haifa, a barrage at a US base in Qatar, but the Iron Dome and Patriot batteries swat most of them away. The Iranian air force, such as it is, never gets off the ground. Its fleet of MiG-29s and F-14s, some half a century old, are no match for Israel’s F-35s and the US’s B-2s. Iran has no air force to speak of. It has missiles, proxies, and little else.

The Mossad’s Shadow War This is not just a war of bombs. It’s a war of knives in the dark. The Mossad doesn’t just strike from the air, it strikes from within. In the months leading up to June 2025, Mossad operatives and recruited Iranian dissidents disable air defences, plant explosives, and assassinate scientists. They infiltrate government databases, steal passport data, and turn Iranian software against itself. When the war “ends,” the Mossad stays.

“We will be there,” Mossad Director David Barnea promises, “like we have always been there.”

The Next Round And there will be a next round. The US and Israel have already authorised fresh strikes. The CIA and Mossad are busy preparing the ground with cyberattacks, sabotage, the occasional hanging of an accused spy in Tehran’s Evin Prison. Iran, for its part, threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, block oil shipments, and unleash its proxies across the region. But the pattern is set: Israel strikes, the US backs it up, and the world calls it anything but war.

The Language of Impunity Why does this matter? Because language is the first casualty. When Israel and the US bomb Iran, it’s a “campaign.” When Iran fires back, it’s “escalation.” When 1,190 Iranians die, it’s “collateral damage.” When the Mossad assassinates a scientist, it’s “targeted killing.” When the US drops bunker busters, it’s “degrading capabilities.” This is not neutral phrasing. It’s a lie by omission, a way to wage war without consequence, to turn atrocity into policy.

The Spectacle of Overkill Israel has 345 combat aircraft. Iran has 312, most of them museum pieces. Israel spends 5.6% of its GDP on defence. Iran spends 2.6%. Israel has the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the full backing of the US military. Iran has the S-300, a system so outdated that Israeli drones fly right through it. This is not a war. It’s a slaughter, dressed up as self defence.

What Comes Next The ceasefire is a pause, not an end. The Mossad is still in Tehran. The CIA is still running ops. The US with Donald Trump’s “beautiful Armada” is still offshore, waiting for the next excuse. And Iran? Iran is still standing, still defiant, still a target. Because for Israel and its American backer, the war never ends. It just gets rebadged.

Name it now. Or live with it forever.

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why Trump’s Denunciations of the Iranian Killings Ring Fatally Hollow

How the Ghost of Renee Nicole Good Haunts His Response to Iran’s Protests

By Juan Cole, TomDispatch, 3 Feb 26

The pro-democracy protesters in Iran deserved so much better. They deserved the support of a democratic United States that could sincerely urge the rule of law and habeas corpus (allowing people to legally challenge their detentions) be respected, not to speak of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly in accordance with the Constitution. Unfortunately, President Donald J. Trump has forfeited any claim to respect for such rights or a principled foreign policy and so has proved strikingly ineffective in aiding those protesters.

The arbitrary arrests and killings committed by agents of Trump’s authoritarian-style rule differ only in number, not in kind, from the detainments and killings of protesters carried out by the basij (or pro-regime street militias) in Iran. In fact, they rendered his protests and bluster about Iran the height of hypocrisy. Above all, the killing of Renee Nicole Good in her car in Minneapolis by a Trumpian ICE agent haunted his response, providing the all-too-grim Iranian regime with an easy rebuttal to American claims of moral superiority.

Rioters and Terrorists

Trump’s threats of intervention in Iran came after the latest round of demonstrations and strikes there this winter. In late December, bazaar merchants in Iran decried the collapse of the nation’s currency, the rial. For many years, it had been under severe pressure thanks to Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions, renewed European sanctions over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, and incompetent government financial policies. In December, the rial fell to 1.4 million to the dollar — and no, that is not a misprint — having lost 40% of its value over the course of the previous year. Inflation was already running at 42%, harming those on fixed incomes, while the rial’s decline particularly hurt the ability of Iranians to afford imported goods.  ……………….

A turning point came on January 8th, when security force thugs began shooting down demonstrators en masse and stacking up bodies. Until then, the demonstrations had been largely peaceful……………………………………………………………………………………………………

By mid-January, human rights organizations were estimating that thousands of demonstrators had been mown down by the Iranian police and military. Even Iran’s clerical leader, Ali Khamenei, confirmed that thousands were dead, though ludicrously enough, he blamed Donald Trump for instigating their acts.  On January 9th, perhaps as a cover for its police and military sniping into crowds, the government cut the country’s internet off, while denouncing all protesters as “rioters” and “terrorists.”

Antifa-Led Hellfire

And here’s the truly sad thing: while such unhinged rhetorical excesses were once the province of dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes like those in Iran and North Korea, the White House is now competing with Tehran and Pyongyang on a remarkably even playing field. The Trump White House, for instance, excused the dispatch of the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, last year on the grounds of a “Radical left reign of terror,” “antifa-led hellfire,” and “lunatics” committing widespread mayhem in that city, even deploying “explosives.” Of course, Trump’s image of Portland as an apocalyptic, anarchist free-fire zone bore no relation to reality, but it did bear an eerie relation to the language of the authoritarian regimes in Iran and North Korea.

That means Trump’s America now stands on increasingly shaky ground when it accuses other regimes of atrocities. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://tomdispatch.com/why-trumps-denunciations-of-the-iranian-killings-ring-fatally-hollow/

February 4, 2026 Posted by | Atrocities, Iran, USA | Leave a comment

US military action in Iran risks igniting a regional and global nuclear cascade.

The Conversation, Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania, January 30, 2026

The United States is seemingly moving toward a potential strike on Iran.

On Jan. 28, 2026, President Donald Trump sharply intensified his threats to the Islamic Republic, suggesting that if Tehran did not agree to a set of demands, he could mount an attack “with speed and violence.” To underline the threat, the Pentagon moved aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln – along with destroyers, bombers and fighter jets – to positions within striking distance of the country.

Foremost among the various demands the U.S. administration has put before Iran’s leader is a permanent end to the country’s uranium enrichment program. It has also called for limits to the development of ballistic missiles and a cutting off of Tehran’s support for proxy groups in the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Trump apparently sees in this moment an opportunity to squeeze an Iran weakened by a poor economy and massive protests that swept through the country in early January.

But as a scholar of Middle Eastern security politics and proliferation, I have concerns. Any U.S. military action now could have widespread unintended consequences later. And that includes the potential for accelerated global nuclear proliferation – regardless of whether the Iranian government is able to survive its current moment of crisis.

Iran’s threshold lesson

The fall of the Islamic Republic is far from certain, even if the U.S. uses military force. Iran is not a fragile state susceptible to quick collapse. With a population of 93 million and substantial state capacity, it has a layered coercive apparatus and security institutions built to survive crises. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime’s military wing, is commonly estimated in the low-to-high hundreds of thousands, and it commands or can mobilize auxiliary forces.

After 47 years of rule, the Islamic Republic’s institutions are deeply embedded in Iranian society. Moreover, any change in leadership would not likely produce a clean slate. ……………………………………………….

What strikes teach

Whether or not regime change might follow, any U.S. military action carries profound implications for global proliferation.

Iran’s status as a threshold state has been a choice of strategic restraint. But when, in June 2025, Israel and the U.S struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, that attack – and the latest Trump threats – sent a clear message that threshold status provides no reliable security.

The message to other nations with nuclear aspirations is stark and builds on a number of hard nonproliferation lessons over the past three decades. Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 in exchange for normalized relations with the West. Yet just eight years later, NATO airstrikes in support of Libyan rebels led to the capture and killing of longtime strongman Moammar Gaddafi……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The domino effect

Every nation weighing its nuclear options is watching to see how this latest standoff between the U.S. and Iran plays out.

Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia, has made no secret of its own nuclear ambitions, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman publicly declaring that the kingdom would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Yet a U.S. strike on Iran would not reassure Washington’s Gulf allies. Rather, it could unsettle them. The June 2025 U.S. strikes on Iran were conducted to protect Israel, not Saudi Arabia or Iran. Gulf leaders may conclude that American military action flows to preferred partners, not necessarily to them. And if U.S. protection is selective rather than universal, a rational response could be to hedge independently………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

And the nuclear cascade would not likely stop at the Middle East. ………………………………………… https://theconversation.com/us-military-action-in-iran-risks-igniting-a-regional-and-global-nuclear-cascade-274599

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Upcoming Trump attack on Iran likely to kill thousands of Americans and Israelis.

Walt Zlotow  West Suburban Peace Coalition  Glen Ellyn IL 30 Jan 26

In word and deed President Trump appears on the cusp of attacking Iran to decapitate its regime and destabilize the entire country of 93 million.

Trump threatens war and moves massive military might into the region near Iran. Trump did the same thing to Venezuela last September. On January 3, he pulled the trigger, attacking Venezuela, killing a hundred Venezuelans and kidnapping its president to stand trial in the US.  

The criminal Venezuelan campaign would be small potatoes should Trump pull the trigger to utterly destroy the Iranian regime, consigning Iran to failed state status.

The US and Israel tried and failed to do that during the June Twelve Day War. Trump suckered Iran into complacency by scheduling negotiations, allowing Israel to launch a sneak attack June 13. Tho suffering massive destruction, Iran struck back, firing over 1,500 missiles and drones into Israel. It caused enough damage and chaos that Israel begged Trump to negotiate a ceasefire.

Israel and the US tried again last December by using provocateurs to support domestic Iranian government protests. Trump threatened military intervention based on protecting the protesters from death. But when Iran crushed the protests Trump backed down once again.

This time it appears Trump may go for broke with all out war. Big mistake. Iran understands, ‘Fool me once shame on Iran.’ This time they’re ready with tens of thousands of missiles and drones widely dispersed and impossible to neutralize.

Iran realizes America and Israel’s existential threat to Iran cannot be negotiated away. Any attack will likely inflict thousands of casualties in Israel and to US forces in the region. The US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln may end up in Davy Jones Locker. Iran could shut down the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices into the stratosphere and US economy into the dumpster.

War with Iran has nothing to do with America’s national security interests. It has to do with Israel’s determination to destroy its last hegemonic rival in the Middle East. For America, it has to do with acquiescing in whatever madness Israel demands of both parties under near total control by the Israeli government and its American lobby.

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Deeply ideological’: the rationale behind Iran’s insistence on uranium enrichment

Tehran’s nuclear ambitions date back to the shah and the 1970s and remains undimmed despite the damage caused by sanctions.

A desperate effort to avert war between the US and Iran is once again under way, but trying to locate common ground between the two countries over Tehran’s nuclear programme has been made more difficult by escalating US demands, and by Iran’s ideological, deeply nationalist attachment to the right to enrich uranium.

Iran’s ambitions to run its own nuclear programme pre-date the arrival of the theocratic state in 1979, and can be traced back to the mid-1970s when the shah announced plans to build 20 civil nuclear power stations. This prompted an undignified scramble among western nations to be part of the action, with the UK energy secretary at the time, Tony Benn, having more than a walk-on part. At the heart of the programme was a desire for national sovereignty and power, symbolised by the ability
to enrich uranium.

Guardian 30th Jan 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/30/rationale-behind-iran-uranium-enrichment-nuclear-ambitions

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics | Leave a comment

What does the US want from Iran? Tracking one month of Trump’s changing demands.

After saying the US would attack if protesters were harmed, the president appears now to be tying the threat of airstrikes to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Jonathan Yerushalmy, Thu 29 Jan 2026 , https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/29/trump-iran-usa-one-month-demands-protesters-nuclear

Donald Trump has warned that Iran must come to the table to negotiate a deal over its nuclear programme or face the possibility of airstrikes and regime change, capping off a month of bellicose posturing and whiplash inducing u-turns from the US president.

The US president’s demands threaten to open a new chapter in America’s long and tumultuous relationship with Iran, which in just over a decade has seen rapprochement, broken deals, targeted assassinations and unprecedented airstrikes.

Here’s a recap of just the last 31 days:

29 December : ‘We’ll knock the hell out of them’

At the end of December, Trump suggested that Iran was “building up weapons” again, just six months after the US launched unprecedented strikes against the country’s nuclear sites.

Speaking beside Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Florida, Trump said if Iran was working to build up again “we’ll knock the hell out of them. But, hopefully, that’s not happening.” He added that the consequences of such a move would be “more powerful than the last time”.

After Netanyahu suggested that Iran may be attempting to rebuild its nuclear programme, the country’s foreign minister called for renewed talks with the US.

2 January: ‘We are locked and loaded and ready to go’

After Iranians took to the streets in the largest national demonstrations in years, Trump said that if protesters were killed, the US would “come to their rescue”.

“We are locked and loaded, and ready to go,” he said.

The unrest, triggered by an unprecedented decline in the value of the national currency, prompted a renewed escalation in tensions between the US and Iran.

6 January: ‘Make Iran Great Again’

Days after Trump launched strikes on Venezuela and captured the country’s president Nicolás Maduro, Trump was pictured posing with a “Make Iran Great Again” hat.

With protests in Iran spreading and reports of dozens dead, Trump again said that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters” the US would “come to their rescue”.

10 January: ‘The USA stands ready to help!!!’

As the reported death toll in the protests soared into the hundreds, Trump was said to be weighing a response. “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!,” the US president said on the Truth Social platform.

The speaker of Iran’s parliament warned that Israeli and US interests in the Middle East would be “legitimate targets” if Washington attacked Iran.

13 January: ‘Help is on its way

Trump announced new 25% tariffs on countries that do business with Iran, but there was no official documentation from the White House and it appears they were never implemented.

Amid reports of a brutal regime crackdown on the protesters, Trump had initially claimed Iran wanted to negotiate, but later went on to say that he had cancelled all meetings with officials.

“Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! … help is on its way,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday.

14 January: ‘The killing in Iran is stopping’

Despite reports that as many as 3,428 Iranians had been killed and that executions as punishment were imminent, Trump said he had been told that “the killing in Iran is stopping … And there’s no plan for executions.”

It was understood he had reviewed the full range of options to strike Iran but was unconvinced by any single action. His administration had also been lobbied by Middle Eastern allies not to go ahead with strikes, with fears that an attack would lead to a major and intractable conflict across the region.

In the days that followed the huge protest movement slowed under the weight of the regime’s brutal crackdown. Mass arrests followed and many Iranians said they felt betrayed and confused by the president’s sudden about turn.

22 January: ‘We have a lot of ships going that direction’

After several days which saw Trump distracted by anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis and a breakdown in relations with European allies over the fate of Greenland, Trump returned to the issue of Iran, saying “We have a lot of ships going that direction, just in case.”

With the death toll from the protests now said to be more than 5,000 – and reports it could be many times higher than that – Trump’s decision to send the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers to the Middle East were thought to be in response to the regime’s brutal crackdown.

28 January: ‘Time is running out’

With US ships now in position in the Middle East, Trump issued an extraordinary threat to Iran, saying of the armada, “like with Venezuela, it is, ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.”

Warning that Iran must “make a deal”, Trump said that the country would have “NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS”.

The statement marked a shift in his administration’s rationale for sending the armada to the region, with no mention of the protesters, their demands or the regime’s brutal crackdown.

February 1, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »