nuclear-news

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

Trump has threatened Iran over an ultimatum that likely cannot be met

Trump’s ultimatum to Iran appears to be moving the U.S. down a path to where war is the only outcome, as occurred in 1914 – an outcome which ultimately triggered WW1.

Strategic Culture Foundation, Alastair Crooke, April 7, 2025

What is understood now is that ‘we’re no longer playing chess’. There are no rules anymore.

Trump’s ultimatum to Iran? Colonel Doug Macgregor compares the Trump ultimatum to Iran to that which Austria-Hungary delivered to Serbia in 1914: An offer, in short, that ‘could not be refused’. Serbia accepted nine out of the ten demands. But it refused one – and Austria-Hungary immediately declared war.

On 4 February, shortly after his Inauguration, President Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM); that is to say, a legally binding directive requiring government agencies to carry out the specified actions precisely.

The demands are that Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon; denied inter-continental missiles, and denied too other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities. All these demands go beyond the NPT and the existing JCPOA. To this end, the NSPM directs maximum economic pressure be imposed; that the U.S. Treasury act to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero; that the U.S. work to trigger JCPOA Snapback of sanctions; and that Iran’s “malign influence abroad” – its “proxies” – be neutralised.

The UN sanctions snapback expires in October, so time is short to fulfil the procedural requirements to Snapback. All this suggests why Trump and Israeli officials give Spring as the deadline to a negotiated agreement.

Trump’s ultimatum to Iran appears to be moving the U.S. down a path to where war is the only outcome, as occurred in 1914 – an outcome which ultimately triggered WW1.

Might this just be Trump bluster? Possibly, but it does sound as if Trump is issuing legally binding demands such that he must expect cannot be met. Acceptance of Trump’s demands would leave Iran neutered and stripped of its sovereignty, at the very least. There is an implicit ‘tone’ to these demands too, that is one of threatening and expecting regime change in Iran as its outcome.

It may be Trump bluster, but the President has ‘form’ (past convictions) on this issue. He has unabashedly hewed to the Netanyahu line on Iran that the JCPOA (or any deal with Iran) was ‘bad’. In May 2014, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA at Netanyahu’s behest and instead issued a new set of 12 demands to Iran – including permanently and verifiably abandoning its nuclear programme in perpetuity and ceasing all uranium enrichment.

What is the difference between those earlier Trump demands and those of this February? Essentially they are the same, except today he says: If Iran “doesn’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before”.

Thus, there is both history, and the fact that Trump is surrounded – on this issue at least – by a hostile cabal of Israeli Firsters and Super Hawks. Witkoff is there, but is poorly grounded on the issues. Trump too, has shown himself virtually totalitarian in terms of any and all criticism of Israel in American Academia. And in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, he is fully supportive of Netanyahu’s far-right provocative and expansionist agenda.

These present demands regarding Iran also run counter to the 25 March 2025 latest annual U.S. Intelligence Threat Assessment that Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon. This Intelligence Assessment is effectively disregarded. A few days before its release, Trump’s National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz clearly stated that the Trump Administration is seeking the “full dismantlement” of Iran's nuclear energy program: “Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see”, Waltz said. “It is time for Iran to walk away completely from its desire to have a nuclear weapon”.

On the one hand, it seems that behind these ultimata stands a President made “pissed off and angry” at his inability to end the Ukraine war almost immediately – as he first mooted – together with pressures from a bitterly fractured Israel and a volatile Netanyahu to compress the timeline for the speedy ‘finishing off’ of the Iranian ‘regime’ (which, it is claimed, has never been weaker). All so that Israel can normalise with Lebanon –and even Syria. And with Iran supposedly ‘disabled’, pursue implementation of the Greater Israel project to be normalised across the Middle East.

Which, on the other hand, will enable Trump to pursue the ‘long-overdue’ grand pivot to China. (And China is energy-vulnerable – regime change in Tehran would be a calamity, from the Chinese perspective).

To be plain, Trump’s China strategy needs to be in place too, in order to advance Trump’s financial system re-balancing plans. …………………………………………………………………………………….. https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/04/07/break-leg-that-old-mafia-warning-trump-has-threatened-iran-over-ultimatum-that-likely-cannot-be-met/

April 11, 2025 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

A Iran and US to enter high-stakes nuclear negotiations – hampered by a lack of trust

April 10, 2025. The Conversation, Ali Bilgic, Professor of International Relations and Middle East Politics, Loughborough University

The announcement of planned talks between the US and Iran in Oman signifies a crucial development – especially given the history of distrust and animosity that has characterised their interactions.

There remains a degree of confusion as to whether the negotiations over Iran’s development of a nuclear capacity will be direct or indirect. The US has said that its Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, will meet Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. Donald Trump has publicly stated that Iran will be in “great danger” if the negotiations fail.

Iran meanwhile has said that talks will be conducted through an intermediary. Araghchi commented that: “It is as much an opportunity as it is a test. The ball is in America’s court.”

This seeming clash in messaging before the talks have even begun is not the greatest omen for their success, even with the threat of US or Israeli military action hovering over Iran. Representatives from Iran, China and Russia are reported to have met in Moscow on April 8.

China’s foreign ministry released a statement reminding the world that it was the US “which unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA [the 2015 nuclear deal or joint comprehensive plan of action] and caused the current situation”. It stressed the need for Washington to “show political sincerity, act in the spirit of mutual respect, engage in dialogue and consultation, and stop the threat of force and maximum pressure”.

This followed messaging from Washington which very much focused on the possibility of force and maximum pressure. Speaking to the press after meeting the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump struck a very aggressive note, saying: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and if the talks aren’t successful, I actually think it will be a very bad day for Iran if that’s the case…………………………………………………

Rocky road ahead

A major issue affecting the talks is the low level of trust between the two parties. The US’s involvement in the Gaza conflict – including Trump’s controversial proposal to clear Gaza of Palestinians to make way for possible redevelopment – has further strained relations. So has the recent US campaign against the Tehran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Further threats of this kind are likely to be seen by Iran as aggressive and coercive – and Trump’s latest rhetoric won’t have helped. This will inevitably undermine the prospects for trust between the parties.

Iran’s scepticism is rooted in past experiences where promises of economic relief were not fulfilled. Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018 is a case in point. This perceived breach of trust has made Iran cautious about entering into new agreements without concrete assurances.

The regional context adds another layer of complexity to the talks. American support for Israel’s actions in Gaza is likely to complicate matters. The populations of most Gulf states are fully supportive of Palestinian self-determination and are scandalised at the way the US president has seemingly given the green light to Israel’s breach of the ceasefire and resumption of hostilities.

Iran’s internal politics are also likely to play an important role in shaping its approach to the negotiations. The country is experiencing significant political polarisation between the “hardliners”, spearheaded by the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and the “reformists”, who are relatively more conciliatory towards the US and Europe. ………………………..https://theconversation.com/iran-and-us-to-enter-high-stakes-nuclear-negotiations-hampered-by-a-lack-of-trust-254106

April 10, 2025 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

‘We thought it was the end of the world’: How the US dropped four nuclear bombs on Spain in 1966

Myles Burke https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250404-how-the-us-dropped-nuclear-bombs-on-spain-in-1966 7 Apr 25

In 1966, the remote Spanish village of Palomares found that the “nuclear age had fallen on them from a clear blue sky”. Two years after the terrifying accident, BBC reporter Chris Brasher went to find what happened when the US lost a hydrogen bomb.

On 7 April 1966, almost 60 years ago this week, a missing nuclear weapon for which the US military had been desperately searching for 80 days was finally found. The warhead, with an explosive power 100 times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was carefully winched from a depth of 2,850ft (869m) out of the Mediterranean Sea and delicately lowered onto the USS Petrel. Once it was on board, officers painstakingly cut into the thermonuclear device’s casing to disarm it. It was only then that everyone could breathe a sigh of relief – the last of the four hydrogen bombs that the US had accidentally dropped on Spain had been recovered.

“This was not the first accident involving nuclear weapons,” said BBC reporter Chris Brasher when he reported from the scene in 1968. “The Pentagon lists at least nine previous accidents to aircraft carrying hydrogen bombs. But this was the first accident on foreign soil, the first to involve civilians and the first to excite the attention of the world.”

This terrifying situation had come about because of a US operation code-named Chrome Dome. At the beginning of the 1960s, the US had developed a project to deter its Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, from launching a pre-emptive strike. A patrol of nuclear-armed B-52 bombers would continuously criss-cross the skies, primed to attack Moscow at a moment’s notice. But to stay airborne on these long looping routes, the planes needed to refuel while in flight.

On 17 January 1966, one such bomber was flying at a height of 31,000ft (9.5km) over the Almería region of southern Spain, and attempted a routine air-to-air refuelling with a KC-135 tanker plane. “I believe what happened was the bomber was closing at a too-high rate of closure speed and he didn’t stabilise his position,” US Maj Gen Delmar Wilson, the man in charge of dealing with the catastrophic accident, told Brasher, “with the result that they got too close and collided.”

The B-52 bomber’s impact with the refuelling plane tore it open, igniting the jet fuel the KC-135 was carrying and killing all four of the crew onboard. The ensuing explosion also killed two men in the B-52’s tail section. A third managed to eject, but died when his parachute did not open. The other four members of the bomber’s crew successfully bailed out of their burning plane before it broke apart and fell to earth, raining down both flaming aircraft fragments and its lethal thermonuclear cargo onto the remote Spanish village of Palomares.

Everyone kept talking about a ‘broken arrow’. I learnt then that ‘broken arrow’ was the code word for a nuclear accident – Capt Joe Ramirez

The huge fireball was seen a mile away. Thankfully, it did not trigger a nuclear explosion. The bomber’s warheads were not armed and had built-in safeguards to prevent an unintended atomic chain reaction. But the thermonuclear devices did have explosives surrounding their plutonium cores as part of the triggering mechanism. In the event of an accident, the bombs had parachutes attached to them designed to cushion the impact on landing and prevent radioactive contamination. And indeed, one undetonated bomb did land safely in a riverbed and was recovered intact the following day. Unfortunately, two of the plummeting nuclear bombs’ parachutes failed to open.

That morning, Spanish farmer Pedro Alarcón was walking to his house with his grandchildren when one of the nuclear bombs landed in his tomato field and blew apart on impact. “We were blown flat. The children started to cry. I was paralysed with fear. A stone hit me in the stomach, I thought I’d been killed. I lay there feeling like death with the children crying,” he told the BBC in 1968.

Devastation and chaos

The other hydrogen bomb also exploded when it hit the ground near a cemetery. These dual blasts created vast craters and scattered highly toxic, radioactive plutonium dust across several hundred acres. Burning aircraft debris also showered the Spanish village. “I was crying and running about,” a villager called Señora Flores told the BBC in 1968. “My little girl was crying, ‘Mama, Mama, look at our house, it is burning.’ Because of all the smoke I thought what she said must be true. There were a lot of stones and debris falling around us. I thought it would hit us. It was this terrific explosion. We thought it was the end of the world.”

Once the news that the bomber had come down with nuclear weapons aboard reached US military command, a huge operation was launched. At the time of the disaster, Capt Joe Ramirez was an US Air Force lawyer stationed in Madrid. “There were a lot of people talking, there was a lot of excitement in the conference room. Everyone kept talking about a ‘broken arrow’. I learnt then that ‘broken arrow’ was the code word for a nuclear accident,” he told BBC’s Witness History in 2011.

US military personnel were scrambled to the area by helicopter. When Capt Ramirez arrived in Palomares, he immediately saw the devastation and chaos wrought by the accident. Huge pieces of smoking wreckage were strewn all over the area – a large part of the burning B-52 bomber had landed in the school’s yard. “It’s a small village but there were people scrambling in different directions. I could see smouldering debris, I could see some fires.”

Despite the carnage, miraculously no one in the village was killed. “Nearly 100 tonnes of flaming debris had fallen on the village but not even a chicken had died,” said Brasher. A local school teacher and doctor climbed up to the fire-scarred hillside to retrieve the remains of the US airmen who had been killed. “Later still, they sorted the pieces and the limbs into five coffins, an act that was to cause a certain amount of bureaucratic difficulty when the Americans came to claim only four bodies from that hillside,” said Brasher.

Three of the B-52 crew who managed to eject landed in the Mediterranean several miles off the coast and were rescued by local fishing boats within an hour of the accident. The fourth, the B-52 radar-navigator, ejected through the plane’s explosion, which left him badly burned, and was unable to separate himself from his ejection seat. Despite this, he managed to open his parachute and was found alive near the village and taken to hospital.

However, this still left the problem of locating the plane’s deadly nuclear payload. “My main concern was to recover those bombs, that was number-one priority,” Gen Wilson told the BBC in 1968.

One of our nuclear bombs is missing

“The first night, the Guardia Civil [the Spanish national police force] had come to the little bar in Palomares, and that was about the only place that had electricity. And they had reported what they considered to be a bomb, so we immediately despatched some of our people to this riverbed which is not far from the centre of town, and, in fact, it was a bomb, so we placed a guard on that. And then the next morning, at first daylight, we started conducting our search, and I believe it was something in the order of 10am or 11am the following morning, we located two other bombs.”

This accounted for three of the nuclear bombs, but there was still one missing. By the next day, trucks filled with US troops had been sent from nearby bases, with the beach in Palomares becoming a base for some 700 US airmen and scientists urgently trying to contain any radioactive contamination and locate the fourth warhead.

“The first thing that you could see as the search really got underway in earnest was Air Force personnel linking up hand-by-hand and 40 or 50 people in a line. They would have designated search areas. There were some people with Geiger counters who started arriving, and so they started marking off the areas which were contaminated,” said Capt Ramirez in 2011. When US personnel registered an area contaminated with radiation, they would scrape up the first three inches of topsoil and seal it in barrels to be shipped back to the US. Some 1,400 tonnes of irradiated soil ended up being sent to a storage facility in South Carolina.

Both the US and Spain, which at the time was under the brutal rule of Francisco Franco’s military dictatorship, were keen to downplay the devastating accident. Franco was especially worried that radiation fears would hurt Spain’s tourism industry, a major source of revenue for his regime. In an effort to reassure the local population and the wider world that there was no danger, the US Ambassador to Spain, Angier Biddle Duke, would end up taking a swim in the sea off Palomares coast in front of the international press just weeks after the accident.

But despite hundreds of US personnel conducting an intensive and meticulous search of the surrounding area for a week, they still couldn’t find the fourth bomb. Then Capt Ramirez spoke to a local fisherman who had helped rescue some of the surviving airmen who had splashed down in the sea. The fisherman kept apologising to Capt Ramirez for not being able to save one of the US flyers, whom he thought he had witnessed drifting down into the depths. 

Capt Ramirez realised that the fisherman could have actually seen the missing nuclear bomb. “All the bodies had been accounted for, I knew that,” he said. The search then quickly shifted to the Mediterranean Sea, with the US Navy mobilising a flotilla of more than 30 ships, including mine-sweepers and submersibles, to scour the seabed. The exploration of miles of ocean floor was both technically complicated and a very slow process, but after weeks of exhaustive searching, a newly developed deep-diving vessel, Alvin, finally located the missing bomb in an underwater trench.

Nearly four months after it was first lost, the warhead was finally made safe and back in US hands. The next day, despite the secrecy with which the US military had surrounding its nuclear arsenal, it took the unusual step of showing the bomb to the world’s press. Ambassador Duke reasoned that unless people saw the bomb for themselves, they would never feel certain that it had actually been recovered.


April 9, 2025 Posted by | history, incidents, Reference, Spain, USA | Leave a comment

Trump claims US held direct nuclear talks with Iran

Aljazeera, 7 April 25

The US president makes the claim in a media conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, while also threatening Tehran.

President Donald Trump has announced that the United States has begun direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, after Tehran had earlier dismissed Washington’s calls for the talks.

“We’re having direct talks with Iran, and they’ve started. It’ll go on Saturday. We have a very big meeting, and we’ll see what can happen,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“And I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable,” he added, without providing further details.

Trump also warned that Iran would be in “great danger” if diplomatic efforts to curb its nuclear ambitions failed, adding that Tehran “can’t have nuclear weapons”.

Earlier this month, Trump told NBC News: “If they [Iran] don’t make a deal, there will be bombing”. He added that the bombing would be “the likes of which they have never seen before.”

Trump’s announcement of direct talks with Tehran would not be to Netanyahu’s “liking”, as the Israeli leader has long wanted to simply bomb Iran, said Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst.

“Trump has wanted a deal for a long time,” Bishara said. However, “Netanyahu certainly thinks Iran’s defences have been weakened by last year’s Israeli air strikes on Iran. And he sees this as a great opportunity, with US support, for Israel to finish off Iran.”

“In reality, Trump doesn’t want to enter a war with Iran while he is in the midst of trade wars with the rest of the world,” Bishara added.

‘Meaningless talks’

Over the weekend Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi described the prospect of direct negotiations with the US on Tehran’s nuclear programme as “meaningless”.

Araghchi’s remarks came after Trump said last month in a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that he hoped there would be a negotiation between the countries.

Tehran, which maintains that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, has so far rejected Washington’s overtures, but has said it is open to indirect diplomacy – a stance repeated by Araghchi in Sunday’s statement.

In 2018, during his first presidency, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers, which had placed strict curbs on Tehran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iran says its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes. Israel, the US’s top ally in the region, is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Netanyahu calls for Palestinians to leave Gaza

Speaking next to Netanyahu, who has been issued an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes in Gaza, Trump suggested that the war in Gaza could soon come to an end……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/7/trump-claims-direct-us-talks-with-iran-on-nuclear-deal-have-begun

April 9, 2025 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

With US bombers at the ready, can Trump cut a deal with Iran and avoid a war?

The United States and Iran are once again on a collision course over the
Iranian nuclear program. In a letter dated early March, US President Donald
Trump urged Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to negotiate a
new deal.

The new deal would replace the defunct nuclear agreement
negotiated in 2015 between the United States, Iran and five other global
powers. Trump withdrew from that agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA), during his first term.

Trump gave the Iranians a
two-month deadline to reach a new nuclear deal. If they don’t, the US will
bomb the country. In recent days, American B-2 bombers and warships have
been deployed to the region in a show of force. In response, Tehran has
agreed only to indirect negotiations. It has ruled out any direct talks
while under a US policy of “maximum pressure”.

Khamenei and his
generals have promised a “harsh response” to any military venture. Iran
has vowed to target all American bases in the region. France, one of key
negotiators in the 2015 deal, said this week a failure to secure a new deal
would make a military confrontation “almost inevitable”. In a positive
sign, however, Washington is reportedly “seriously considering” Iran’s
offer for indirect negotiations. And Trump is now suggesting Iran may
actually be open to direct talks.

The Conversation 5th April 2025 https://theconversation.com/with-us-bombers-at-the-ready-can-trump-cut-a-deal-with-iran-and-avoid-a-war-253828

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Canada supplied uranium for atomic bombs in WWII — 80 years later, the cleanup continues

Gordon Edwards, 6 Apr 25

Atomic Reaction is a documentary feature film dealing with the radioactive history and contamination of the town of Port Hope Ontario, located on the North shore of Lake Ontario just east of Toronto.

Here is a YouTube of the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jC1DPOYoQ0

Canada played a key role in chemically refining uranium from Canada and the Congo for use in the first two atomic bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Canada then became the largest supplier and exporter of uranium in the world,  in the post-war period, most of it sold for tens of thousands of nuclear warheads during the Cold War, until the sale of Canadian uranium for nuclear weapons was ended by Prime Miniister Pearson in 1965.

​In the process, the town of Port Hope (where all this refining took place until 1980) became thoroughly contaminated with radioactive wastes that were carelessly discarded and dispersed all about town – dumped into the harbour and into open ravines about town, used in roadways and mingled with the sandy beach, and used in huge quantities as construction material and as fill for up to a thousand buildings – homes, schools, offices, throughout town – requiring a massive radioactive cleanup costing over two billion dollars, resulting in two surface mounds of about a million tons each which will remain highly radiotoxic for many thousands of years to come. The cleanup is stlll ongoing today.

A similarly sized mound of radioactive waste is currently planned for the cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories, created near the end of World War 2 as a secret site for producing plutonium for the US bomb program among other things. Canada sold plutonium to the US military for weapons purposes.


For 20 years after the end of World War 2. The Chalk River megadump has been approved by Canada’s Nuclear regulator, but two of three court challenges have been successful in delaying the implementation pending legally required consultations with the Algonquin peoples on whose traditional land the megadump would be located, and pending the careful evaluation of alternative sites or waste management options that will not destroy the habitat of several endangered species.

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, media, Resources -audiovicual | 2 Comments

Federal regulator approves Canada’s first small modular reactor

the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations.

Matthew McClearn,  April 5, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-federal-regulator-approves-canadas-first-small-modular-reactor/

The federal nuclear safety regulator has authorized construction of an American small modular reactor (SMR) at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., a crucial milestone for a project that has garnered worldwide attention.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted the license to Ontario Power Generation on Friday for its Darlington New Nuclear Project. OPG has said it will finish building the first 327-megawatt reactor by the end of 2028, and begin supplying electricity to the province’s grid the following year. The reactor’s cost has not been disclosed publicly, but estimates suggest it could be several billion dollars.

“We now await the go-ahead from the Ontario government to proceed,” said OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly.

The Darlington SMR would represent a host of firsts, accompanied by larger risks and anticipated benefits. It would be the only nuclear reactor under construction in the Western hemisphere, and Canada’s first reactor start since the mid-1980s.

It would also represent the first SMR in any G7 country. And it would be the first BWRX-300; utilities in other jurisdictions (including Saskatchewan, the U.S., Poland and Estonia) have announced plans to build reactor fleets based on the same design.

The BWRX-300 is being designed by Wilmington, N.C.-based GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a leading American reactor vendor. Its construction would make Canada more reliant on U.S. suppliers for enriched uranium fuel and other critical inputs at a moment when relations between the two countries are rapidly deteriorating.

Yet this has not diminished support from Canadian officials. In a statement Friday, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce called the license “a historic milestone” for his province and the country.

“Ontario is realizing its potential as a stable democratic energy superpower, and I look forward to sharing next steps for this exciting project in the coming weeks.”

OPG applied for the license in late 2022. During hearings held this fall and winter, the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

But the commissioners dismissed this concern, finding OPG had supplied adequate information. They noted that an OPG representative told them the design was 95 per cent done; CNSC staff said in other countries, licenses are typically issued when designs are less than one-third complete.

Intervenors also said that the BWRX-300 lacked two fully independent emergency shutdown systems, because it features two systems that insert the same set of control rods into the reactor. The CNSC’s own staffers confirmed this, but told the Commission the probability both insertion systems would fail was “very low.” The Commission said OPG would have to provide additional information about this at a later date.

In response to concerns from certain First Nations concerning OPG’s and the CNSC’s obligation to engage with them, the CNSC imposed what it calls “regulatory hold points.” The first occurs before construction begins on the reactor building’s foundation, another before OPG can install the reactor’s pressure vessel, and a third before testing and commissioning of the facility can begin. The Commission delegated responsibility for supervising these license conditions to CNSC chief regulatory operations officer Ramzi Jammal.

“The Commission is satisfied that the honour of the Crown has been upheld and that the legal obligation to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous interests has been satisfied,” the commissioners wrote in their decision.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations. In February the Federal Court granted an application from Kebaowek First Nation for a judicial review of the CNSC’s decision to approve construction of a nuclear waste disposal facility at Chalk River Laboratories. Justice Julie Blackhawk found that the commissioners erred when they declined to apply the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and ordered a resumption of consultations.

The CNSC’s authorization applies only to OPG’s first SMR. Since the 1960s, Ontario’s long-standing practice has been to build “four-packs,” power plants with four identical reactors sharing workers and common infrastructure. In 2023, the Ontario government instructed OPG to begin planning for another three BWRX-300s at Darlington.

Over the past several years the utility has cleared and re-graded the site for the first reactor; ongoing excavation has reached 8 metres below ground level. OPG has been installing utilities all four reactors would share, such as water and sewer lines and network cabling.

OPG’s pivot to SMRs means the plant will generate far less power than originally envisioned. Under an earlier plan the site was licensed for up to 4,800 megawatts, whereas the BWRX-300s would possess a quarter of that capacity. (According to rough industry estimates, a single BWRX-300 could meet electricity demand from a city the size of Markham or Vaughan, Ont.)

Also working on the project are AtkinsRealis Group Inc., serving as architect-engineer, and construction giant Aecon Group Inc. Major reactor components are to be built by subcontractors in Ontario: BWX Technologies, for example, is preparing to build its massive pressure vessel at its plant in Cambridge. A 2023 study by the Conference Board of Canada said the four-reactor plant would increase Canada’s GDP by $15.3 billion over 65 years, and support 2,000 jobs.

Promoters, including OPG, have argued that building the first SMR will grant Ontario “first-mover” advantage and allow its nuclear industry to participate in subsequent BWRX-300 constructions worldwide. With numerous U.S. federal officials proclaiming an era of American energy “dominance” and imposing punishing tariffs on allies and trading partners, some observers now doubt this will happen. Mr. Lecce, though, appeared to dismiss that concern in his statement Friday.

“Our government has insisted and successfully negotiated that local Ontario and Canadian businesses must be overwhelmingly used to build SMRs for the world.”

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Deloitte seeks to avoid liability over US nuclear fiasco.

 Deloitte has asked a US judge to throw out demands that it compensate
shareholders who lost money in the collapse of one of the country’s
largest nuclear power projects, in a case that has exposed the inner
workings of the Big Four audit firm.

Recently filed documents detail Deloitte’s work auditing the South Carolina utility Scana before the company abandoned construction of two nuclear reactors that had fallen far
behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The 2017 fiasco led to
the cut-price sale of Scana to a rival utility, the bankruptcy of the
construction group Westinghouse and jail time for Scana’s former chief
executive, who pleaded guilty to misleading regulators.

A class-action lawsuit on behalf of Scana shareholders alleges Deloitte helped the company
hide burgeoning problems at the VC Summer nuclear project by signing off on
financial statements that indicated it would be completed on time. In fact,
an internal whistleblower at Scana had claimed as early as 2015 that
Westinghouse was impossibly far behind, and Deloitte failed to follow other
red flags, the lawsuit claims.

 FT 3rd April 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/89b10731-fcd0-4854-8bb5-1f4067f1bba2

April 6, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Hegseth Orders Pentagon To Focus on Preparing for War With China Over Taiwan

In an internal memo, Hegseth called China the ‘sole pacing threat’

by Dave DeCamp March 30, 2025 , https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/30/hegseth-orders-pentagon-to-focus-on-preparing-for-war-with-china-over-taiwan/

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth distributed a memo in mid-March ordering the Pentagon to put its focus on preparing for a war with China, a nuclear-armed power, by “assuming risk” in Europe and other parts of the world, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The Post didn’t publish the full memo, known as the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance, but said it “outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the ‘near abroad,’ including Greenland and the Panama Canal.”

The Pentagon has considered China the top “threat” facing the US since the first Trump administration, but the Post report said the memo is “extraordinary in its description of the potential invasion of Taiwan as the exclusive animating scenario that must be prioritized over other potential dangers — reorienting the vast US military architecture toward the Indo-Pacific region beyond its homeland defense mission.”

The report said that the guidance from Hegseth says the Pentagon’s force planning construct “will consider conflict only with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war” and leave the “threat from Moscow largely attended by European allies.”

Hegseth wrote that China “is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the US homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.”

The memo reflects the Trump administration’s policy toward Europe and calls for NATO allies to take a “far greater” burden sharing. The document says that the US is unlikely to provide substantial support to Europe if Russia’s military advances in the region, saying the US will only provide nuclear deterrence.

The memo also calls for the US to pressure Taiwan to increase military spending “significantly.”

For years now, the US military has been openly preparing for war with China despite the risk of nuclear escalation. It has done this by expanding military bases in the Asia Pacific, building alliances, and increasing support for Taiwan. While being done in the name of deterrence, these steps have only increased tensions in the region, making conflict more likely.

The Post report says that Hegseth’s plans to prepare a “denial defense” of Taiwan include “increasing the troop presence through submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialty units from the Army and Marine Corps, as well as a greater focus on bombs that destroy reinforced and subterranean targets.” His memo also calls for increasing the defenses of US troop positions in the region and establishing more weapons stockpiles.

April 5, 2025 Posted by | China, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

TRUMP’S PURSUIT OF A UKRAINIAN PEACE: Early Results and Future Prospects

Russian and Eurasian Politics, by Gordonhahn, April 4, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump and his new and internationally inexperienced administration have been in hot pursuit of a ceasefire and peaceful resolution of the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War. The pursuit has laid bare the false promise of an end to the war on the administration’s first or even one-hundredth day as previously advertised. This is no business deal. This the hardball world of international politics, national power and interests, ancient and not-so-ancient local and international resentments, grievances, betrayals, and hatreds. Despite what may seem as a disappointing complications and the inevitably longer timeline for the arrival of any prospective ceasefire or conclusive peace, significant early progress was made, and the stumbling blocs that have appeared were to be expected and can be overcome with time and the further deterioration of Ukraine’s position on the battle fronts, which is inevitable.

There has been some confusion among observers and the public regarding the process, with issues such as NATO expansion tied to a ceasefire in some minds. This is a subject for a final treaty, not a ceasefire, which is needed to allow peace talks to proceed more smoothly, niot to mention ending the bloodshed and destruction. The ceasefire agreement must not be conflated from peace treaty negotiations. A ceasefire will, therefore, take at least several, if not many months. This is not least of all because of the need to resolve what Russian President Vladimir Putin called “nuances” – organizational measures needed to implement a full-fledged ceasefire.

While agreement, violated albeit, has been achieved on a month-long ceasefire regarding energy infrastructure, the two sides are very far apart regarding any treaty. Putin’s 4 goals for Russia’s ‘special military operation (SMO) contradict directly Zelenskiy’s demands for security guarantees and the return of all territory annexed or occupied by Russia. Again, these are problems to be addressed under any peace treaty. The ceasefire must be fully implemented before any treaty can be addressed in any robust fashion. 


Trust-building is desperately needed, especially between Russia and Ukraine and can develop as partial agreements are made, complied with, and yield new agreements. Recent history and a long cultural tradition of security vigilance in Russia and in part inherited by Ukraine, the apposition of Russian nationalism and more rabid Ukrainian ultras-nationalism and neofascism, and, most importantly, the exacerbating factor of outside interference in Ukraine and Russian-Ukrainian relations by the U.S., Europe, and NATO create a matrix of distrust between all the parties, including the ostensible mediating side, the U.S., which is the lead combatant on the NATO side of the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War. The last point undermines the peace process from the start, and depending on how that process develops could end in many in Moscow, already being suspicious, coming to see the entire process as a ruse to hold off a Russian victory, viewing Trump’s America as ‘playing the good cop’, while Zelenskiy and Europe continue the war.

The ceasefire is evolving into four distinct elements — energy infrastructure, sea, air, and land ceasefires – to comprise the overall ceasefire prospectively. The full ceasefire could be achieved by mid-summer but more a more realistic target is before the end of the year……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Trump has levers to push the parties towards peace. For the Ukrainians, he can withhold intelligence and weapons supplies. For the Russians he can delay or threaten to forego rapprochement or various aspects of it: sanctions relief, trade agreements, and renewed cooperation regarding the world’s various conflicts. Pres. Trump’s “Liberation Day” 20 percent tariff on EU goods might be adjusted depending on Brussels’ compliance with American wishes for sanctions relief for Russia. Otherwise, the EU is positioned to scuttle BSI 2.0. Indeed, Russia’s 10 percent tariffs and 0 percent on Russia can be adjusted depending on where pressure needs to be applied.

In sum, there are a host of problems that will take months of concerted effective diplomacy led by the U.S. as things stand now. But the Trump administration is short of seasoned diplomats and experienced foreign and security policy experts. We have a long, hard way to go before peace reigns in Ukraine. https://gordonhahn.com/2025/04/04/trumps-pursuit-of-a-ukrainian-peace-early-results-and-future-prospects/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

  Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) rejects intervenors’ Palisades “zombie” nuke reactor restart petition & hearing request

March 31, 2025, https://beyondnuclear.org/aslb-rejects-intervenors-palisades-petition-hearing-request/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJb8IBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUI-Ts2_T9B3gIRG0gqC6X5YA6QiXdFZmRzx_2Rrj7VotgN7tfLIdp0y5A_aem_zNePcdLiZVSia6c3bnJ4zg

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Atomic Safety (sic) and Licensing Board (ASLB) has struck again. Per usual, the three-administrative law judge panel (formerly known as hearing examiners) has rejected all contentions re: health, safety, security, and the environment raised by an environmental coalition, denying hearings on the merits. Such rulings reflect the ASLB’s very well earned kangaroo court reputation. Not only is the NRC staff captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate, but so too is NRC’s ASLB.

See the 71-page ASLB ruling, here.

The coalition — Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago, and Three Mile Island Alert of Pennsylvania — did get the NRC ASLB to acknowledge its legal standing, although the NRC staff sought to block most of the groups. Some of the members/supporters who provided legal standing to the groups opposed by the NRC staff for establishing legal standing happen to live within less than a mile of the Palisades atomic reactor, and thus are very much in harm’s way.

Attorneys Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio, and Wally Taylor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, serve as the coalition’s legal counsel. Coalition expert witnesses include Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds, as well as Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, a world renowned advocate for renewable energy as the most time- and cost-effective pathway to climate mitigation. This means nuclear power is an opportunity cost, significantly hampering desperately needed reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, as soon as possible.

The coalition has resisted Holtec International’s scheme to restart the nearly 60-year old “zombie” atomic reactor at Palisades nuclear power plant since the get-go, on April 20, 2022, when Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer first floated the trial balloon of indefinite, continued operations, a month to the day before previous owner Entergy permanently shut down the reactor. Palisades was designed in the mid-1960s, and ground was broken on its construction in 1967.

Such a restart of a closed for good atomic reactor is unprecedented. It is also unneeded, insanely expensive for the public, and extremely risky. Palisades has been an atomic lemon since it was fired up in 1971, and is now dangerously age-degraded, after 51 years of problem-plagued operations, and three years of neglect by Holtec of safety-significant systems, structures, and components, such as the now dangerously degraded steam generator tubes. Holtec neglected steam generator tube maintenance for two years (2022-2024), a “rookie error” according to the coalition’s expert witness, Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds. But this rookie error, Gundersen, points out, could result in a catastrophic reactor core meltdown, if and when NRC allows Holtec to restart Palisades with mere BAND-AID fixes on the breakdown phase steam generator tubes.

The coalition will appeal the ASLB’s absurd ruling to the commissioners of the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once the NRC Commissioners rule against us too, we will have exhausted all administrative remedies. At that point, we will file an appeal to the federal courts.

Although the ASLB has rejected all previous coalition contentions, the three-judge panel did not terminate the licensing proceeding. This is because the coalition amended certain contentions, and introduced new ones, based on the recent publication, in late Jaunary 2025, by NRC staff of a draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact regarding the “zombie” reactor restart scheme.

However, on March 28, 2025 — the 46th annual commemoration of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 meltdown in Pennsylvania — both the NRC staff, as well as Holtec International, opposed all of the coalition’s new and amended environmental contentions, as well.

The coalition will continue to defend its amended and new environmental contentions at every opportunity, as well. Our deadline to do so is later this week.

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Hegseth Circulated Secret Pentagon Memo On Preparing For War With China

by Tyler Durden, Tuesday, Apr 01, 2025, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hegseth-circulated-secret-pentagon-memo-preparing-war-china

Over the weekend The Washington Post revealed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth distributed a memo in mid-March which ordered the Pentagon to prioritize its war-planning focus on potential future conflict with China.

The memo, called the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance “outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the ‘near abroad,’ including Greenland and the Panama Canal.”

It’s nothing new that the Pentagon considers China a ‘top pacing threat’ – but it does confirm that the Trump administration would likely be willing to go to war in the event of a mainland invasion of the self-ruled island.

The memo interestingly presented a strategy of “assuming risk” in Europe and other parts of the world, to refocus efforts on top nuclear-armed rivals. 

The Pentagon’s force planning and new focus “will consider conflict only with Beijing when planning contingencies for a major power war” and leave the “threat from Moscow largely attended by European allies” – according to the report.

Hegseth wrote that China “is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the US homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.”

The memo urges NATO allies take on a “far greater” burden-sharing on defense, and puts Europe on notice in the event of greater threats from Russia:

Hegseth’s guidance acknowledges that the U.S. is unlikely to provide substantial, if any, support to Europe in the case of Russian military advances, noting that Washington intends to push NATO allies to take primary defense of the region. The U.S. will support Europe with nuclear deterrence of Russia, and NATO should only count on U.S. forces not required for homeland defense or China deterrence missions, the document says.

A significant increase in Europe sharing its defense burden, the document says, “will also ensure NATO can reliably deter or defeat Russian aggression even if deterrence fails and the United States is already engaged in, or must withhold forces to deter, a primary conflict in another region.”

As for Taiwan specifically, it lays out ways the Pentagon intends to help its ally bolster defenses, short of outright entering any direct conflict.

WaPo and others have said the Heritage Foundation think tank is the driving force behind the strategic ideas presented in the memo.

Hegseth’s plans specify a “denial defense” of Taiwan – according to the memo – which will include “increasing the troop presence through submarines, bombers, unmanned ships, and specialty units from the Army and Marine Corps, as well as a greater focus on bombs that destroy reinforced and subterranean targets.” 

April 4, 2025 Posted by | China, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UPDATE ON THE BANKRUPTCY OF USNC – Ultra Safe Nuclear.

Paul Richards 2 April 2025

In March 2025, NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. acquired the major assets of the bankrupt Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC), including microreactor technology and advanced nuclear fuel, renaming the Micro Modular Reactor (MMR) Energy System as the KRONOS MMR.

Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) – Stakeholder Loss Breakdown

1] Estimated Liabilities vs. Assets

Liabilities: $50M – $100M

Assets: $10M – $50M

2] Asset Fire Sale Proceeds

Standard Nuclear, Inc. (Initial Offer – Stalking Horse Bid): $28M (for selected assets)

NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (MMR® System & IP): $8.5M

Other minor asset liquidations (estimated): $5M

3] Total Asset Sale Revenue

Estimated total recovery: ~$41.5M

4] Estimated Stakeholder Losses

Uncovered Liabilities [after asset sales]: $8.5M – $58.5M

Equity Investors [USNC shareholders]: Likely 100% loss

Creditors [unsecured debt holders]: Majority loss expected

Government Grants & Subsidies: Unrecoverable investments

5] Key Observations

USNC’s core intellectual property, including its Micro Modular Reactor (MMR®) system, was sold at a deep discount to NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. ($8.5M).

Despite an initial $28M stalking horse bid, the final liquidation resulted in a total sale value well below USNC’s peak valuation.

Significant capital losses for early investors, especially venture capital firms and institutional stakeholders.

This reflects a fire-sale scenario, where strategic assets were sold at fractions of their development costs due to financial distress.

April 4, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s State Department Would Support Literally Any Israeli Atrocity

https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/trumps-state-department-would-support?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=160332033&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

It’s clear that Trump’s State Department spokeswoman has been instructed to respond to any and all questions about Israeli atrocities in Gaza by blaming everything on Hamas, without even pretending to care whether the allegations are true.

For some background, Israel has just been caught perpetrating an atrocity so monstrous and so abundantly well-evidenced that even the mainstream western press have felt obligated to report on it. Outlets like the Guardian and the BBC are covering the story of how 15 medical workers for the Red Crescent, Civil Defense, and the UN were apparently handcuffed and executed one by one by Israeli forces in Rafah before being buried in a mass grave. According to Palestinian Civil Defense spokesman Mahmoud Basal, they were each shot more than 20 times.

(As an aside, the fact that Israeli forces have been known to bury the victims of their atrocities in order to hide the evidence is one of the many reasons why the official death toll from the Israeli onslaught in Gaza is definitely a massive undercount.)

Asked by the BBC’s Tom Bateman about these reports during a Monday press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce responded by babbling about how evil Hamas is and how they are to blame for everything bad that happens in Gaza.

Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Bateman: On Gaza, the UN’s Humanitarian Affairs Office has said that 15 paramedics, Civil Defense, and a UN worker were killed — in their words, one by one — by the IDF. They have dug bodies up, they said, in a shallow grave that have been gathered up, and also vehicles in the sand. Have you got any assessment of what might have happened? And given the potential use of American weapons, is there any assessment of whether or not this complied with international law?

Bruce: Well, I can tell you that for too long Hamas has abused civilian infrastructure, cynically using it to shield themselves. Hamas’s actions have caused humanitarians to be caught in the crossfire. The use of civilians or civilian objects to shield or impede military operations is itself a violation of international humanitarian law, and of course we expect all parties on the ground to comply with international humanitarian law.

Bateman: But there’s specifically a question on any — it’s a question about accounting and accountability given there may have been the use of U.S. weapons, so it’s a question about the State Department rather than Hamas. Is there any actions — 

Bruce: Well, every single thing that is happening in Gaza is happening because of Hamas — every single dynamic. I’ll say again — I’ve said it, I think, in every briefing — all of this could stop in a moment if Hamas returned all the hostages and the hostage bodies they are still holding and put down its weapons. There is one — one entity that could stop it for everyone in a moment, and that is Hamas. This is — all loss of life is regrettable — it’s key, obviously — whoever it is, wherever they live. And this has been the nature of what fuels Secretary Rubio and President Trump in their willingness to expend this kind of capital early on in this term to make a difference and to change the situation. So I think that’s — that is the one thing that remains clear in all of this.

At no time does Bruce attempt to deny that the atrocity happened or cast doubt on the veracity of the claims, only justifying Israel’s actions by blaming Hamas. Again, this is a story about medical workers being handcuffed and then executed by gunfire.

Tammy Bruce does this constantly; she did it in response to two separate questions at a press conference last week. When asked about Israel’s assassination of Palestinian journalists Hossam Shabat and Mohammad Mansour, Bruce responded by babbling about October 7 and saying “every single thing that’s happening is a result of Hamas and its choices to drag that region down into a level of suffering that has been excruciating and has caused innumerable deaths.” When asked about the fact that people in Gaza have been unable to access clean drinking water under the Israeli siege, Bruce said, “Hamas did not perform to make sure that the ceasefire could continue, that they did not do what they said they would do. So we know, of course, when it comes to the ground water, of course, this is — it’s a crisis. It’s exacerbated by the fact that you have a terrorist group that just doesn’t care.

She did it again at a press conference the week before when asked by journalist Said Arikat if the State Department considers Israel’s use of siege warfare on a civilian population a war crime, saying “For the horrible suffering of the Gazan people, we know where that sits: it sits with Hamas,” adding that the people of Gaza “have been suffering because of the choices that Hamas has made throughout the years.”

Arikat, by the way, has just tweeted that on Monday he was not called on to ask a question for the first time in nearly 25 years of attending State Department press briefings. He is one of the very few reporters at the State Department who regularly asks challenging questions about US foreign policy.

April 3, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Israel, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s bombing threat over Iran nuclear programme prompts backlash

Guardian, Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 31 Mar 25

Iranian officials accuse US president of breaching UN charter and say ‘violence brings violence’

Iran has reacted with outrage after Donald Trump said the country will be bombed if it does not accept US demands to constrain its nuclear programme.

The US president said on Sunday that if Iran “[doesn’t] make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”.

Trump’s latest threat – more explicit and violent than any made before – came after he sent a letter to Iran, as yet undisclosed, offering to hold talks on its nuclear programme. Iran had sent a reply to the US stating it was willing to hold indirect talks, officials confirmed.

Esmail Baghaei, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, said of Trump’s threat: “The explicit threat of bombing Iran by the head of a country is clear contradiction to the essence of international peace and security.

Such a threat is a gross violation of the United Nations charter and a violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime. Violence brings violence and peace creates peace, America can choose.”

The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a sceptic about talks with the US, said Iran was “not overly concerned” by Trump’s words. “We consider it unlikely that such harm would come from outside. However, if any malicious act does occur, it will certainly be met with a firm
and decisive response,” he said.

Brig Gen Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace force, said: “Someone in glass houses does not throw stones at anyone,” adding: “The Americans have at least 10 bases with 50,000 troops in the region, meaning they are sitting in a glass house.”

But the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, clearly had authority to keep the prospect of talks alive, saying Iran had already replied to the Trump letter through intermediaries in Oman and adding he knew the Iranian letter had now reached the US. Araghchi said direct talks were not possible while the US continued to threaten and bully Iran………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/trumps-bombing-threat-over-iran-nuclear-programme-prompts-backlash

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »