Iran « nuclear-news

Iran’s positions at the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference are rational – Ignoring them would weaken the treaty

By Syed Ali Zia Jaffery | Analysis | May 12, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/05/irans-positions-at-the-npt-review-conference-are-rational-ignoring-them-would-weaken-the-treaty/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Nuclear%20winter%3A%20Why%20study%20it%20now%3F&utm_campaign=20260514%20Thursday%20Newsletter

In a working paper submitted to the ongoing Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran mentioned the US-Israeli attacks on its safeguarded nuclear facilities, calling for not only the unequivocal condemnation of such attacks but also legal accountability of the violators.

Iran submitted other working papers outlining its positions on the provision of negative security assurances, nuclear disarmament, establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. These documents show that Tehran’s priorities within the NPT Review Process have, by and large, remained consistent. This consistency is justified, not least because each one of these issues is integral to the success of the treaty’s review process.

Attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities. After bombing Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan in June 2025, the United States and Israel again struck these and other sites in March and April of 2026, including near the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Although the plant itself was not damaged and the perpetrator of the attack has not been confirmed, it is widely interpreted as an escalatory and illegal action. The fact that Israel—a non-NPT nuclear-armed state, in concert with the United States, an NPT nuclear-weapon state—brazenly attacked nuclear facilities of an NPT non-nuclear-weapon state significantly undermines the credibility of the treaty. Tehran might conclude that its NPT membership could not protect its nuclear installations from attacks by both a non-NPT malign actor and a nuclear-weapon state.

In addition, Iran could rightly refer to the treaty’s preamble, which underscores the need to ease tensions and improve international security. Tehran could also remind the world that Israel’s military actions against its nuclear sites are an anathema to the final documents of the 2000 and 2010 review conferences. The 2010 final document, in particular, was clear: “Attacks or threats of attack on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes jeopardize nuclear safety, have dangerous political, economic and environmental implications and raise serious concerns regarding the application of international law on the use of force in such cases, which could warrant appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”

More importantly, the targeted nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz, Fordow, and Bushehr are all under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which are central to the success of the NPT. IAEA safeguards are the only mechanism through which the agency can verify that states parties comply with the NPT. Military strikes on such facilities, especially by non-NPT nuclear-armed states, severely erode the legitimacy of the treaty’s Article III on safeguards.

Iran concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA in 1974, and it also implemented the Additional Protocol voluntarily between 2003 and 2006. Iran also applied and remained compliant with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) until 2021, long after the first Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018 with no justification.

Negative security assurances and a nuclear-weapon-free zone. As an NPT state party being the target of nuclear-laden threats, Iran has rightly stressed the need for codifying and legalizing negative security assurances—the commitment that a nuclear-weapon state will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapon state. It has long been argued that, pending complete, universal disarmament, non-nuclear-weapon states should be given legally-binding negative security assurances.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest coalition of states within the NPT, also supports the provision of unconditional, irrevocable, and universal negative security assurances. However, the United States has balked at removing conditions and caveats while issuing such assurances. With nuclear risks increasing—including due to miscalculations—these incentives to remain nuclear-use-free must be unequivocal. To assuage concerns, the language must become firmer and stricter; words like “irrevocable” and “unconditional” must be made an integral part of all conversations on security assurances during the NPT review process.

Iran has also remained a leading advocate for a Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East. Through its working papers, statements, and other engagements, Tehran lamented the disregard for the 1995 resolution, which reaffirmed the need for establishing internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones, and the 2010 final document. However, it is encouraging to note that NAM has supported calls for the establishment of these zones, including one in the Middle East. NAM has also expressed its wholehearted support for the first two sessions of the conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Although these are welcome developments, the inability to bring Israel into the fold of the NPT will continue to militate against the possibility of establishing such a zone in the Middle East. Consequently, the non-adherence to the 1995 resolution will deal a severe blow to the already bruised treaty.

Inalienable right to use nuclear technology. As an NPT state party, Iran is well within its rights to use nuclear energy and other nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. This “inalienable right,” as mentioned in the treaty’s Article IV, does not preclude uranium enrichment or the reprocessing of plutonium for non-military reasons.

Alluding to its rights under the treaty, Iran has not only refused to dismantle its nuclear program or halt uranium enrichment, as the United States has asked repeatedly. Iran has remained firm on its indisputable, inalienable right to enrich, but has expressed willingness to negotiate on the level of enrichment. In a working paper on the issue, Iran has stressed the need for refraining from pursuing any action that impedes the development of a full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes.

Although this has been Tehran’s stance for a long time, it will become a bigger sticking point as the United States doubles down on seeking to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment. The resulting deadlock will only exacerbate differences between nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, with the latter losing confidence in the treaty’s capacity to ensure uninterrupted, non-discriminatory access to nuclear technology.

Iran’s core positions are not repugnant to the NPT, a treaty Tehran has not withdrawn from and continues to abide by. Tehran should be engaged with on these issues, not bombed and threatened with annihilation.

May 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump says 20-year nuclear programme suspension by Iran would be enough

Robert Greenall, 16 May 26. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkpnnen5dzo

US President Donald Trump has said he would accept a 20-year suspension by Iran of its nuclear programme, in what appears to be confirmation of a shift in position away from a demand for a total end to it.

Trump said it had to be a “real 20 years”. Previously he has called on Iran to permanently cease enriching uranium – a stage in making a weapon – and to be prevented from ever acquiring nuclear weapons.

But he also said his patience with Iran was running out, with no sign of a breakthrough in talks.

Israeli and US forces began massive air strikes on Iran on 28 February. A ceasefire in place since last month meant to facilitate talks has been largely observed, despite some exchanges of fire.

Pakistan has been playing the role of mediator.

However, both sides appear to be far apart, having rejected each other’s most recent proposals to end the war.

Iranian media said Tehran’s proposal had included an immediate end to the war on all fronts – an apparent reference to Israeli attacks against its Shia ally Hezbollah in Lebanon – a halt to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports and guarantees of no further attacks on Iran.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One after talks in Beijing with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said the two sides had agreed Tehran could not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and must reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which it is currently blocking, prompting a rise in world oil prices.

When a reporter suggested that a 20-year suspension of Iran’s nuclear programme was not enough, he replied: “Twenty years is enough, but the level of guarantee from them, in other words it’s got to be a real 20 years.” He did no elaborate.

US media reported in April that during a session of talks in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, Vice-President JD Vance had responded to an Iranian proposal to cease enrichment for five years by insisting on a minimum of 20 years.

However, this is thought to be the first time Trump himself has mentioned a 20-year timeframe.

In his first term as president, he withdrew from a 2015 nuclear agreement reached with Iran by the Obama administration. One of the reasons given was opposition to so-called “sunset clauses” that would have allowed some restrictions on Iran to expire over time.

Israel has so far not reacted to Trump’s remarks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium must be “taken out” before the war against Iran can be considered over.

Netanyahu vehemently opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, partly on the grounds that the sunset clauses would leave open the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and continuing to present a grave threat to Israel.

May 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The Limits of Power -The War on Iran Will Likely End in American Retreat

Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares, May 11, 2026, https://www.savageminds.co/p/the-limits-of-power

The war against Iran that the United States and Israel launched on 28 February 2026 will likely end in an American retreat. The United States cannot continue the war without producing disastrous consequences. A renewed escalation would likely lead to the destruction of the region’s oil, gas, and desalination infrastructure, causing a prolonged global catastrophe. Iran can credibly impose costs that the United States cannot bear and that the world should not suffer.

The US-Israel war plan was a decapitation strike, sold to President Donald Trump by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and David Barnea, the director of the Mossad. The premise was that an aggressive joint US-Israeli bombing campaign would so degrade the Iranian regime’s command structure, nuclear programme, and IRGC senior leadership that the regime would fracture. The United States and Israel would then impose a pliable government in Tehran.

Trump seems to have been convinced that Iran would follow the same course as had occurred in Venezuela. The US operation in Venezuela in January 2026 removed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in what appears to have been a coordinated operation between the CIA and elements inside the Venezuelan state. The US won a more pliant regime, while most of the Venezuelan power structure remained in place. Trump seems to have believed naively that the same outcome would occur in Iran.

The Iran operation, however, failed to produce a pliant regime in Tehran. Iran is not Venezuela, historically, technologically, culturally, geographically, militarily, demographically, or geopolitically. Whatever happened in Caracas had little relation to what would take place in Tehran.

The Iranian government did not fracture. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), far from being decapitated, emerged with a tightened internal command and an expanded role in the national-security architecture. The supreme leader’s office held; the religious establishment closed ranks behind it; and the population rallied against external attack.

Two months on, Trump and Netanyahu have no Iranian successor government under their control, no Iranian surrender to close the war, and no military pathway whatsoever to victory. The only path, and the one the US seems to be taking, is a retreat, with Iran in charge of the Strait of Hormuz and with none of the other issues between the US and Iran settled.

Several reasons explain America’s disastrous miscalculations and Iran’s successes.

First, American leaders fundamentally misjudged Iran. Iran is a great civilisation with 5,000 years of history, deep culture, national resilience, and pride. The Iranian government was not going to succumb to US bullying and bombing, especially reflecting on the fact that Iranians remember how the US destroyed Iranian democracy in 1953 by overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a police state that lasted 27 years.

Second, American leaders dramatically underestimated Iran’s technological sophistication. Iran has world-class engineering and mathematics. It has built an indigenous defence industrial base, with advanced ballistic missiles, a homegrown drone industry, and indigenous orbital launch capability. Iran’s record of technological development, built up despite 40 years of escalating sanctions, is a stunning national achievement.

Third, military technology has shifted in a way that favours Iran. Iran’s ballistic missiles cost a small fraction of the US interceptors deployed against them. Iranian drones cost $20,000; US air-defence interceptor missiles cost $4m. Iran’s antiship missiles, with costs in the low six figures, threaten US destroyers that cost $2-3bn. Iran’s anti-access and area-denial network around the Gulf, layered air defence, drone and missile saturation capacity, and sea-denial capability in the strait have made the operational cost of imposing American will on Iran far higher than the United States can sustain, especially taking into account the retaliatory destruction that Iran can impose on the neighbouring countries.

Fourth, the US policy process has become irrational. The Iran war was decided by a small circle of presidential loyalists at Mar-a-Lago, with no formal interagency process and a National Security Council that had been hollowed out across the preceding year. Trump’s director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, resigned on 17 March with a public letter describing “an echo chamber” used to deceive the president. The war was the output of a decision-making system in which the deliberative apparatus had been turned off.

This was neither a war of necessity, nor a war of choice. It was a war of whim. The underlying premise was hegemony. The United States was attempting to preserve a global dominance that it no longer possesses, and Israel was trying to establish a regional dominance that it will never have.

The likely endgame, given all this, is that the war will end with a return to something close to the status quo ante, except for three new facts on the ground. First, Iran will have operational control over the Strait of Hormuz. Second, Iran’s deterrent posture will be significantly raised. Third, the US long-term military presence in the Gulf will be significantly reduced. The other issues that supposedly prompted the US to attack Iran—Iran’s nuclear programme, regional proxies, the missile arsenal—will most likely be left where they were at the start of the war.

Even as the US retreats, Iran will not press its advantage against its neighbours. Three reasons explain why. First, Iran has a long-term strategic interest in cooperation with its Gulf neighbours, not an ongoing war. Second, Iran will have no interest in restarting a war it has just successfully ended. Third, Iran will be restrained, if any restraint is needed, by its great-power patrons, Russia and China, who both desire a stable and prosperous region. The Iranian leadership understands this clearly, and will stop the fighting.

Trump will no doubt try to depict the coming retreat as some great military and strategic victory. No such claims will be true. The truth is that Iran is far more sophisticated than the United States understood; the decision to go to war was irrational; and the underlying technology of war has shifted against the US. The American empire cannot win the war against Iran at an acceptable financial, military, and political cost. What America can regain, however, is some measure of rationality. It’s time for the US to end its regime-change operations and return to international law and diplomacy.

May 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump’s deadly trap: By rejecting Iran’s proposal, US enters a strategic nightmare with no escape

Monday, 11 May 2026 , By Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk, https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/05/11/768410/trump-deadly-trap-rejecting-iran-proposal-us-enters-strategic-nightmare-no-escape

In a theatrical move that fooled no one, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s comprehensive plan to end the war he illegally imposed on the country 70 days ago.

The US president postured as a victor, dismissing Tehran’s proposal with the bluster of a leader who expects capitulation. But the reality on the ground tells a starkly different story.

By every measurable metric, America is the defeated party in the asymmetric war that was imposed on Iran amid the nuclear talks in Geneva on February 28. And his rejection of Iran’s terms in a social media post has not opened new options for Washington, but it has only trapped the US in a deadly three-way crossroads from which there is no easy escape.

Trump’s rejection of Iran’s plan, which was submitted early on Sunday through Pakistani mediators, is a grave strategic error as Americans hold no winning cards.

Iran’s proposal: Fundamental, natural, and uncompromising

Iran’s plan to permanently end the war was never meant to please Washington. It was designed to restore justice, recognize strategic realities, and secure Iran’s undeniable rights after the unprovoked military aggression against the country and maritime banditry.

The core elements of Iran’s proposal are not maximalist. They are rooted in natural and fundamental principles that any nation subjected to unprovoked aggression and holding the upper hand would rightfully insist upon:

War reparations – Payment of damages and reparations by the aggressor for the destruction inflicted on Iran’s infrastructure, economy, and civilian population.
Management of the Strait of Hormuz – Recognition of Iran’s sovereign control over this vital waterway, based on the mechanism already announced by Tehran.
Lifting of sanctions – The complete removal of all oppressive and illegal sanctions that have targeted the Iranian people for decades.

Release of frozen assets – The return of billions of dollars of Iranian assets illegally seized by the United States.
Permanent end to the war – A cessation of hostilities not only against Iran but also against the entire resistance front, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and other allied forces across the region.

None of these demands is unreasonable or impractical. They are the basic entitlements of a nation that has been attacked, bombed, and subjected to economic warfare for nearly half a century. What Iran is asking for is not special treatment but justice.

The American non-offer: Irrelevant demands and nuclear obsession

In stark contrast to Iran’s focused, reasonable and practically sound proposal, the American counteroffer reads like a wish list written by someone who has lost sight of reality.

Washington’s plan has nothing to do with ending the war. Instead, it resurrects the long-dead nuclear file – demands that were irrelevant before the war and are absurd now.

The United States insists on:

Closure of Iran’s nuclear sites – A non-starter that Iran has rejected for decades.
Long-term halt to enrichment – Effectively disabling Iran’s nuclear program for years to come, which is totally unacceptable to Iran.
Transfer of enriched uranium to America – A humiliating demand that no sovereign nation would accept, least of all Iran.

What is striking about the American proposal is what it omits. There is no mention of the American responsibility for starting the war in the middle of nuclear diplomacy.

There is also no acknowledgment of the thousands of Iranian civilians killed in the 40-day aggression. There is no offer of reparations. There is no commitment to withdraw the occupation forces from the region. There is no guarantee against future aggression.

Washington simply pretends the war never happened and pivots back to its failed nuclear fixation to deflect attention from the real issue.

The posture of defeat: Trump’s fake victory pose

Trump rejected Iran’s plan while posing as the victor. But this is pure theater. International experts, military analysts, and even sober voices within Western capitals acknowledge what Trump refuses to admit – the United States lost the asymmetric war against Iran.

Consider the evidence. The US entered this war with ambitious objectives: “regime change,” destruction of Iran’s missile program, dismantling of nuclear facilities, and unrestricted access to the Strait of Hormuz.

None of these objectives has been achieved. Iran’s missile cities remain intact. Its nuclear program continues to make progress. Its control over the Strait of Hormuz has been consolidated. And the Iranian people, far from rising against their government, have poured into the streets by the millions to support the leadership and the armed forces.

Trump’s hallucinatory “victory” exists only in his own press releases. In the real world, the United States has been defeated on every front. And rejecting Iran’s proposal does not change that fact – it only prolongs Washington’s agony.

The three-way crossroads: All paths lead to disaster

By rejecting Iran’s plan, Trump has trapped the United States in a deadly strategic dilemma. He now faces three options and none of them are good:

Resume full-scale war

This is the most dangerous path. Starting the war again would plunge the United States and its Israeli proxy into a “dark corridor” from which there may be no return.

Iran has not yet deployed all its strategic cards. Throughout the 40 days of war, Tehran fought with its eyes fixed on the possibility of an even larger confrontation. The weapons systems, tactics, and capabilities that Iran deliberately held back would be unleashed in a second round, if that actually happens.

The result would likely be far heavier defeats for the US-Israeli war machine, defeats that could become irreversible. Iran’s unrevealed cards, combined with the lessons learned from the first phase of the war, would make any renewed American military campaign a gamble with catastrophic odds.

Accept Iran’s terms

This is the only path to ending the imposed war, but it requires Trump to swallow his pride and acknowledge defeat like someone who understands the ground realities.

The United States would have to pay reparations, accept Iran’s complete and sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz, lift illegal sanctions, release frozen assets, and agree to a comprehensive end to the war on all fronts.

For a president who has built his political identity around “maximum pressure” and “America First,” this option is politically toxic. But rejecting it does not make it disappear. It remains the only sustainable exit from a war that Washington cannot win.

Continue the naval blockade

An ambiguous, indefinite naval blockade that neither ends the war nor escalates it decisively is the current situation. But this option is also unsustainable. Iran’s top military command has already made its position clear that for every vessel intercepted or attacked, American centers and American vessels will be struck.

The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters has announced this equation publicly. It is not a threat but a binding warning. The continuation of the naval blockade will trigger Iranian responses that escalate incrementally but inevitably. There is no “safe” stalemate.

The economic dimension: A losing battle for Washington

The closure of the strategic waterway due to the war imposed on war and US maritime banditry and piracy has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets.

Oil prices have surged past $110 per barrel. Inflationary pressures are mounting across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The continued naval blockade of Iran, coupled with Iranian retaliatory strikes on regional energy infrastructure, will only worsen these trends.

And who bears the blame? Global public opinion increasingly points to Washington. The United States started this war, and the United States rejected a reasonable peace plan.

The United States continues to strangle Iran’s economy while Iranian civilians suffer. The further economic indicators deteriorate, the more pressure will mount on Trump from domestic constituencies and international allies alike.

Iran understands this dynamic perfectly. Continued economic disruption is not a bug in Tehran’s strategy but a feature. Every day the war continues, the United States bleeds economically and reputationally.

Iran’s trap: No escape for the United States

World media have accurately described the current situation as “Iran’s trap” for the United States. It is a trap with no exit and Trump is yet to wrap his head around this reality.

Trump can neither win the war nor end it on acceptable terms. Resuming full-scale war invites catastrophic defeat. Accepting Iran’s proposal requires humiliating capitulation. Maintaining the status quo triggers escalating Iranian retaliation that systematically degrades American interests in the region.

This is the strategic nightmare that Trump has created for himself and his country. He started a war he could not win. He rejected a peace that would have ended it. And now he stands at a deadly three-way crossroads, with every direction leading to danger.

Iran, meanwhile, holds the strategic advantage. Tehran’s proposal remains on the table — reasonable, principled, and rooted in natural rights. But if the US chooses not to accept it, Iran is prepared to continue the war, escalate it, and inflict far heavier costs than anything seen in the first 40 days.

The choice is Washington’s. The consequences will be for Iran to impose. And history will record who acted with wisdom – and who walked willingly into a trap of their own making.

May 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Will Trump’s failed Iran war provoke his break from Netanyahu’s ironclad grip?

10 May 2026 AIMN Editorial – Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/will-trumps-failed-iran-war-provoke-his-break-from-netanyahus-ironclad-grip/

On Iran war day 71 it’s clear Trump has not only lost his war, he’s blundered the world into a looming economic catastrophe. As horrendous as that is, it wasn’t even Trump’s idea. Trump was simply following orders from his real boss, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On February 11, Netanyahu arrived at the White House with Mossad Director David Barnea. They encouraged – if not demanded – invasion. The Netanyahu-Barnea tag team argued Iran would collapse within a couple of days from a combination of assassinating Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei, massive bombing, Mossad-fomented civil unrest and ground incursions by Kurdish fighters.

That couple of days has morphed into 71 days of arguably the greatest military disaster in US history. Instead of collapsing within a couple of days, Iran retaliated against the massive US, Israeli bombing onslaught with their own. Result? All 13 US bases in the neighboring Gulf States are damaged or destroyed. Gulf States infrastructure has suffered massive damage. So has Israel, suffering its worst bombing in its 78 years.

Worst of all, Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz, choking off a fifth of world oil supply which may cause a worldwide recession, if not depression. The Netanyahu-Barnea presentation was a blizzard of lies Trump swallowed whole in spite of Intelligence assessments to the contrary.

As the world careens toward economic catastrophe, Trump is completely out of options to achieve any of his war goals. Check that. Friday he alluded to striking Iran with nuclear weapons. Trump told reporters on whether the ceasefire if off: “If there’s no ceasefire you’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran.”

Assuming he either doesn’t order nuclear strikes, or his military commanders disobey this directive to do so, Trump is facing the worst military defeat in America’s 250 years, all brought on by his fealty to Benjamin Netanyahu. What motivated Trump’s caving to the Israeli Prime Minister? Was it the hundreds of millions in campaign cash showered upon Trump and his Republican Congress? Was it the ‘Epstein Button’, damaging evidence related to the Epstein pedophile enterprise that Trump dare not risk being exposed? Is Trump simply an ardent Zionist believing that any Israeli murder and mayhem to further Israeli expansion and Middle East dominance is worthy of Trump’s enabling?

While we’ll likely never know, Trump must be contemplating the enormity of the disaster he’s inflicted on the Middle East, and very soon the US and entire world. The one benefit that may result from Trump’s immoral, criminal war is he may be rethinking his special relationship with the man who brought on the greatest calamity of his life, Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump needs to truly become the peace president he campaigned to be in 2016. He can do that by quitting his senseless and lost Iran war. He needs to jettison his subservience to Netanyahu’s vision of Greater Israel. He needs to cut off all US military aid to Israel till Netanyahu or his successor end the genocide in Gaza, near genocide in Lebanon and quest to destroy its hegemonic rival, Iran.

If Trump refuses to do the right thing, events on the battlefield and the world economy may push Trump aside and hopefully implement that peace initiative without him.

May 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Combatants must address root causes to end Ukraine, Iran wars

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 8 May 26

Ukraine cannot win its war with Russia, now in its 51st month. Why? Russia will never allow Ukraine to join NATO which would allow NATO nukes on Russia’s borders to weaken, isolate Russia from the European political economy. Nor will Russia give back the Donbas containing mostly Russian leaning Ukrainians being brutalized and killed for 8 years prior to the Russian invasion.

Isolating, weakening Russia while ignoring Russia’s security concerns represent the root causes of the war which for Russia is an existential threat to their national security. The Biden administration knew both threats would provoke a Russian invasion but did so anyway figuring war would weaken, if not collapse Russia.

The opposite occurred. Russia has prospered both economically and militarily while Ukraine is a failed state near collapse and totally supported by hundreds of billions in US, NATO aid. But even a trillion in aid will not prevent Ukraine’s inevitable defeat.

Russia always preferred the West negotiate the war’s root cause, their sensible security demands both for themselves and their Russian speaking Ukrainian brethren. While the US is not averse to this now, European NATO countries continue to pour tens of billions into the lost cause to weaken, isolate Russia. Therefore, Russia is committed to resolve the root causes of the war on the battlefield.

All this could have been avoided in November 2021 if the Biden administration had the decency and common sense to negotiate Russia’s national security interests, the root cause of their invasion three months later.

Failure to address the root causes of war also applies to the current US, Israeli war against Iran. For Israel the root cause of the war has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program which is not developing a nuclear weapon. It is simply Israel’s lust to destroy Iran as a hegemonic rival for Middle East supremacy. The US, supplying most of the fire power, has no dog in Israel’s quest. We can only lament that Israel exerts such malicious control over the Trump administration that it willingly engaged in suicidal war to please Israel.

Just like with Ukraine, the US attack had the opposite effect of a quick collapse of our imagined enemy. Iran prepared a robust defense that has largely destroyed US Gulf States bases, inflicted heavy damage on Israel and Gulf States oil infrastructure. Unless the root causes of Israel’s quest to destroy Iran and Iran’s determination to survive intact are addressed, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed, possibly crashing the world economy.

The war in Ukraine now in its 51st month, and war in Iran now in its 3rd month, will not be resolved till the root causes of both are addressed. Neither the US, NATO nor Israel show any desire to bring peace by addressing them.

May 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Iranian proposal rejected by Trump would open strait before nuclear talks, Iran official says

By Reuters, May 2, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-proposal-rejected-by-trump-would-open-strait-before-nuclear-talks-iran-2026-05-02/

May 2 (Reuters) – An Iranian proposal so far rejected by U.S. President Donald Trump would open shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and end the U.S. blockade of Iran while leaving talks on Iran’s nuclear programme for later, a senior Iranian official said on Saturday.

Four ‌weeks since the United States and Israel suspended their bombing campaign against Iran, no deal has been reached to end a war that has caused the biggest disruption ever to global energy supplies.

Iran has been blocking nearly all shipping from the Gulf apart from its own for more than two months. Last month the U.S. imposed its own blockade of ships from ⁠Iranian ports.

Trump said on Friday he was “not satisfied” with Iran’s latest proposal, without spelling out in detail which elements he opposes.

“They’re asking for things that I can’t agree to,” he told reporters at the White House.

Washington has repeatedly said it will not end the war without a deal that prevents Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, the primary aim Trump cited when he launched the strikes in February in the midst of nuclear talks. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential diplomacy, the senior Iranian official said Tehran believed its ‌latest proposal ⁠to shelve nuclear talks for a later stage was a significant shift aimed at facilitating an agreement.

Under the proposal, the war would end with a guarantee that Israel and the United States would not attack again. Iran would open the strait, and the United States would lift its blockade.

Future talks would then be ⁠held on curbs to Iran’s nuclear programme in return for the lifting of sanctions, with Iran demanding Washington recognise its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, even if it agrees to suspend it.

“Under this framework, negotiations ⁠over the more complicated nuclear issue have been moved to the final stage to create a more conducive atmosphere,” the official said.

Reuters and other news organisations already reported over the past week ⁠that Tehran was proposing to reopen the strait before nuclear issues were resolved; the official confirmed that this new timeline had now been spelled out in a formal proposal conveyed to the United States through mediators.

May 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Iranian Group Submits Evidence of US-Israeli War Crimes to International Criminal Court.

“All cases of attacks on civilians are being legally pursued based on the Geneva Conventions,” said the head of the Iranian Red Crescent Society.

Jake Johnson, Apr 26, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/news/iran-us-war-crimes

The head of the Iranian Red Crescent Society said Saturday that his organization has submitted evidence of US-Israeli war crimes to the International Criminal Court and other global bodies, seeking accountability for massive attacks on civilian infrastructure and other violations.

“The ICC prosecutor announced that the documents provided by the IRCS are accepted as official evidence,” said Pir-Hossein Koulivand, the head of the Iranian Red Crescent Society. “All cases of attacks on civilians are being legally pursued based on the Geneva Conventions.”

The IRCS estimates that US and Israeli airstrikes have destroyed more than 132,000 civilian structures throughout Iran, including hospitals, apartment buildings, universities, research facilities, and bridges. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to destroy all of Iran’s bridges and power plants if the country’s leadership does not succumb to his administration’s demands in negotiations to end the war.

Luis Moreno Ocampo, the founding chief prosecutor of the ICC, said earlier this month that Trump could be indicted if he follows through on his threats.

“My suggestion: You read the indictment of the Russians, change the name, and it is very similar,” said Ocampo, referring to ICC arrest warrants issued against senior Russian officials in 2024 for alleged war crimes in Ukraine.

In a series of social media posts on Saturday, the IRCS provided video footage and photographic evidence of what the group described as war crimes committed by the US and Israeli militaries.

“Among the most bitter war crimes of America and Israel in Iran is the attack on the home of 19-month-old Helma in Tabriz, in which four members of her family were martyred,” the IRCS wrote Saturday. “The only survivor of this family is Helma.”

The ICC is tasked with investigating and prosecuting individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other grave violations of international law. Iran is not currently a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC—so the court does not have jurisdiction over war crimes committed on Iranian territory.

Human rights organizations and advocates have implored Iran to grant the ICC jurisdiction to pursue justice for war crimes committed during the illegal US-Israeli assault that began on February 28. On the first day of the war, the US bombed an elementary school in southern Iran.

“From the killing of over 150 students and teachers to strikes on hospitals full of newborns, every day more and more evidence emerges pointing to the commission of grave war crimes in Iran since the start of the war,” said Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN. “Victims deserve justice. The mechanisms exist, and the US has no veto over them.”

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote earlier this month that “the Iranian government could join the court now and grant it retroactive jurisdiction, similar to what Ukraine did to allow prosecution of Russian war crimes.”

Last month, the IRCS formally requested that the ICC initiate “an investigation into war crimes arising from attacks by the United States of America and the Israeli regime against civilian objects.”

“According to field reports from relief workers, operational documentation, and data recorded by the Iranian Red Crescent Society, a wide range of residential areas, medical facilities, schools, humanitarian facilities, vital urban infrastructure, and public places were directly or indiscriminately targeted during the recent military attacks,” the group wrote in a letter to the ICC’s top prosecutor.

May 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Iran’s Supreme Leader Says It Won’t Give Up Nuclear Assets In Rare Public Statement

By Sara Dorn, Forbes Staff. Sara Dorn is a Forbes news reporter who covers politics. Apr 30, 2026, https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2026/04/30/irans-supreme-leader-says-it-wont-give-up-nuclear-assets-in-rare-public-statement/

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei vowed Thursday not to give up the country’s “nuclear and missile capabilities” in a rare statement Thursday—making clear Iran rejects the U.S.’s key demand to end the war.

Key Facts

An anchor on Iranian TV read the statement from Khamenei, who has not appeared or spoken in public since he took over for his father, who was killed in the initial wave of U.S. strikes in February.

Khamenei said Iran would maintain ownership of “all national assets,” including “nuclear and missile technologies,” according to an English translation of his statement published in Iranian state media.

Khamenei vowed Iran would “end the hostile misuse” of the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf region and criticized U.S. military action in the key waterway as a “humiliating failure.”

Khamenei has not appeared or spoken in public since he took over for his father, who was killed in the initial wave of U.S. strikes in February.

Giving up its nuclear weapons and allowing free passage through the Strait of Hormuz are key provisions for the U.S. in agreeing to permanently end the conflict.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has vowed to maintain its naval blockade of vessels coming to and from Iran, telling Axios on Wednesday the maneuver is “somewhat more effective than the bombing” and is “choking” Iran’s economy.

Shortly after Khamenei released his statement, the White House tweeted a previous quote from Trump that said “there will never be a deal unless [Iran] agrees that there will be no nuclear weapons.”

What To Watch For

The Pentagon has prepared plans for new strikes against Iran in an effort to force Iran back to the negotiating table, Axios reported Wednesday, citing two unnamed sources. One of the plans reportedly involves the U.S. taking control over part of the Strait of Hormuz and reopening it to commercial shipping traffic—an operation that could involve ground troops. Trump is expected to receive a briefing on the plan Thursday. He would not comment on any potential military action when he spoke to Axios Wednesday.

Tangent

Global oil prices have skyrocketed since the start of the Iran war, reaching a four-year high of more than $120 a barrel on Thursday. U.S. gas prices also increased 27 cents in the past week, to $4.30 a gallon.

Key Background

The dispute over the Strait of Hormuz has brought negotiations between Iran and the U.S. to a standstill, though the ceasefire between the two countries that took effect on April 30 remains in place. Iran reportedly presented the U.S. with a new plan to reopen the strait on Sunday, contingent on delaying nuclear talks, The New York Times reported, citing three unnamed Iranian officials. The plan would allow Iran to continue tolling ships for passage through the strait. The U.S. hasn’t publicly responded, but officials have repeatedly said Iran must agree to give up its stockpile of enriched uranium and agree to end its nuclear program as part of a deal for a lasting ceasefire.

May 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before this war. But you can see why it would develop one now

Simon Tisdall, 26 Apr 26, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/26/iran-nuclear-weapon-war-develop-one-now

If lawless aggression by ‘might is right’ nuclear-armed powers spreads unchecked, what other option do middle-ranking countries have?

With every bomb dropped, ship seized and blood-curdling threat of annihilation, Donald Trump increases Iran’s incentive to reject his “grand bargain” peace deal and sprint instead to acquire nuclear weapons for future self-defence. Justifying his declaration of war on 28 February, Trump claimed that Iran – and primarily its nuclear programme – posed an “imminent threat”. But Iran does not possess nukes. The US and Israel do.

US intelligence chiefs and UN inspectors agree there’s no firm evidence that the regime, while developing its technical capabilities and keeping political options open, has built, or ever tried to build, a nuclear weapon since at least 2003, when a covert scheme was exposed. But after Trump’s second unprovoked attack in a year, and his vow to bomb Iranian civilisation back to the “stone ages”, that is very likely to change.

It’s increasingly difficult to argue with the view, attributed to the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps generals now running Iran, that nukes are the only sure way of deterring future onslaughts. The US and Israel have twice struck without warning, in the middle of diplomatic negotiations. Even if a peace deal were agreed, Iranians know the ever-vengeful Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu cannot be trusted. The US-Israel axis could sustain its aggression for years to come.

Trump’s focus on “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear programme is as woefully wide of the mark as any misdirected US Tomahawk cruise missile. Indigenous nuclear knowhow cannot be easily bombed away, no matter how many scientists Israel kills. And in any case, Tehran does not necessarily need to reconstitute the capacity and skills required to build nuclear weapons at home. It may be able to buy them off the shelf abroad.

North Korea, a longtime ally, would be the most likely source, while help from Vladimir Putin’s Russia (already collaborating on nuclear energy projects) cannot be entirely ruled out. Kim Jong-un, Pyongyang’s dictator, has steered clear of the war so far. But just as he covertly sent troops to assist Putin in Ukraine, he could yet secretly step in to arm Tehran. On nuclear proliferation, Kim has form.

Iran has joined a growing number of non-nuclear armed countries that have suffered grievously at the hands of domineering nuclear powers. In 1994, Ukraine surrendered its nukes in return for what turned out, when Russia first attacked it in 2014, to be valueless western security assurances. Iraq’s regime, lacking a nuclear deterrent, succumbed to US invasion in 2003. Would Trump have attacked Venezuela in January had it been nuclear-armed?

If the acknowledged nuclear weapons states honoured their 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) obligation to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nukes, others might feel less need of a nuclear shield. But they persistently break their word. Increasingly, the US and Russia abuse their dominant position – abuses that the NPT was specifically designed to prevent. Israel (unlike Iran) never signed the treaty.

Trump’s alarmingly irrational, impulsive and threatening behaviour creates uncertainty and insecurity by itself. But his militarism also fuels global nuclear weapons proliferation. The US is spending billions modernising its arsenal. Russia, North Korea, France and the UK are doing likewise, while China is rapidly, hugely expanding its forces. Yet Trump has refused to renew a series of cold war arms control treaties.

He trashed Barack Obama’s European-backed 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, a foolish decision that has led directly to today’s confrontation. On the first day of the war, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was targeted and killed. His binding fatwa expressly forbidding development of an Iranian bomb probably died with him.

Regarding Iran, Trump and Netanyahu labour under two fundamental misconceptions. Even if some form of cold peace is eventually established, Iranians will neither forgive nor forget atrocities such as the Minab school massacre, the wanton destruction visited on their country, and Washington’s diplomatic betrayals – whether or not the current regime remains in power. The “Iran threat” will persist. Second, Tehran still has options over which the US and Israel, despite military superiority, have no control.

Sanctioned, ostracised North Korea offers a possible template for Tehran. The Pyongyang regime originally developed its own atomic weapons using hidden market technology obtained from Pakistan. The Kim dynasty later made nuclear-related transfers to Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. It currently sells ballistic missiles to, among others, Iran and Russia.

It’s speculation at this point, but who’s to say Kim will not provide Iran with complete nuclear warheads? Or if that is too risky, he could supply highly enriched uranium, warhead designs and expertise in return for oil, suggested Mark Fitzpatrick, an International Institute for Strategic Studies non-proliferation expert and former senior US diplomat. If Kim did so, who would know and who could stop him?

Kim has grown increasingly emboldened since the failure of Trump’s embarrassing first-term charm offensive. Ignoring White House signals about renewed contacts when Trump visits Beijing next month, the North Korean leader ostentatiously test-fires new missiles, taunts South Korea and Japan, and stresses closer ties with China, Russia and Belarus. Speaking in March, he said US aggression in Iran “proved” North Korea was right to develop a nuclear deterrent. Tehran has surely heard that message.

If Kim is wrong, then why exactly does Trump treat North Korea so differently from Iran? After all, both countries menace their neighbours and embrace anti-western alliances, both are authoritarian regimes oppressing their citizens, and the North Korean nuclear threat is demonstrably genuine. The reason for the double standard seems obvious. Even Trump is not stupid enough to attack a nuclear-armed state.

The way Trump’s and Putin’s bellicose behaviour is legitimising arguments favouring the possession of nuclear weapons is prospectively disastrous for global non-proliferation efforts. If Iran does seek to acquire nukes to defend itself, will Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey follow? And that’s just in the Middle East. Like Ukraine, the Iran war also provides cover and precedent for other nuclear weapons states if they, too, decide to attack non-nuclear-armed countries. Might China follow suit in Taiwan? Given Iran’s fate, should Taipei rush to acquire nukes? Should Japan and South Korea?

Little wonder that an air of gloom hangs over the five-yearly NPT review conference, which opens in New York on Monday. Its challenges include ubiquitous nuclear weapons modernisation and expansion programmes; the collapse of arms control diplomacy; resumed nuclear testing; and what the Arms Control Association calls “rising nuclear dangers” and proliferation risks. “The idea of ‘global zero’, or a world without nuclear weapons, is seen to be steadily eroding,” a House of Commons Library research briefing warned this month.

This is no made-up story with which to scare the children. It’s real. Since invading Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons. So far, fortunately, it has not. In recent weeks, as Trump flailed in Iran, there was a flurry of reports, later denied, that the US, too, might resort to nukes. Sabre-rattling or not, such threats are becoming way too familiar. If a just and reasonable negotiated path can be found out of the present morass, Iran and similarly vulnerable middle-ranking countries may be persuaded to continue to forego nuclear weapons. But if lawless aggression by domineering “might is right” nuclear-armed powers spreads unchecked, the old cold war nightmare of mutually assured destruction will become today’s waking reality.

Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator

May 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran Survives Terrorist War and Emerges a Major Power Broker

From reports and observations we saw that many people, regardless of their political views, and including many who had returned home from other countries, were keen to defend their country from this foreign aggression. Not surprising, really.

Tim Anderson, Black Agenda Report, 22 Apr 2026 GOOD PHOTOS

Tim Anderson tours Iran during the US-Israeli war, showing different scenes from the terrorist targeting of civilians. He contends Iran has emerged with greater regional leverage, especially through its control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Originally published in Al Mayadeen English.

The unprovoked war against Iran by the USA and “Israel” has failed in spectacular fashion, with the Israeli colony in tatters, Washington looking for a way out while Iran holds the upper hand in peace “negotiations” proposed by Pakistan. Further, Tehran’s newly asserted control over shipping traffic passing into and out of the Persian Gulf (which neither the USA nor anyone else can shake) has given it tremendous new economic leverage.

Furthermore, the Iranian population has held together strongly under an extensive series of strikes on mainly civilian targets, which began with the assassination of the former Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei and the murder of 168 people, mainly schoolgirls, at the primary school in Minab, in southern Iran. This coherence underwrites the stability and future of the Islamic Republic.

It is a strange war, as I was able to observe in its third and fourth weeks, with everyday life going on in most major cities, while terrorist atrocities take place in the background. As a bakery owner at Niloufar Square in Tehran told me, this is not a conventional war, like the US-backed Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, where militaries face each other across a frontline.

The bakery owner’s building had been demolished by an enemy missile which targeted the police station next door. The USraeli attack on the police station at Niloufar Square in Tehran also killed and wounded dozens at an adjacent café (see photo on original) and in surrounding residential apartments.

I was one of a group of four observers (a Turkish journalist, a Greek Lawyer and journalist and a North American videographer) hosted by the Iranian media, between 19 and 31 March. Our tour began in the northern city of Tabriz and wound its way down through Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Bushehr, Bandar Abbas and Minab, the site of the schoolgirl atrocity. Mostly, we were observing the aftermath of USraeli attacks and the patriotic mobilisation of people virtually every evening in the major cities.

In every Iranian city we visited, tens of thousands poured out each evening in support of their country. That included a huge gathering for Eid prayers after Ramadan, at the Imam Khomeini Mosalla Mosque of Tehran (see photos), the first such gathering in 35 years that had not been addressed by the murdered Iranian leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei

It seems that Trump’s attack on Iran was encouraged by the Israeli propaganda against the Islamic Republic: the repeated claims that “the regime” was highly unpopular and isolated, often making use of heavily biased surveys. Israeli propaganda suggested that the Iranian people would rise up again this “regime” if it were decapitated. That, of course, did not happen, even after many leaders were assassinated.

This is the problem with “believing one’s own nonsense”, most of it generated by Israeli ‘Hasbara’ campaigns, which suggested that the Islamic Republic was hated and insubstantial.

That campaign made use of a wave of violence instigated by Mossad and the CIA in January 2026, as Israeli media and former CIA boss Mike Pompeo admitted, which infiltrated economic protests (after a currency collapse) and killed over 3,000 people (officially 3,117), including hundreds of police and volunteers (Basij).

In Iran, our group saw people of all sorts, but mainly women, coming out to defend their nation and their military. The aim of the Trump-Israeli war was never clearly spelt out, though it is plain that the Israelis wanted to destroy or dismember Iran. The lack of any clear pretext for war led to many of the US allies distancing themselves, while less discriminate ‘allies’ instinctively went along with whatever the US said or did.

As it happened, Iran’s formidable deterrent force of missile and drones punished the Israelis for more than a month, while partially or totally destroying all 13 US bases in the Arab Monarchies of the Persian Gulf. US ships could not approach the Persian Gulf for fear of Iranian missile strikes. For similar reasons, there was no US ground invasion.

Yet we saw traumatised family after traumatised family as we passed through the cities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Though our observations were anecdotal, the Iranian Red Crescent informed us in Tehran that there had been 81,000 strikes on civilian sites. By the time we reached Shiraz, this had risen to 85,000. By early April, the Red Crescent said over 2,100 people had been killed and 115,000 civilian facilities damaged.

We did see reports of USraeli attacks on military sites (such as the large but futile attacks on the missile mountain at Yazd), but a senior security official in Shiraz told me that, for that province and by late March, there had been 53 military and 72 civilians killed.

Neither the US nor the Israelis respect Iranian cultural heritage. We saw serious damage to the historic Golestan palace and the Pahlavi palace-museum complex in Tehran, from bunker buster bombs. There was similar shockwave damage to the Chehel Sotoun palace in Isfahan. The latter had been damaged by attacks on the nearby provincial governor’s offices. In each case sheets of plastic with UNESCO blue shield insignia had been laid out, to designate cultural property to be protected in the event of armed conflict; to no avail. Colonial aggressors have little regard for indigenous heritage.

Traveling down the Persian Gulf coast from Bushehr – where we saw destruction of the Meteorology station and the main hospital – we eventually arrived at Bandar Abbas and then Minab, site of the schoolgirl massacre. After visiting one bereaved family, we went to the graveyard, where mothers and fathers were still encamped, mourning their lost children. Some graves were being reinforced after the flooding rain of previous days.

Many held clothing and the shattered backpacks of children, which have become symbols of the massacre. Moving to the school, we examined the site to satisfy ourselves that there were no military facilities in the vicinity. In fact, the site had been a military compound, many years ago. It was handed over to the Health and then to the Education Ministry, and the primary school was constructed 13 years ago.

Amidst the obfuscation over this massacre (Trump at first tried to falsely blame the Iranians) a blunt assessment fell to former U.S. Army Counterterrorism Intelligence Officer Josephine Guilbeau. She said the attack, involving multiple Tomahawk missiles, was a clear case of deliberate terrorism and that US intel would have known very well that the site was a school and, at that time of day, full of children. She named USS Spruance Commander Leigh R. Tate and Executive Officer Jeffrey E. York as the officers to be held accountable for this terrorist atrocity.

Returning to the port city of Bandar Abbas, our visit to Hormuz Island – facilitated by the governor of Hormuzgan Province – was interrupted by the drone bombing of the port at the island. As a result, we went out into the straits in a boat and observed the many ships sitting offshore.

From Iranian reports and interviews (of the Governor of Hormuzgan and s specialist energy sector journalist at Bandar Abbas) I gathered the following: the Straits of Hormuz were not “closed” but shipping linked to the enemy had been blocked by the IRGC, while shipping from some of the other Persian Gulf states was being taxed (with a toll), and ships from friendly states (e.g. Iraq and China) were passing freely. This was clarified repeatedly over the following weeks. At an early stage, the main shipping insurance companies recognised IRGC security clearance as a factor in reducing risk premiums and therefore the financial viability of passage.

While the Straits had been open to all before the US-Israeli war, there was now security regulation, enforced by Iran. Washington has not even come close to seizing control of the Straits.

Overall, many years of Iranian “strategic patience” came to an end with the direct attacks on Iran by Washington, and that, in turn, delivered a powerful new weapon to Tehran, control of the gateway to 20% of the world energy supplies.

The Western media reacted with chagrin. Australian state media, the ABC, seeing that there was a fellow Australian at Hormuz, contacted me, but not to ask any details of what I had seen. Rather, reporter Henry Zwartz asked me if I had been paid to appear in an “Iranian propaganda video”. That shows how little interest the Australian state media had in the details of any new war; they would prefer to smear anyone appearing to contradict their official story.

As it happened, the USraeli war against Iran was failing badly and desperately trying to cover its tracks. The US military could neither invade Iran nor enter the Persian Gulf, for fear of Iranian missiles and drones. Trump ranted and raved about how he was winning and how Iran had been “crushed” and the Western media reported this credulously. Washington claimed virtually no casualties, after they had lost at least a dozen warplanes and a dozen military bases across the Persian Gulf. Those hidden casualties will emerge under some cover, down the track.

Importantly, Iran asserted sovereign control over passage through the Straits of Hormuz (regulating what is called “innocent passage” under the customary law of territorial seas – neither Iran nor the USA are parties to UNCLOS) and Washington was unable to undo this, resorting eventually to a secondary blockade of the Straits. Peace talks in Pakistan failed due to intransigence on the US side.

The better Anglo-American commentators have recognised not just the failure of this war but the fact that its failure signals an end to the era of US unilateralism. Professor John Mearsheimer said that Iran, had gained the lever of Hormuz, unregulated before the war, and oversaw the Israelis “poison[ing] their relations with the United States”. British analyst David Hearst said that Trump’s bile and stupidity had effectively enhanced Iran’s power in the Persian Gulf.

Researcher Ali Mamouri wrote “No matter how the blockade plays out, Iran will be in a far better position in the long term when it comes to maintaining control over the strait – not the US.”

The likely larger cost of US defeat will be withdrawal of all US bases from the Persian Gulf – now a key Iranian demand – and strategic retreat along the lines of that set out by Nixon after defeat of the US in Vietnam. In 1969, President Richard Nixon announced his ‘Guam Doctrine” from a Pacific island base. The claim will be – now as then – that Washington is “rebalancing” its commitments and leaving greater responsibility for its “allies”.

Some embedded journalists have already argued this was Trump’s approach in his first term, when he sought to make allies pay more for their own security. It might better be seen as a cover for a humiliating defeat and yet another step in the decline of the US global hegemony. Remember that China is also committed to Iranian (i.e. independent) control of Hormuz and thus of its key source of energy. That is, of course, why Beijing continues to support Iran in logistics, defence technology and intelligence. In any case, Trump will be looking for some face saving consolation prize to cover up this monumental failure.

Tim Anderson is the Director of the Sydney-based Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies. https://blackagendareport.com/iran-survives-terrorist-war-and-emerges-major-power-broker

April 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics | Leave a comment

10 takeaways from Trump’s senseless Iran war

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 23 April 26, https://theaimn.net/ten-takeaways-from-trumps-senseless-iran-war/

1. First time a foreign power, Israel, goaded, indeed demanded America launch a criminal war

2. Trump’s capitulation to Israel’s war demand is destroying his presidency and will likely hand over Congress to Democrats in November

3. Air power alone has not and will not achieve victory over Iran

4. Ignoring Iran’s ability to close Strait of Hormuz gave strategic advantage to Iran to force stalemate, if not achieve outright Iranian victory

5. US has greatly degraded world economy and may spiral it into recession, possibly even depression if it doesn’t end war soon

6. All US Gulf States bases have been damaged or destroyed and may never be rebuilt due to loss of US security credibility to Gulf States

7. Israel has largely destroyed its support among young Americans disgusted with its endless manipulation of US to support both its Gaza Genocide under Biden and war to destroy Iran under Trump

8. If desperate Trump resumes bombing to destroy Iranian infrastructure, Iran will retaliate destroying Israeli and Gulf States infrastructure, possibly all Middle East oil production

9. A peaceful settlement on Iran’s sensible terms is the only path to Middle East peace

10. As long as the war continues, Israeli use of nuclear weapons remains a possibility

April 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | 1 Comment

GOP Senator Suggests Trump Should “Finish” Iran With Nuclear Bomb

The senator, Roger Marshall, said Trump has to “take everything into consideration” if ceasefire progress stalls

.By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, April 22, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/gop-senator-suggests-trump-should-finish-iran-with-nuclear-bomb/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=9a9827f3a8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_04_22_09_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-9a9827f3a8-650192793

epublican Sen. Roger Marshall (Kansas) said in an interview on Wednesday that President Donald Trump faces issues on par with those of World War II with regard to the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran, seeming to suggest that Trump should nuke Iran in order to prevent the country from ever having nuclear weapons.

Marshall was asked by a Newsmax anchor if he believes that the U.S. military will “have to go in and finish this job” if negotiations between the U.S. and Iran for a permanent ceasefire continue for several more weeks.

“I think that’s right,” said the senator. “Previous presidents have had the same issues on what to do. Think about President Truman’s decision on dropping the bomb, and D-Day for President Eisenhower.”

“You’ve got to take everything into consideration,” Marshall said, including whether negotiations are “truly making progress or not.”

Earlier in the interview, the senator said that the U.S.’s aggression against Iran is necessary because “Iran can never, never, ever have a nuclear weapon.”

“If Iran had a nuclear weapon, gasoline would be $10 a gallon, and for generations to come, Americans’ lives would be threatened,” the lawmaker said.

The statements echo Trump’s genocidal rhetoric toward Iran, including his threat to “blow up the rest of their Country” if negotiations falter on Tuesday. Legal experts have said that Trump’s indiscriminate threats against Iran as a whole, as well as his pledges to target civilian infrastructure like power plants, constitute threats to commit war crimes.

Marshall also bragged about the harm that the U.S. is causing civilians with Trump’s blockade on Iran.

“We also have this embargo working as well, the blockade, and we’re literally starving them,” said Marshall, “both financially and they can’t feed themselves either, very long.”

The use of starvation as a weapon of war is prohibited under international law.

The UN indeed warned last month that an additional 45 million people may be “pushed into acute hunger by price rises” if the conflict and closure of the Strait of Hormuz continue through June, adding to the already record high of 319 million people currently facing acute food insecurity. Iran previously pledged to open passage through the strait as a term of the temporary ceasefire agreement, but is still prohibiting ships from crossing due to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and the U.S.’s blockade of Iranian ports, which Iranian officials have said are both violations of the ceasefire.

Republicans have previously called for the usage of nuclear weapons with impunity. Last May, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Florida), said that Israel should drop a nuclear weapon on Gaza. “We nuked the Japanese twice in order to get unconditional surrender. That needs to be the same here,” he said. “There is something deeply, deeply wrong with this culture and it needs to be defeated.”

The staunchly pro-Israel lawmaker’s statements were condemned by rights advocates — but, just weeks later, Republican leaders granted him a seat on the high-powered House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This followed a remark by another Republican House lawmaker, Rep. Tim Walberg (Michigan), who said in March of 2024 that Gaza should be attacked “like Nagasaki and Hiroshima.”

April 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA | 1 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 Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Did Iran ever Really Have a Nuclear Weapons Program?

Fariba Amini, 04/21/2026, https://www.juancole.com/2026/04/nuclear-weapons-program.html

Interview of Dr. Mehran Mostafavi by Fariba Amini

In a resolution against nuclear war initiated by philosopher Bertrand Russell and endorsed by Albert Einstein just a week before his death, they wrote: “We appeal, as human beings, to human beings, remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you do so, the way lies open to a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.” — July 1955, letter addressed to President Roosevelt, the Russel-Einstein Manifesto

Dr. Mehran Mostafavi* is a nuclear expert who teaches at some of the most prestigious institutions in France. Throughout the years, he has also been on various French and Iranian media outlets speaking about Iran’s nuclear energy while a vocal critic of the Islamic Republic for its repressive rule. He is also the son-in-law of a very famous Iranian, the late Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, the first President of Iran (1980-1981) who left Iran clandestinely and passed away in a suburb of Paris.

He is the 2026 recipient of Medal of Honor from CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique).

FA: What is your field of expertise?

MM: I am a physical chemist and a professor at Université Paris‑Saclay. I have been following Iran’s nuclear policy for 20 years, and I have written several dozen articles and given hundreds of interviews about it.

FA: As an expert on nuclear energy who has done extensive research on the subject, how do you evaluate Iran’s nuclear energy program?

MM: Iran’s nuclear policy began in the late 1980s. At that time, Iran was in a difficult position in its war with Iraq, and Iraq was using chemical bombs provided by the West against Iran. In Iran, the idea gradually took shape that to deter and confront Israel, it would be better for Iran to have an atomic bomb. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic decided to complete the Bushehr reactor,

much of the work on which had been done by the Germans before the revolution, with Russian help, and various projects were launched in this field. However, Iran was forced to abandon the military program in 1992. In the civilian sphere, Iran has only the Bushehr power plant, which generates less than 2 percent of Iran’s electricity, and its fuel is supplied by the Russians.

FA: Did the Islamic Republic intend to make the bomb as Israelis have claimed? We know that Netanyahu has been declaring that Iran would have the bomb in six months since 1984. It is now 2026.

MM: Yes, Israel, even though it knows that since 1992 Iran has not been active in building a bomb and had only carried out rudimentary work before then, regularly claims that Iran will build an atomic bomb any day now—a big lie that has been repeated countless times without evidence. All Western intelligence agencies, including the U.S. one, have reported that Iran does not have a bomb-building program.

FA: The nuclear power plants were built under the Shah in the 1970’s initially in Bushehr with the help of the German company Siemens KVU. But the project was abandoned after the 1979 Revolution, damaged during the Iran-Iraq, and later completed by Russia. At that time, did anyone object to this project?

MM: At the beginning of the revolution, it was decided that Iran did not need a nuclear power plant and that it was not cost-effective to complete the Bushehr plant. This position was particularly championed by Mehdi Bazargan and Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and was eventually approved. However, in the 1990s the Islamic Republic once again resumed construction of the plant with Russian assistance.

FA: To build a nuclear bomb, you need to enrich to more than 60 percent uranium. In your opinion, was this ever done?

MM: Yes, you need to enrich it up to 90%

FA: Why did the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) build its nuclear facilities in Natanz and Bushehr or near cities which ultimately could be dangerous for the people?

MM: It is not particularly significant that these facilities are located a few dozen kilometers from towns. There is no risk of a nuclear explosion, but there is a risk of radioactive contamination or chemical pollution. In this respect, the facilities in Iran, even following very intense bombing by the Americans and Israelis, have not caused any serious problems.

FA: According to several U.S. intelligence services Iran was no imminent threat to the U.S. Why then did Trump push for war?

MM: Trump is a compulsive liar! Let me remind you that, following the attacks in June, he claimed that the US had destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, and then in March he attacked Iran on the grounds that it posed an imminent threat. We know full well that this is not true. He started the war in response to demands from Israel, which does not want any regional powers other than itself in the Middle East.

FA: We know that upon coming into office in 2016, Trump tore up the JCPOA [the 2015 nuclear deal], at the advice of the man in Tel Aviv. Today, if an agreement is made, it will probably be little different from the one that the Obama administration agreed to. Do you think there will be any significant differences?

MM: I do not believe that they will do a similar agreement.

FA: Do you believe that the IRI ever had the intention to use nuclear weapons against Israel as they claim? We know that the Israelis, even if they have never been open about it, have at least 300 nukes. So, isn’t all a sham?

MM: No, because Iran has never had the full technical capability to build a bomb. Iran is still a long way from having a bomb. Even if Iran enriches uranium to 90%, it will still take a long time – perhaps a year – before it had the capability to use the bomb. Israel has never declared its facilities and has never complied with international law. Israel is in no position to lecture other countries

FA: Don’t you think that for the IRI, this whole idea was more defensive rather than offensive?

MM: I think that over the last 20 years, Iran has used its nuclear policy to bargain with the West, and in recent years its intention has been to demonstrate that it can become a nuclear-capable country.

FA: In a recent New Yorker article dated April 6, 2026, a former CIA operative says that he was involved in getting Iranian nuclear scientist defect or be killed. We know that Mossad has been involved in the assassination of several scientists in Iran, approximately eighteen of them. Do you know of any defections?

MM: I am fully aware that Israel has eliminated several Iranian scientists. It is very interesting to note that Iran and Israel worked together in a consortium to develop the only synchrotron in the Middle East, in Jordan. It was a peaceful project for a facility intended for physicists. One of the Iranian representatives was Prof. Massoud Ali Mohamadi. The Israelis met him in Jordan during the meetings and knew him well. He was assassinated by the Israelis. He was very intelligent but was not involved in the Iranian nuclear program. He was simply assassinated because he was a great physicist.

April 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Archives
- October 2026 (247)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
Categories
- 1
  - Arclight's Vision
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
  - business and costs
    - employment
    - marketing
  - climate change
  - culture and arts
  - ENERGY
    - renewable
      - decentralised
      - energy storage
  - environment
    - oceans
    - water
  - health
    - children
    - psychology – mental health
    - radiation
    - social effects
    - women
  - history
  - indigenous issues
  - Legal
    - deaths by radiation
    - legal
  - marketing of nuclear
  - media
    - investigative journalism
    - Wikileaks
  - opposition to nuclear
  - PERSONAL STORIES
  - politics
    - psychology and culture
      - Trump – personality
    - public opinion
    - USA election 2024
    - USA elections 2016
  - politics international
  - Religion and ethics
  - safety
    - incidents
  - secrets,lies and civil liberties
    - civil liberties
  - spinbuster
    - Education
  - technology
    - reprocessing
    - Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
    - space travel
  - Uranium
  - wastes
    - – plutonium
    - decommission reactor
  - weapons and war
    - Atrocities
    - depleted uranium
  - Women
- 2 WORLD
  - ANTARCTICA
  - ARCTIC
  - ASIA
    - Burma
    - China
    - India
    - Indonesia
    - Japan
    - Malaysia
    - Mongolia
    - North Korea
    - Pakistan
    - South Korea
    - Taiwan
    - Turkey
    - Vietnam
  - EUROPE
    - Belarus
    - Bulgaria
    - Denmark
    - Finland
    - France
    - Germany
    - Greece
    - Ireland
    - Italy
    - Kazakhstan
    - Kyrgyzstan
    - Russia
    - Spain
    - Sweden
    - Switzerland
    - UK
    - Ukraine
  - MIDDLE EAST
    - Afghanistan
    - Egypt
    - Gaza
    - Iran
    - Iraq
    - Israel
    - Jordan
    - Libya
    - Saudi Arabia
    - Syria
    - Turkey
    - United Arab Emirates
  - NORTH AMERICA
    - Canada
    - USA
      - election USA 2020
  - OCEANIA
    - New Zealand
    - Philippines
  - SOUTH AMERICA
    - Brazil
- ACTION
- AFRICA
  - Kenya
  - Malawi
  - Mali
  - Namibia
  - Niger
  - Nigeria
  - Somalia
  - South Africa
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
  - thorium
- Reference
  - Reference archives
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

nuclear-news

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