War Crimes, War Powers and American Sovereignty: The USA + Israel = The Department of Forever War
While carrying a national debt approaching $40 Trillion, the Administration is increasing spending for its newly dedicated Department of War by 67% to upwards of $1.5 TRILLION per year. Simultaneously, with more than 42 million Americans unable to feed themselves, the administration is cutting federal food program
From war crimes and genocide abroad to moral, constitutional, and debt crises at home: Why Congress must reject the NDAA’s U.S.-Israel military and intelligence merger
June 30, 2026 Dennis Kucinich, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/30/war-crimes-war-powers-and-american-sovereignty-the-usa-israel-the-department-of-forever-war/
Against the horrific high- and low-tech butchery of Palestinians and Lebanese by Israeli ethno-nationalist psychopathic killers, this week there will be an effort in Congress to formally merge or integrate the military of Israel and the United States at the most advanced levels.
Section 219 (formerly Section 224) of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, provides for an unprecedented unification. The nearly $4 billion in the NDAA for Israel’s offensive efforts pales next to Israel having direct access to determining use of $1.5 trillion in annual military resources of the United States.
Money can be appropriated one year and withdrawn the next. Institutional integration is permanent.
Section 219 creates permanent mechanisms through which military planning, intelligence sharing, weapons development, procurement, research, artificial intelligence, and strategic coordination become increasingly intertwined between the United States and Israel.
It is a proposal to embed another nation’s military establishment within the long-term planning and strategic architecture of the United States government.
Our own government – House, Senate and Administration – is in moral collapse, placing overwhelming emphasis on militarism instead of adequately funding America – housing, education, food, health, safety, and retirement security. Americans are standing at freeway exits, begging for food, while our tax dollars flow to weapons manufacturers.
While carrying a national debt approaching $40 Trillion, the Administration is increasing spending for its newly dedicated Department of War by 67% to upwards of $1.5 TRILLION per year. Simultaneously, with more than 42 million Americans unable to feed themselves, the administration is cutting federal food programs.
The practical implications extend far beyond dollars. With NDAA Section 219, Congress the legislation would create enduring institutional relationships affecting how those extraordinary military resources are developed, coordinated, and potentially employed.
No Congress has ever before considered legislation of this nature with any foreign nation.
If the Administration’s “America First” claim were to mean anything, it must first mean that America’s Constitution comes first. It must mean that American families, farmers, workers, veterans, and children come first. Section 219 turns that claim into a farce.
Section 219 of the NDAA would cause the United States to become dependent upon Israel making decisions about war, peace, military strategy, intelligence, and U. S. national security. This is the consequence of permanent institutional integration.
One week ago, a UN Commission of Inquiry determined that Israeli security forces deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children, sometimes as a game, torturing them, subjecting children to sexual violence resulting in “unprecedented death, injury and trauma.”
Since Oct. 7, 2023, the IDF has been instrumental in the deaths of as many as 800,000 Palestinians, including children, emergency health care workers, doctors, nurses, journalists, and educators.
UN investigators and human rights observers have documented the killing of Palestinian children and have accused Israeli forces of deliberately targeting the children of Gaza.
These findings are reinforced by dehumanizing statements from Israeli political figures who have portrayed Palestinian children as future terrorists, so children are targets.
Essential civilian infrastructure has been devastated. Water systems, hospitals, schools, electrical networks, and sanitation facilities have been damaged or destroyed, eacerbating a man-made, humanitarian catastrophe.
In the occupied West Bank, armed “settlers” have been widely reported to have attacked Palestinian communities, burned homes, uprooted olive groves and other crops, destroyed property, and killed livestock, further displacing civilian populations.
Israel has used starvation as a weapon, setting food as a trap and, gunning down Gazans as they rush desperately to feed themselves and their children. Water supplies have been poisoned, wells filled with cement.
Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are testing ground sfor increasingly sophisticated military technologies, destroying entire villages with increasingly powerful munitions, and using precision, artificial intelligence-assisted targeting systems. Human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the speed of targeting decisions, civilian casualty rates, and the implications of delegating life-and-death decisions to algorithmic systems.
White phosphorous and other weapons banned by international treaty are in use.
The conduct of the IDF has earned world-wide condemnation. Twenty-nine UN member states do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The Israel newspaper Haaretz recently reported that the ICC prosecutor is also seeking arrest warrants for Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich: “Gaza must be destroyed entirely.” and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Givr, who has said: “All of Lebanon must burn.” Will these be our new partners? If so, the fundamental question becomes: Who are WE?
What is to be lost further in an Israel-U.S. military merger?
If the U.S. combines our military capabilities with the twisted occupation and expansionist ethic of Israel’s use of military technology against civilian populations, will it be long before our own government militarizes the high -tech surveillance infrastructure already in place to use state violence against our own citizens who protest abuse of basic rights?
The First Amendment has already been taken down on college campuses, and in cities and states where Israel critics are sanctioned.
U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officials have trained in Israel. The lessons learned there have come to America in terms of deportation, detention, and in some cases, physical abuse, injury and death at the hands of ICE government agents.
Israel kills Arab children so they will not commit crimes in the future. Will Americans, as in the movie Minority Report be pitched into a dystopian world where predictive algorithms enable Israel-U.S. collaborators to hunt down, prosecute and even punish Americans for crimes not committed
As a Member of Congress, I questioned Benjamin Netanyahu during a hearing which took place prior to the 2003 Congressional vote on going to war against Iraq. He admitted he wanted not only Iraq to be attacked by the United States, but also Libya and Iran. It is widely known that the Israeli Prime Minister pushed President Trump into the disastrous war against Iran.
It is inevitable that as Israel’s aggression is maximally empowered, once placed inside the U.S. war-making establishment, the U.S. will be dragged into the Zionists’ expansionist designs on Iran, Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere. A greater Israel means a lesser United States. Congress, heavily influenced by the Israel lobby, is unable to reclaim its constitutionally based war power.
Since the merger is to be voted on, this week, before America celebrates the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, let us be reminded by Thomas Jefferson’s July 4, 1776 characterization of George III, King of Great Britain: “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws….”
Our forefathers did not fight for freedom and for independence at Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Trenton, Saratoga, and Yorktown, nor sacrifice American blood and treasure in battles in World War I and World War II to arrive at July 4, 2026, having willingly forfeited our sovereignty to a foreign nation, losing control of our future and putting in doubt “our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor.”
Call your congressperson today and tell them to stand for America’s independence and vote for the Massie-Khanna Amendment to remove Section 219 from the NDAA
Iran trumps US on Hormuz
| US President Donald Trump’s innate inability to empathise with others and lack of intelligence to foresee consequences are likely to hand Iran a long-term financial advantage and incidentally, but more importantly, threaten the treaty that has been the most productive of peace and prosperity in recent history – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. |
Crispin Hull,June 30, 2026, https://www.crispinhull.com.au/2026/06/30/iran-trumps-us-on-hormuz/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_source_platform=mailpoet&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column
The tit-for-tat breaches of the US-Iran 60-day ceasefire in the past few days certainly point that way. Let me explain.
Of 193 members of the UN, 44 are landlocked. The other 149 have coastlines linking each of their coastlines to the other 148 countries’ coastlines such that they can as a practical matter drive to those other nations by boat or ship with no natural barrier or no requirement to use easily blocked roads or railways.
The UN convention took eight years to negotiate in the 1970s. It was a triumph of diplomacy and law over the assertion of power and force. It resulted in one of the greatest trade-offs in history between powerful nations, on one hand, and less powerful nations, on the other.
In short, before the convention, powerful trading nations saw their economic interests in both the unfettered exploitation of the resources of the oceans and in having freedom of navigation across the oceans to help free trade, but ultimately they were willing to forgo the former in order to secure the latter.
The trade-off was enormous. Rich, powerful nations thought that freedom of navigation across the world’s oceans was so important for trade and hence prosperity that they were willing to grant poor and less powerful nations significant exclusive rights to their adjacent oceans in return for that freedom.
The question posed by the negotiators was how to achieve peace and greater prosperity. The answer was negotiation and compromise.
Each nation, even the militarily and economically weak, got the exclusive rights to all the ocean’s resources, particularly fishing and mining, up to 200 nautical miles from their shore and the total sovereign rights of territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles from their shore.
n return vessels from any nation, especially militarily strong and rich trading nations could sail anywhere on the oceans, but if they came within 12 nautical miles of another nation’s shores they had to inform that nation of their passage, and make their passage expeditious – no more lingering with menace close to other nations’ shores (gunboat diplomacy).
The arrangement facilitated trade and made the passage of warships less threatening. Good all round.
Before that, the three-nautical-mile limit was the general unwritten rule. Within that limit, nation states could do whatever they liked with their ocean and beyond that foreign vessels could do whatever they liked – from fishing to playing wargames.
Three nautical miles was of practical importance. In the nineteenth century that was the limit of a cannon shot. It meant that a ship outside that limit could not hit land and that land-based artillery could not hit a ship.
But It also meant that the nations either side of major choke points in world navigational routes – especially Gibraltar, Malacca and Hormuz – which did not have at least a little strip of international waters in the middle had to permit free passage of all vessels.
The latest US-Iran talks and spats over Hormuz, now puts this arrangement in jeopardy. At its narrowest Hormuz is less that 24 nautical miles wide. It means that the territorial waters of Iran to the north and Oman to the south overlap in the middle. It means any ship travelling through has to identify itself to either Iran or Oman and travel expeditiously, or it could be prevented from passage.
Under the ceasefire agreement Iran agreed to allow free passage, but the agreement was vaguely worded. Vessels seeking passage opted to travel as close to the Omani side as possible. Iran read that as a breach of the ceasefire and fired on those vessels. The US retaliated by hitting Iranian targets on the coastline.
It is clear that Iran wants to come to some arrangement with Oman to charge vessels fees in the future in return for passage rather than allowing Oman to let its side of the Strait be used for free safe passage. Whether those fees are characterised as fees for services or a toll, they will still be contrary to the convention. And once one nation starts, others will surely follow.
With drones and rockets we now have the reverse of the 19th century position. Instead of a nation worrying about ship-based weapons firing on its land, ships now have to worry about land-based weapons firing upon ships.
It puts Iran in the box seat. With that threat in place Iran can insist on payment of a fee before guaranteeing safe passage. Iran can just use the insurance system to enforce payment. Without insurance no ship-owner will transit, and without guarantee of safe passage no insurer will grant insurance to a vessel.
All very foreseeable. But it would require thinking in a way that strategists usually think – asking the question: what would I do if I were in the enemy’s position? How would I react if I were the enemy? But Trump is incapable of viewing anything from any perspective but his own.
Arguably, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has done more in the past 40 years to prevent hostilities and to create the certainty for shipping that generates trade and prosperity than all the force and threat of force that any single nation can muster.
But Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have always preferred force to negotiation.
From the start, they asked the wrong question and got the wrong answer. Netanyahu, facing an election this October, asked how could he stay in power after the Hamas-inspired attack on Israel in October 2023 so he does not have to face questions about how he allowed such a lapse of security? Trump asked, having torn up the well-negotiated Obama deal with Iran to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons, how can he ensure Iran does not get those weapons.
The wrong answer they got was: war. In Netanyahu’s case it was genocidal war. If only they chose negotiation and the rule of law rather than force, the world would not be facing an even stronger Iran and an indefinite economic threat to the world that its stranglehold over Hormuz now gives it.
If the world had insisted that Israel follow the 1947 UN resolution that called for the termination of the British Mandate and the partition of historic Palestine into independent, democratic Arab and Jewish states with guaranteed rights for all citizens, there would now be peace in the Middle East.
Trump has always preferred force and the threat of force over the rule of law – domestically and internationally. What he does at home is for the Americans to worry about. After all, they voted him into office. But there is little or no redress for those affected by what he does in the world – usually foolishly and impetuously.
That is why Australia should use whatever tools it has to steer international affairs towards the rule of law and negotiation and away from the use of force.
Europe and Russia Edge Toward Direct War as Nuclear Fears Grow
Ray McGovern and Peter Kuznick examine Europe’s accelerating military buildup, Putin’s warning that Russia is prepared for war, and why they fear diplomacy is giving way to a dangerous escalation between nuclear powers.
Peter Kuznick’s sobering warning: “We’re planning for our own annihilation and extinction as a species.”
ScheerPost Staff, June 29, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/29/europe-and-russia-edge-toward-direct-war-as-nuclear-fears-grow/
As Europe dramatically expands military spending and NATO leaders openly prepare for what they describe as a possible future conflict with Russia, questions are growing over whether the world is drifting toward a direct confrontation between nuclear powers.
On this week’s edition of The World This Week, Consortium News Editor Joe Lauria is joined by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and historian Peter Kuznick to examine the increasingly dangerous escalation surrounding the war in Ukraine. The discussion explores Vladimir Putin’s warning that Russia is prepared for war, Europe’s accelerating militarization, the role of NATO-backed drone attacks deep inside Russian territory, and the growing risk that a single miscalculation could trigger a wider conflict.
While McGovern argues that Moscow continues to exercise restraint despite mounting provocations, Kuznick warns that political pressure, expanding military commitments, and increasingly confrontational rhetoric on all sides are creating conditions in which diplomacy is being replaced by dangerous brinkmanship. Together they examine whether Europe’s leaders are pursuing a coherent long-term strategy—or whether escalating military spending, shrinking diplomacy, and domestic political pressures are moving the world toward an outcome that no one can control.
The conversation also explores the fragile U.S.–Iran ceasefire, shifting global power dynamics, and whether recent political developments in New York signal broader changes inside the Democratic Party. Throughout the discussion, the panel returns to a central warning: in an era of nuclear weapons, great-power confrontation carries risks unlike any previous conflict, making diplomacy more urgent than ever.
Much of this discussion is vital and deserves to be widely shared, but perhaps its most important takeaway—and one that should remain our constant watchword—is Peter Kuznick’s sobering warning: “We’re planning for our own annihilation and extinction as a species.”
The greatest danger isn’t simply the war itself—it’s the gradual normalization of confrontation between nuclear powers.
McGovern argues that despite increasingly provocative developments, Putin has consistently sought to avoid a direct military clash with NATO. Drawing on decades of following Soviet and Russian leadership, he contends that Moscow understands that striking targets inside NATO countries could trigger an uncontrollable escalation with nuclear powers. Instead, he believes Russia is attempting to achieve its objectives inside Ukraine while avoiding actions that would give Western governments justification for expanding the conflict.
Kuznick agrees that Putin has generally exercised restraint but warns that restraint alone may not guarantee stability. He notes that Russian infrastructure continues to come under attack, political pressure inside Russia is growing, and influential voices within the country have begun calling for stronger retaliation against European facilities supporting Ukraine’s military operations. While he does not believe Russia seeks a wider war, he cautions that prolonged escalation increases the chances of miscalculation by all sides.
One of the central themes running throughout the discussion is the collapse of diplomacy. Both guests argue that negotiations have steadily been displaced by military planning, larger defense budgets and increasingly confrontational political rhetoric. Rather than emphasizing diplomatic solutions, many European leaders now frame the conflict as a long-term military struggle requiring sustained increases in defense spending.
The discussion also examines the broader political consequences of Europe’s military buildup. Kuznick argues that dramatically expanding military expenditures inevitably comes at the expense of domestic priorities, including housing, education, healthcare and other social programs. Echoing President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous warning about the military-industrial complex, he suggests that the diversion of public resources toward military production represents a significant political and economic transformation occurring across Europe.
Beyond Ukraine, the panel turns to the fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran. Although open hostilities have subsided, both McGovern and Kuznick describe the agreement as unstable, pointing to continued military exchanges and unresolved disputes that could quickly reignite a broader regional conflict. The discussion places these tensions within a larger international context in which several major geopolitical flashpoints—from Eastern Europe to the Middle East—remain active simultaneously.
Throughout the conversation, Kuznick and McGovern both invoke the lessons of the Cold War. McGovern references President John F. Kennedy’s warning “To force a choice on another nuclear power between humiliation and using nuclear weapons is a colossal failure of statesmanship.”
Kuznick likewise argues that many of today’s political leaders appear increasingly willing to normalize discussions of military confrontation between nuclear-armed states in ways that would have been considered reckless only a generation ago.
The panel also examines the political dynamics inside Europe itself. Rather than portraying European governments as unified, McGovern argues that many leaders pushing for expanded militarization face declining public support while confronting growing economic pressures at home. Kuznick similarly notes that opinion polls across several countries suggest many citizens remain skeptical of continued military escalation even as governments expand defense commitments.
Despite differences over Russia’s battlefield prospects and the likely trajectory of the war, both analysts ultimately agree on one fundamental point: diplomacy has become dangerously marginalized. They warn that history demonstrates how wars often expand not because governments deliberately seek global conflict, but because repeated cycles of retaliation, political pressure and strategic miscalculation gradually narrow the space for peaceful solutions.
The discussion concludes with a sobering assessment of the international moment. As Europe rearms, NATO prepares for additional military commitments, Russia continues its campaign in Ukraine and tensions remain high across the Middle East, McGovern and Kuznick argue that preventing direct confrontation between nuclear powers should remain the overriding priority. Whether today’s leaders are willing—or able—to reverse the current trajectory through diplomacy remains one of the defining questions of the international order.
The conversation offers a detailed examination of competing interpretations of the conflict, the strategic calculations shaping decisions in Moscow and Western capitals, and the broader implications of a world increasingly organized around military competition rather than negotiation. It is a reminder that while battlefield developments dominate headlines, the greatest danger may lie in the gradual normalization of permanent confrontation between nuclear-armed states.
We’re up against forces that have all the money in the world’: Erin Brockovich on her battle against AI datacentres
What is certain, though, is that the land cannot withstand these centres’ immense demand for water. According to analysis by the Guardian, two-thirds of planned datacentres in the US are in drought-stricken areas. The larger centres need up to 5m gallons of water a day for cooling, equivalent to the average usage of 50,000 people. It is unclear what the plan is and whose needs will take priority between AI, agriculture and everyone else.
In 1993, she squeezed a $333m settlement from a Californian energy company in a scandal over contaminated water. Three decades later, she has a new target in her sights – and it’s global
Guardian, Mon 29 Jun 2026
When Erin Brockovich woke to find 30 emails from people from the same town, she realised something was going on. People email Brockovich all the time because of what happened in 1993, when she was instrumental in suing Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) on behalf of residents of the town of Hinkley, California, whose groundwater had been contaminated. The case resulted in a settlement of $333m – then the largest ever payout for a direct-action lawsuit. When she was immortalised by Julia Roberts in the 2000 film Erin Brockovich, she became the hero we didn’t know we needed, a modern day Joan of Arc. She had won against PG&E with no formal legal training.
The emails she received a few weeks ago were about datacentres. In April, she put a callout on her website asking for anyone with concerns about one near them to get in touch. Within a month, 3,862 people had replied. Tech companies have needed datacentres to power their technology “for ever”, she says, but the new ones being built to power AI? “This feels like Hinkley on steroids.”
This isn’t a story about AI, she says. “That genie is out of the bottle: it’s here, it’s an effective tool, you can use it or not,” Brockovich says matter-of-factly. This is about the massive structures being built to house the vast computing facilities AI requires. These datacentres, she says, stretch over “hundreds and hundreds of acres”. In May, Utah gave approval to a centre twice the size of Manhattan.
Some of the emails Brockovich gets from people near datacentres express genuine bafflement: “Why did I not know about this? How did this construction just start? Why am I now getting a notice from the city council that this has already passed when I didn’t even have a voice in it?” Others reflect concerns about the impact of the centres: “What about our resources? What’s happening to the water? Who’s paying for all this energy and am I going to foot that bill? What will the future impact on health be from these monstrosities? What’s going to happen to the wildlife?”
From the emails, Brockovich built a map of significant AI datacentres in the US that are either operational or under construction, overlaid with locations where community members have emailed in concerns. This open-source document is chilling: as of 24 June, 33 AI datacenters have been completed and are operational, 68 are under construction and 41 are proposed. And there had been 7,005 reports submitted through the online form, which is to say, all that is known about them is what people have seen. As a post on her Substack blog is headlined: “If data centers are so great, why are they being built in secret?”
“It’s happening in every US state, multiple counties, rural areas, ranches, farms and neighbourhoods. People watch nature because they respect it, they need it. And they’re watching it being destroyed,” says Brockovich. She has heard from people saying: “I’m concerned this is where the bald eagles nest,” “I’m watching wildlife disappear,” “I’m seeing dead animals.” Some communities learn about a centre months after it has been approved; others don’t hear anything about them and watch as a vast building emerges.
What is certain, though, is that the land cannot withstand these centres’ immense demand for water. According to analysis by the Guardian, two-thirds of planned datacentres in the US are in drought-stricken areas. The larger centres need up to 5m gallons of water a day for cooling, equivalent to the average usage of 50,000 people. It is unclear what the plan is and whose needs will take priority between AI, agriculture and everyone else.
“People are reporting bill spikes,” Brockovich says, reading an email from someone who says their monthly water bill went from $22 (£17) to more than $350 (£265). The threat of these centres is about more than money – it feels existential. “How will the water use disrupt the balance of nature? People are asking: “What will happen to us?”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..After Hinkley, she worked on other environmental pollution cases against PG&E related to hexavalent chromium, the chemical that contaminated Hinkley’s water. More recently, she has focused on Pfas (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), “forever chemicals” that are a component in firefighting foam used heavily on US military bases. Pfas have been linked to health problems, including fertility issues and some cancers. In 2017, communities living near military bases reported worrying levels of these chemicals in their drinking water.
Brockovich’s renown is plainly the reason people email her when they have concerns. This is what led her to north-west Georgia last year, where staggeringly high levels of Pfas were found in the water and the wider environment. It was believed that they came from carpet factories that used stain-resistant chemicals. The major carpet factories say they complied with all regulations and no longer use Pfas. She is still supporting people there with their campaigns.
Unlike toxic chemicals leaking into water, nothing about datacentres is discreet. Signs that might be subtle one day – an absence of birdsong – the next day will be a centre up and running at full volume. “It really becomes about the noise, the decibels,” Brockovich says. People will write to her and say: “We’re going insane 24/7,” “It’s got to stop,” “It’s humming, it’s hissing, it’s buzzing.” She says: “It’s generators. It’s increased electric bills. It’s power surges.”
These structures are appearing without the consultation you would need to erect a new sports hall, as if people won’t notice. But people certainly will notice, because the buildings are vast. It feels like a step into post-democracy, which is a tech bro fantasy, a world in which laws and regulations have been obviated. The big tech companies seem to have blueprinted their fantasy and started building it.
Alternatives are now being mooted. “People are talking about putting them at the bottom of the ocean,” says Brockovich. “They’re talking about having barges and putting the datacentres there, using waves as the energy in cooler climates. Elon Musk wants to put them in space.” But with innumerable Earth-based datacentres already built or in the works, this feels like puff – the future you could have had, had you not sleepwalked into the one that has arrived.
For Brockovich, this is all a distraction. The first thing she wants is a case-by-case moratorium on approving datacentres. ( (She is collating these cases through her open-source mapping site and says councils vary in the action they are prepared to take, according to how surprised by, or receptive to, local complaints their officials are. Many states are only now stopping to consider whether there should be state-level regulation and oversight of datacentres – and, if so, what implications that would have for local decision-making and autonomy.
This takes time. Seventy-nine municipalities in the US have so far have issued moratoriums, many immediately being hit with lawsuits for breaking their original deal. Pauses have been introduced in Georgia, Maryland, Michigan and South Carolina – one introduced in Maine was then vetoed – but these are early interventions against tech behemoths.
When I ask Brockovich about the political climate – a president committed to AI and blatantly dismissive of environmental concerns – she is careful to stress that opposition to datacentres is bipartisan. She knows from her work fighting Pfas, though, that a change in administration can make an enormous difference to the success of these campaigns. In the final days of Joe Biden’s presidency, a clean-up operation was announced by the Pentagon. However, this plan has quietly been delayed by Donald Trump’s Department of Defense: in some areas, it won’t start until 2039.
Yet the nature of Brockovich’s campaigning is not to go straight to the top and demand policy change, but rather to build lawsuits from the ground up. Victory, to her, is won by way of a pragmatic to-do list. To start, she would go to local government and say: “I’d like to see an environmental-impact report. I’d like to see how you propose to power all this. Are you going to build your own power? Are you relying on our already strained resources?” She says: “Let’s get that information first and then have a town hall meeting where the people can be a voice in it.” She has a degree of confidence that the law still has teeth. “Lawsuits aren’t settling for $333m any more; they’re settling for billions,” she says.
Brockovich’s datacentre work goes beyond the US; she has been contacted by people in Australia, India, Scotland and Ireland. There is already a moratorium on any more datacentres in Dublin; even by 2023, such centres were accounting for a fifth of Ireland’s electricity usage. “This is a planetary thing,” she says. “It’s overwhelming. We have to have some courage to show up, and it’s difficult to do that when you’re up against forces that have all the money and all the intelligence and all the bandwidth in the world.” She, meanwhile, is “getting too old for this, by the way. I’m in my legacy phase. I have six grandchildren.”
She is smiling. All that may be true, but even if this is her final campaign, she won’t walk away until it’s over. She can beat this – she just can’t beat it on her own. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/29/were-up-against-forces-that-have-all-the-money-in-the-world-erin-brockovich-on-her-battle-against-ai-datacentres
Senior U.S. Diplomats, Journalists, Academics and Secretaries of Defense Say: the U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine
it should come as no surprise that our government is lying now about the war in Ukraine.
it should come as no surprise that our government is lying now about the war in Ukraine.
The Ukraine Papers, by Donald A. Smith, PhD, 27 June 26
It took some years for Americans to realize they’d been lied to about the war in Vietnam. Thanks to the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and thanks to the antiwar movement, Americans eventually learned about the injustices and failures of that war.
Likewise, it took several years after the starts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for Americans to realize they’d been lied to about those wars as well.
Americans are just now starting to realize that they’ve been lied to about the war in Ukraine. (The propaganda effort has been quite effective, with the New York Times, in particular, acting as a mouthpiece for the government’s position.) More and more mainstream publications are exposing the lies, and a majority of Americans now oppose further arming of Ukraine.
This essay is a summary of what the U.S. government has been hiding about the war in Ukraine, with links to sources for further information.
According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, U.S. military actions since 9/11 directly killed over 900,000 people, with an additional 3.5 million people dying from indirect effects. The wars cost Americans at least $8 trillion and displaced over 38 million people from their homes. The U.S. spends over a trillion dollars a year on its military, if you count all expenditures.
If we go back to the 1960s, the number killed by U.S. wars includes the several million killed in the Vietnam war, the approximately 1 million killed by U.S. support for Indonesian military’s attacks on left wing groups, and the hundreds of thousands, at least, killed in proxy wars and government overthrows in Latin America.
The wars, overthrows, and associated sanctions caused mass migrations worldwide — particularly in Europe and at the southern U.S. border — and destabilized politics. The Lancet medical journal reported that between 1971 and 2021, US and EU sanctions killed over half a million people annually. Yet almost nobody (except for whistleblowers) was held accountable for these disasters; indeed, many of the same people are in Congress or work for the government or the weapons industry.
Moreover, the U.S. government lied about almost all the wars — in particular, about the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but also about the war in Yugoslavia, as documented in Harper’s Magazine, here (Chapter 3), and here. In short, the Kosovo Liberation Army that the U.S. supported was, basically, a terrorist organization funded by the CIA, and U.S. propaganda greatly overstated the nobility of the U.S. intervention. Likewise, The U.S. backed ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia.
The United States withdrew from the following arms treaties: Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction (START II)Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran deal, Open Skies Treaty, and Conventional Armed Forces Treaty (Russia withdrew after alleged NATO non-compliance)
So, it should come as no surprise that our government is lying now about the war in Ukraine. Specifically, claims by President Biden and others that the Russian invasion was “unprovoked” are greatly exaggerated.
Read what these diplomats, secretaries of Defense, journalists, academics, politicians, and others have to say:
Here the author gives quotations from 30 highly regarded people – certainly not pro Russian propagandists ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ambassador Jack Matlock (referenced above) said in a 2024 interview: “Why don’t we understand that trying to remove Ukraine from Russian influence and put military bases there would be, in their case, absolutely unacceptable and worthy of defense?” Matlock said the U.S. backed the 2014 coup, and “Obviously, to any Russian leader, not just Vladimir Putin, that would have been an absolutely impossible, hostile act, which they had to react to. And in particular, they were not going to lose their naval base in Crimea.” Finally, Matlock said the Ukrainians are “dominated in their thinking by neo-Nazis — we tend to ignore that, or when Putin points it out, we say he’s lying. He’s not lying.” And Matlock wrote: “I have been appalled that a succession of American presidents and European leaders discarded the diplomacy that ended the Cold War, abandoned the agreements that curbed the nuclear arms race, and provoked a new cold war which has now become hot.”
See this for dozens of mainstream news articles about the presence Nazis in Ukraine and U.S. support for them.
Evidence of U.S. involvement in the coup is overwhelming. The Cato Institute (not a radical Marxist outfit!) wrote America’ Ukraine Hypocrisy which includes:
The extent of the Obama administration’ meddling in Ukraine’ politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a [U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria] Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post-Yanukovych government… Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government… It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising.
The 2019 RAND Corporation study Overextending and Unbalancing Russia examines “cost-imposing options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress — overextend and unbalance — Russia’s economy and armed forces and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad.” It includes the paragraph:
“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in US military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.”
The highlighted words indicate that the authors were quite aware that US provocations would cause Russia to respond militarily.
The New Yorker’s Is the F.B.I. Truly Biased Against Trump? contains a telling paragraph on the U.S. government’s efforts to suppress information about exactly what happened in Ukraine:
According to [FBI agent] Buma’s statement, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, he was told to terminate relations with one of his most valuable sources in that field, Dynamo. The order came from both his supervisors and the F.B.I.’s Foreign Influence Task Force, and, per Buma, superiors told him that the shutdown of Dynamo was based on “highly classified information from the National Security Agency” which he could not access. They also said that it was part of a broader effort, around the time of the invasion, to close off many “sources related to Russia/Ukraine matters.”
After the collapse of the USSR, Russia wanted desperately to be integrated into the West and, up to the end of 2021, pleaded with D.C. to come to an equitable peace in Ukraine, but the U.S. wanted to weaken Russia, and NATO needed an enemy to justify its existence. The expansion of NATO — which violated multiple verbal promises given to Soviet leaders — provoked the war that is now touted as showing the need for NATO.
According to the LA Times’s Russia feels threatened by NATO. There’s history behind that, “some of Russia’s security concerns are real. Offering to discuss them doesn’t qualify as appeasement; Thirty years ago, Russia had a buffer zone of satellite states to its west. Now it has only the unimpressive presence of Belarus.”
From 2018, in Medium’s American Lethal Weapons Could Already Be on the Ukrainian Front Line: “Two weeks ago, the Trump administration announced it will allow the sale of some lethal weapons to Ukraine, including the Javelin anti-tank missile….Butusov identified the [Nazi] Azov Battalion as a recipient of the PSRL-1 [grenade launcher] systems.”
Right before the Russian invasion, in January of 2022, Yahoo News reported: CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades. After the invasion, in March of 2022, Yahoo News reported: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion..
In November of 2023, the Washington Post exposed that “Since 2015, the CIA has spent tens of millions of dollars to transform Ukraine’s Soviet-formed services into potent allies against Moscow, officials said…. The extent of the CIA’s involvement with Ukraine’s security services has not previously been disclosed.” Foreign Policy’s essay of July 11, 2025 mentions the “CIA’s decade of covert support for Ukraine.” ABC News also has an article about CIA involevment in Ukraine since 2015.
Likewise, a New York Times article The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin, dated February 25, 2024, revealed that the CIA had been coordinating with Ukrainian intelligence since at least 2014 and that the Ukrainians had been launching assasinations and other kinetic actions in Crimea and Russia. As Mark Episkopos writes in Responsible Statecraft, CIA in Ukraine: Why is this not seen as provocation?: “An explosive new NYT report shows how Washington needlessly fed into Russia’s worst fears and precipitated the invasion, justified or not.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
These facts and opinions do not justify Russia’s brutal invasion, but they certainly give the lie to statements by President Biden and others that the invasion was “unprovoked.” Even the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 was provoked: it occurred after, and partially in response to, the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Ukraine.
And the facts expose stunning hyprocrisy. The U.S. launched numerous unjustified wars, proxy wars, bombings and coups far from U.S. borders; surrounded Russia and China with pro-US allies and military bases (about 800 worldwide); exited multiple arms treaties; and increased military spending to about $1 trillion a year despite $34 trillion in debt and dire domestic needs. Yet we accuse Russia and China of being the aggressors.
Both sides can be at fault in a conflict. The U.S. too has blood on its hands.
Finally, the facts are strong reasons why the U.S. should not be arming Ukraine to the teeth, pushing it to fight to the last Ukrainian and risking a nuclear war. Instead, it should push for a negotiated end to the war. https://theukrainepapers.org/senior-US-diplomats-academics-journalists-and-secretaries-of-defense-say-the-US-provoked-Russia-in-Ukraine.html
In Historic First, Congress Passes Concurrent War Powers Resolution To End Iran War
The bill passed the Senate in a vote of 50-48 after it was advanced by the House
by Dave DeCamp | June 23, 2026, https://news.antiwar.com/2026/06/23/in-historic-first-congress-passes-concurrent-war-powers-resolution-to-end-iran-war/
The Senate on Tuesday approved a House-passed concurrent War Powers Resolution directing President Trump to end hostilities against Iran, marking the first time Congress has approved a concurrent resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act directing the termination of an unauthorized war.
In previous years, Congress has passed joint resolutions directing the president to end wars, such as the 2019 bill to end US support for the Saudi war in Yemen, which President Trump vetoed at the time, but a concurrent resolution doesn’t require the president’s signature.
Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Act states that “at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”
The bill passed the Senate on Tuesday by a 50-48 vote, with four Republicans — Senators Rand Paul (KY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), and Bill Cassidy (LA) — voting in favor. Senator Jon Fetterman (PA) was the only Democrat to oppose the effort, and Republican Senators Mitch McConnell (KY) and Dave McCormick (PA) were not present for the vote.
Trump administration officials will likely claim that the vote is meaningless since there is currently a ceasefire between the US and Iran as they negotiate a deal under the Memorandum of Understanding, but proponents of the War Powers effort say the passage of the concurrent resolution means the administration is now legally bound not to restart the war without congressional authorization.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who sponsored the legislation in the House, told The Lever earlier this month that if the resolution passed the Senate, he would work with “House counsel to urge leadership to bring a court case to enforce the Iran War Powers Resolution.”
While the US and Iran have been engaged in negotiations, President Trump has continued issuing threats against Iran and has maintained forces in the region to potentially re-impose the blockade or restart the bombing campaign.
The NDAA Proposed Merger of the U.S. and Israeli Military is Strategically Unwise and Inherently Unconstitutional
Section 219 creates a framework for permanent military integration that weakens American sovereignty, blurs constitutional accountability, and places the nation’s independent decision making at risk.
Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Kucinich, June 26, 2026
This article is Part 2 in a three part series on the proposed merger of U.S and Israeli intelligence, military and biotechnology. Read Part 1 here
Prior to the American Revolution being fought on battlefields, it was fought as an argument about sovereignty.
Who decides the fate of a nation? Who commands its armies? Who determines when its citizens go to war and when they remain at peace?
The Founders answered those questions with remarkable clarity. In a republic, sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised through constitutional institutions accountable to them. Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2027 threatens to undermine the foundational principles of our republic and our constitutional democracy.
Advocates for Section 219 describe it as a strategic partnership, a modernization of military cooperation between the United States and Israel. Yet the language of the provision reaches far beyond cooperation. It calls for the integration of military planning, intelligence sharing, technological development, procurement systems, research capabilities, and strategic operations in ways that blur the distinction between two sovereign nations.
This is not merely a policy question, it is a constitutional one.
America has alliances with many nations. We cooperate with allies. We conduct joint exercises. We share intelligence. However, there is a profound difference between cooperation and integration.
Cooperation preserves independent decision making.
Integration creates pressure toward shared decision making and shared consequences.
The Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent precisely this type of entanglement.
The President serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. Congress possesses the authority to declare war. Together these provisions were meant to ensure that decisions involving American lives, American treasure, and American military power remain accountable to the American people.
Section 219 moves the nation in the opposite direction. It creates permanent structures through which military, intelligence, technological, and strategic functions become increasingly intertwined with those of another government. Even if no formal transfer of command occurs, the practical effect is to make American decision making dependent upon relationships and commitments that exist far beyond the reach of American voters.
There are at least nine reasons why Congress should reject Section 219 of the NDAA:.
- IT VIOLATES THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF CLAUSE
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution designates the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Congress cannot constitutionally dilute, share, or transfer command responsibilities through ordinary legislation. The armed forces of the United States must remain exclusively accountable to constitutional authority established by the American people.
- IT BYPASSES THE TREATY PROCESS
The Constitution provides a mechanism for creating major international commitments: treaties ratified by two thirds of the Senate.
If Congress believes permanent military integration with any foreign nation is necessary, it should present that proposal openly and subject it to the scrutiny required by the Constitution.
Congress cannot use a spending bill to accomplish what the Constitution requires to be debated and approved through the treaty process.
- IT CREATES PROBLEMS OF AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Foreign officials do not swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Yet military integration creates circumstances in which foreign officers, planners, intelligence officials, and strategic personnel may influence decisions affecting American troops, intelligence assets, military technologies, operational planning and decisions to use military force.
The Framers established safeguards to ensure that authority over American military power remained accountable to American institutions and American voters.
Section 219 weakens those safeguards.
- IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Congress cannot delegate core sovereign responsibilities to another government.
The defense of the nation, decisions involving military force, intelligence operations, and national security policy are among the most important powers entrusted to the federal government.
A nation that cannot independently determine matters of war and peace cannot truly be considered sovereign.
- IT INCREASES THE RISK OF FUTURE WARS
The Founders understood the danger.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned against permanent foreign attachments that could pull the United States into conflicts not of its own choosing. His concern was not isolationism. It was independence.
Our first president understood that foreign entanglements have a way of creating obligations that gradually supersede national interests.
That warning has particular relevance today.
The recent escalation with Iran demonstrates how rapidly regional conflicts can draw the United States toward broader military commitments. Every new layer of institutional integration increases the likelihood that future conflicts involving Israel become, in practical terms, American conflicts as well.
- IT RISKS SUBORDINATING AMERICAN INTERESTS TO FOREIGN PRIORITIES
The issue is not whether one supports Israel.
The issue is whether any foreign nation should be granted a permanent place within executive, military, intelligence, technological, and strategic structures that are constitutionally intended to serve the United States alone.
The first responsibility of the United States government is to protect the security and wellbeing of the American people. Foreign policy should be guided by American interests, American laws, and American constitutional principles.
- IT THREATENS DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY
When sovereignty is diluted, accountability disappears.
Citizens can no longer identify who is responsible for decisions. Power becomes dispersed through networks, agreements, and institutions beyond public control.
Democracy weakens because the connection between the voter and the decision maker is broken.
The Constitution deliberately places decisions involving war and national defense within institutions accountable to the American people. Section 219 weakens that connection.
- IT IMPOSES ENORMOUS FINANCIAL COSTS
The United States has spent decades engaged in costly military interventions throughout the Middle East.
Trillions of dollars have been spent. Thousands of American lives have been lost. Countless civilians have perished. Yet the pressure for deeper involvement continues.
This is especially troubling at a moment when the national debt exceeds forty trillion dollars. Every additional military commitment carries a financial cost. Every escalation requires resources that must ultimately be borrowed, taxed, or diverted from domestic priorities.
Americans struggling with inflation, housing costs, healthcare expenses, and declining infrastructure deserve a government focused first on their security and prosperity.
- IT BETRAYS THE SPIRIT OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
The timing could not be more ironic.
As America marks the 250th anniversary of its independence, Congress is considering legislation that undermines our independence.
The Revolution was fought to secure self government. The Constitution was written to preserve it.
Sovereignty is not an outdated concept. It is the foundation of democratic accountability.
The question before us is larger than Israel. Larger than any single administration. Larger than any current conflict.
It is whether the United States will remain a nation whose military power is directed exclusively by constitutional institutions accountable to the American people, or whether we will gradually surrender that independence through permanent foreign integration that the Constitution neither contemplated nor authorizes.
A nation that cannot control its own military decisions cannot claim to be sovereign – and that is a core reason why Section 219 should be rejected.
TAKE ACTION………………………………. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/26/the-ndaa-proposed-merger-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-military-is-strategically-unwise-and-inherently-unconstitutional/
US federal loan to jumpstart AP1000 reactor supply chain, with initial $17.5 billion
Last year, the US government – through the Department of Commerce – announced a strategic partnership with Westinghouse’s owners, Cameco Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management, centred on the construction of at least USD80 billion of new reactors across the USA using Westinghouse nuclear reactor technology.
.WNN, 24 June 2026
The US Department of Energy has conditionally committed to USD17.5 billion in loans to finance the purchase of long-lead items for up to 10 Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.
The loans, through the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Dominance Financing, advance last year’s Executive Order on Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base by supporting the objective of having 10 new large nuclear reactors with complete designs under construction by 2030, the department said.
Long-lead items are typically thought of as heavy forgings and castings for pressure vessels, steam turbines and generators. With a limited number of heavy engineering plants able to make to make such components, these – and other engineered components in the reactor supply chain, as well as items such as control software – often need to be ordered many years in advance of installation work.
Advance purchase of long-lead items is expected to accelerate project deployment timelines by up to three years and create significant supply chain efficiencies, Westinghouse said.
The DOE financing will support up to five loans, each supporting two reactors at a project site. Westinghouse will partner with up to five eligible utilities and energy companies nationwide to procure the long-lead items at a fixed price. Each project will be jointly owned by Westinghouse and a utility or energy company partner, with both required to fully commit USD500 million of project equity – USD1 billion total per project – upfront prior to accessing DOE loan funds. Purchasing for each project will be staggered based on the timing of equity commitments and other relevant factors, DOE said.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said: “These conditional loans will play an important role in reviving the supply chain needed for America to once again build large-scale commercial reactors. They will also help accelerate the timeline of building those large-scale reactors by up to three years, lowering construction costs and ensuring the United States is able to deliver on President Trump’s bold and ambitious energy addition agenda.”
Last year, the US government – through the Department of Commerce – announced a strategic partnership with Westinghouse’s owners, Cameco Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management, centred on the construction of at least USD80 billion of new reactors across the USA using Westinghouse nuclear reactor technology………………….. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/us-federal-loan-to-jumpstart-ap1000-reactor-supply-chain
Why X-Energy Stock Collapsed 19.2% This Week
COMMENT. Another dud Small Modular Nuclear Reactor fantasy?
Delays and downgrades are hurting X-Energy’s stock price this week.
By Brett Schafer – Jun 26, 2026 , https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/06/26/why-x-energy-stock-collapsed-192-this-week/
Key Points
- X-Energy does not have a reactor design approved today.
- Its construction projects keep getting delayed, causing an analyst downgrade.
- The company does not generate much in revenue today.
Shares of X-Energy (XE+2.17%) fell 19% this week, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. The nuclear energy start-up saw a delay in its construction timeline and an analyst downgrade, which has dragged down the stock since its April IPO.
Delayed projects
X-Energy is designing advanced nuclear reactors, partnering with Amazon for future reactor builds. Amazon is also a shareholder in X-Energy, providing upfront capital to build projects to power Amazon data centers.
The roadblock to development stems from the United States government’s lack of official approval for any X-Energy reactor, which has delayed the breaking ground of X-Energy’s first project with Amazon until 2027. On top of this, Jeffries downgraded the stock this week, from $30 to $22, sending shares sharply lower.
Should you buy the dip?
Modern nuclear reactors can be a valuable source of electricity for powering the AI revolution. However, today, X-Energy does not have much of an actual business and will need to spend massive amounts of money upfront in order to get its reactor designs approved and its manufacturing facilities built.
Even after this drawdown, X-Energy stock trades at a market cap of $7.7 billion with barely any revenue. That should keep all investors away from the stock today.
Washington ‘ends’ Israeli freedom of action inside Lebanon: Report
Iran has reportedly threatened to end negotiations with the US if Israel continues to refuse withdrawal from Lebanon
News Desk, JUN 23, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/washington-ends-israeli-freedom-of-action-inside-lebanon-report
The US government has informed Israel that it no longer has authorization for “unrestricted” military action in Lebanon, despite continued Israeli attacks and occupation in the country, Channel 12 reported on 23 June.
Washington has allegedly informed Tel Aviv that “the previous authorization for unrestricted action in Lebanon had expired.” US President Donald Trump is “imposing restrictions on Israel, not only in Lebanon but also in other arenas.”
“These directives prohibit operations in areas such as the capital, Beirut, and the Tyre district in southern Lebanon,” the report went on to say.
Meanwhile, Israel has refused to withdraw from south Lebanon and has not fully ended attacks.
Two civilians were killed by Israeli artillery shelling on south Lebanon’s Nabatieh al-Fawqa on Tuesday as they were working to remove rubble caused by Tel Aviv’s strikes on the area. One of them was a municipal worker.
“The Islamic Resistance warns that this act constitutes a blatant violation of the ceasefire, which the Resistance has adhered to until now,” Hezbollah said in a statement.
In a separate incident on 23 June, the Israeli army said it “identified a cell of armed terrorists” near its forces in the Ali al-Taher area, adding that it “struck the terrorists in order to remove the threat.”
Despite the reports in Hebrew media, Israeli officials on Tuesday insisted that occupation troops will not withdraw from Lebanon.
“The [army] will continue to act decisively to thwart threats to our soldiers and civilians, destroy terror infrastructure, and continue maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon,” top officials said in a joint statement.
The statement came hours ahead of a new round of US-hosted direct talks between Beirut and Tel Aviv, which are being conducted in violation of Lebanese law and are rejected by Hezbollah.
Hebrew reports have also claimed Tel Aviv is “scrambling” to sever Lebanon from Iran by reaching a separate agreement with the Lebanese government.
Israeli officials and media personalities slammed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the US and Iran, specifically the clause that calls for ending Israeli attacks and withdrawing from Lebanon.
Over the weekend, Israel launched a brutal escalation in Lebanon, killing at least 100 people.
Major clashes between Israeli troops and Hezbollah resistance fighters also raged throughout the weekend before a cessation of hostilities was imposed on Tel Aviv by Tehran’s pressure on Washington.
According to a recent report by Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, talks between Tehran and Washington will be “halted” if Israel continues to refuse withdrawal from Lebanon.
Pentagon raised threat of Israeli spying on U.S. to highest level, sources say.
Peter Thiel through Palantir is doing the same thing to US citizens that the IDF has been doing to Palestinians for over 50 years. That is, being gifted massive US government defense contracts to surveil, oppress and kill innocent civilians.
The counterintelligence threat level was raised by the Defense Intelligence Agency in recent weeks after growing concerns that Israeli espionage had become more aggressive than usual, sources say.
In the case of Israel, under the guise of combating “terrorism,” the IDF is allowed to test with impunity all their latest, most sophisticated weapons technologies on Palestinian civilian bodies, for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of those US Zionist interests that control our foreign policy and provide a majority of the funding and weapons – no matter the war crimes or death toll.
In the case of Palantir, under the guise of “domestic terrorism,” it is contracting to provide high tech surveillance technology for ICE’s use on unwitting American citizens, so Palantir (who it is believed acquired all our personal records from Elon Musk’s DOGE theft at the White House), may continue to perfect and expand his hegemony into a gigantic global monopoly on behalf of Israel.
NBC News, By Gordon Lubold, Courtney Kube and Dan De Luce, 6 June 26
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is increasingly concerned about Israel ramping up its spying on the U.S., recently raising the counterintelligence threat level from America’s top ally in the Middle East to the highest level, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official.
The DIA assessment includes a seven-page document and features a chart, according to one of the current U.S. officials. The document says the assessment of Israel is that its ability to conduct human espionage and technical collection is at a “critical level,” according to the official.
It also identifies a series of specific incidents that heightened U.S. concerns, the official said………………………………
While it is commonplace for allies and adversaries across the globe to spy on each other, the current and former U.S. officials said Israel’s recent efforts have gone well beyond what is typical and expected espionage. The officials did not know if a specific incident triggered the DIA’s decision to raise the counterintelligence threat level.
The heightened alert comes as President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have clashed over the war with Iran and Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, including in a tense phone call this past week, NBC News reported. Trump acknowledged afterward to reporters that he called Netanyahu “crazy” during the call as questions mount about whether the two countries’ objectives in the Middle East are beginning to significantly diverge.
Since a ceasefire deal was reached in early April, Trump has been pursuing a diplomatic deal with Iran to end the war Israel and the U.S. launched on Feb. 28. Israel has publicly expressed skepticism that Iran would abide by any negotiated deal. Netanyahu has pushed for a resumption of bombing raids against Iran and disagreed with Trump, who has pressed him to scale back attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon, according to Western officials.
Israel is keenly interested in whether Trump decides to resume major combat operations against Iran or to end the conflict, the current and former U.S. officials and outside experts said. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-raised-threat-israeli-spying-us-highest-level-sources-say-rcna348565
“Israel in Panic Mode? Max Blumenthal Says Iran War Backfired”
In a wide-ranging conversation with Glenn Diesen, journalist Max Blumenthal argues that the failed U.S.-Israel war against Iran has exposed new political fractures in Washington, accelerated public opposition to unconditional support for Israel, and raised questions about what comes next for a region still on the brink.
Joshua Scheer, June 24, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/24/israel-in-panic-mode-max-blumenthal-says-iran-war-backfired/
Washington Went to War to Show Strength. The World Saw Weakness.
In a new interview with Glenn Diesen, investigative journalist and The Grayzone editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal argues that the recent U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran has produced consequences far different from those envisioned by its architects. Rather than restoring deterrence, Blumenthal contends, the war exposed military limitations, deepened political divisions inside the United States, intensified scrutiny of Israel’s role in American politics, and left Washington searching for a way out of a costly confrontation.
The discussion explores the emerging Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, growing tensions between pro-Israel factions and the America First wing of the Republican Party, shifting public opinion toward Israel, and the possibility that Lebanon may become the next flashpoint in efforts to unravel the fragile agreement. Whether one agrees with Blumenthal’s analysis or not, the interview captures a moment of profound uncertainty—one in which old assumptions about U.S. power, Israeli influence, and the future of the Middle East are increasingly being challenged.
As Washington attempts to navigate the aftermath of a conflict that rattled global markets and reshaped regional calculations, the political and strategic fallout may continue long after the shooting stops. The debate now is not only about Iran, but about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy itself
Israel’s Biggest Fear Isn’t Iran—It’s Losing America
Max Blumenthal argues that the greatest consequence of the recent Iran conflict may not be military at all. The real shock, he contends, is the accelerating erosion of unconditional American support for Israel.
According to Blumenthal, the war exposed deep fractures within the U.S. political establishment. While traditional pro-Israel voices continue to dominate Washington, growing opposition is emerging from across the political spectrum. On the right, figures associated with the America First movement are increasingly questioning why U.S. resources and political capital are tied so closely to Israeli objectives. On the left, criticism of military aid and lobbying influence has become more mainstream than at any point in recent memory.
Blumenthal argues that public opinion has shifted dramatically. Polls showing rising skepticism toward military support for Israel, combined with growing frustration over foreign entanglements, suggest that a decades-old political consensus is weakening. What once seemed untouchable in American politics is now being openly debated.
The interview also explores how Israeli leaders may respond to this changing landscape. Blumenthal warns that efforts to maintain the status quo could intensify regional tensions, particularly in Lebanon, where clashes continue despite diplomatic efforts to stabilize the region. At the same time, he suggests that Israel’s political establishment is struggling to adapt to a reality in which criticism is no longer confined to the margins.
The discussion highlights a growing debate over the future of U.S.-Israel relations. The question is no longer simply how Washington will respond to Iran, but whether the political foundations of America’s long-standing alliance with Israel are beginning to shift beneath everyone’s feet.
Congress Is Preparing to Surrender American Sovereignty on the Eve of America’s 250th Anniversary
June 24, 2026, Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Kucinich, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/24/congress-is-preparing-to-surrender-american-sovereignty-on-the-eve-of-americas-250th-anniversary/
Take Action to Defeat a Dangerous Expansion of the National Security State, Military Power Over Civilian Government, Foreign Policy Entrenchment, and the Erosion of Constitutional Self-Government Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Kucinich June 22, 2026
The United States Congress, on the very eve of the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, is preparing to formally diminish American independence and sovereignty through a proposed merger and long-term integration of executive functions throughout the government, coordinated by the Department of Defense.
Treacherous provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) mandate that the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commerce Department, and the heads of other relevant federal departments and agencies cooperate with their Israeli counterparts for the purpose of consolidating U.S. and Israeli military activities in order to align efforts and avoid duplication.
The greatest threat to American sovereignty rarely arrives wearing the uniform of a foreign army. It often arrives through the complacency, expediency, or poor judgment of elected officials who fail to recognize the long-term consequences of the powers they surrender.
Whether motivated by political convenience, misplaced loyalty, or simple inattention, such actions can erode constitutional self-government just as surely as deliberate acts of betrayal.
No foreign nation, regardless of whether it is Israel, Britain, Canada, France, or Japan, should be integrated into permanent executive, military, technological, intelligence, and research structures in a manner that diminishes American sovereignty and democratic accountability.
The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) recently identified Israel as a counterintelligence threat.
Under ordinary circumstances, such a finding would prompt heightened scrutiny, caution, and congressional oversight. Instead, Congress has continued advancing provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would deepen military, technological, and strategic integration between the United States and Israel.
The legislation specifies Israel–U.S. coordination with America’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Missile Defense Agency, including the Iron Dome initiative, the United States Space Command, directed energy programs, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other critical technologies that will shape the future distribution of power.
Of all the areas mentioned, artificial intelligence and biotechnology may have the greatest long-term implications. These technologies will shape privacy, surveillance, predictive policing, digital identity systems, biosecurity, human enhancement technologies, and information control.
The Founders could never have imagined artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, or biotechnology directed by algorithms. Yet they understood a timeless truth: power must remain accountable to the people. The danger of our age is not merely that authority may concentrate in governments, corporations, or military institutions. It is that decisions of profound consequence may increasingly be delegated to technological systems that operate beyond the understanding and oversight of those whom the Constitution entrusts with governing.
The highly structured Israel–U.S. merger is included in the $1.5 trillion NDAA, in Section 219 (formerly Section 224) in the House version and Section 1217 in the Senate version. It puts in place policies that will bind future administrations.
Democracy depends on elected officials being able to alter policy. Permanent structures can make that increasingly difficult. Democracies function because citizens can change policy through elections. When military, intelligence, and technological institutions become permanently integrated across governments and bureaucracies, decision-making can drift beyond the reach of voters.
The issue is not cooperation with perceived allies. The issue is whether future Americans retain the practical ability to change course through democratic means. The democratic question, regardless of the technology involved, is simple: Who governs these technologies, and for what purpose?
Will decisions remain accountable to elected representatives and the American people, or will authority increasingly reside within security agencies, military institutions, and specialized technical bureaucracies beyond meaningful democratic oversight?
The U.S.–Israel military–executive merger provisions in the NDAA advance military influence across civilian government and create precisely the conditions the Constitution was designed to prevent.
Our Declaration of Independence condemned King George III for having rendered the military independent of and superior to the civil power and for having combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws.
The concern is not just military and executive integration with any foreign nation. It is the gradual expansion of military institutions into civilian domains including technology, biotechnology, commerce, communications, and artificial intelligence — and the effect on our Republic and our freedom.
As national security priorities become embedded throughout government, civilian decision-making becomes subordinate to military logic. Policies that should be determined through democratic debate become the province of security institutions, technical experts, and permanent bureaucracies.
The Founders repeatedly warned against permanent alliances because they understood the motivations of leaders of other countries may be inconsistent with American ideals or interests. The Founders structured the government of the United States so that future administrations would not be locked into foreign alliances that became vexatious.
If cooperation evolves into integration, future administrations will have less freedom to pursue independent diplomatic, military, technological, and economic policies. Decisions made in the name of efficiency today may limit the choices available to Americans tomorrow.
Congress is constitutionally responsible for oversight of the executive branch.
A key question is whether the military and executive merger provisions in the 2027 NDAA create new arrangements that are sufficiently transparent and reviewable by Congress. If significant military, intelligence, technological, or strategic decisions become embedded within joint frameworks, legislators may find themselves attempting to oversee systems that have acquired their own institutional momentum.
Ironclad collaborative provisions uniting Israel and the United States in the 2027 NDAA are being advanced on the basis of current political relationships and short-term strategic considerations rather than a careful assessment of their long-term institutional consequences. Congress has devoted remarkably little attention to how such an arrangement could affect American sovereignty, constitutional accountability, civilian control of the government of the United States, and the ability of future generations to alter policy through democratic means.
The question before Congress is not whether Israel is a friend today. The question is whether the permanent integration of military, technological, intelligence, research, and governmental functions with any foreign nation serves the long-term interests of the United States.
The Declaration of Independence and our constitutional system have been entrusted to our care. Alliances between nations may change. Governments change. Political leaders come and go, friendships change. Yet the structures established by law can endure for generations.
The Constitution was designed to preserve the sovereignty of the American Republic through democratic accountability, separation of powers, and civilian control of government. Any arrangement that permanently embeds foreign influence within executive, military, intelligence, technological, or research institutions will not stand once it receives the highest degree of constitutional scrutiny.
Congress has already struggled to reclaim its constitutionally based war powers. The military establishment has steadily accumulated influence across multiple domains of public policy. These provisions move further in that direction by embedding foreign military and security priorities throughout the machinery of government.
Members of Congress swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath is a sacred trust and does not abide treachery. Any measure that diminishes American sovereignty, weakens constitutional self-government, or places the powers of this Republic in alignment with a foreign authority violates both the spirit of that oath and the duty owed to every American citizen.
As America approaches its 250th year, Congress is poised to bind future generations through strategic commitments made to a foreign power today. These provisions reflect a profound failure of constitutional judgment. They elevate short-term political and military considerations above the enduring duty to preserve the sovereignty, independence, and freedom of action of the United States.
The Founders warned repeatedly against arrangements that would entangle future generations in obligations they neither chose nor approved. Yet Congress now stands on the threshold of embracing precisely such an arrangement, limiting the freedom of future American leaders to chart an independent course in diplomacy, technology, security, and national defense.
Whether driven by political expediency, misplaced loyalties, institutional inertia, or a failure to grasp the long-term consequences of their actions, the result is the same: a diminished capacity for self-government and a dangerous departure from the constitutional principles that have safeguarded American independence for two and a half centuries.
On the eve of America’s 250th year, every citizen must decide whether independence is merely a memory to celebrate or a responsibility to defend.
TAKE ACTION
The merger is timed to be voted on the week of June 29, just before the Fourth of July.
Let us truly celebrate our independence by staying independent. Please help spread the word and forward this article.
Find your member of Congress: House | Senate
It is urgent that you call your congressional representative today at 202‑224‑3121 and tell them to strip Section 219 (House) or Section 1217 (Senate) from the 2027 NDAA.
Congressmen Tom Massie (R‑KY) and Ro Khanna (D‑CA) will offer an amendment in the House to remove Section 219. Please tell your U.S. Representative: Support the Massie–Khanna Amendment to the NDAA.
Optional telephone script for the House of Representatives:
My name is ______ and I am a constituent. I am calling to urge Representative ______ to support the Massie–Khanna Amendment and to remove Section 219 from the NDAA. Congress should defend American sovereignty, uphold the Constitution, and reject any measure that integrates the executive and military functions of the United States with those of a foreign government. Please pass my message to the Representative. Thank you.
Please now circulate this article to your friends and network and ask them to take urgent action.
Vance: Israeli Officials Need To Realize Trump Is the Only Head of State Still ‘Sympathetic’ to Israel
The US vice president also called out Smotrich and Ben Gvir, saying they can’t ‘kill their way’ out of every problem
by Dave DeCamp | June 18, 2026 , https://news.antiwar.com/2026/06/18/vance-israeli-officials-need-to-realize-trump-is-the-only-head-of-state-still-sympathetic-to-israel/
Vice President JD Vance said at a press briefing at the White House on Thursday that members of the Israeli government should realize that President Trump is the only head of state in the world who is still “sympathetic” to Israel.
The vice president made the comments when discussing Israeli officials who have been harshly critical of the Memorandum of Understanding President Trump signed with Iran on Wednesday.
“I guess my message to them would be twofold. Number one, Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, and he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” Vance said.
Vance also pointed to the fact that Israel is extremely reliant on US military support. “The other thing that I would say is that over the last three months, two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars,” he said.
In an interview with The New York Times, published on Thursday, Vance specifically called out Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, both of whom have rejected the US-Iran MoU.
“And I guess my response to them would be: What is your exact proposal? You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said.
The US vice president added that the Israeli ministers should “give a little bit of credit to the United States of America, which I think has been an incredible partner for the Israeli government for a long time.”
While Vance had some harsh words for Israeli officials, there’s still no sign that the Trump administration is willing to leverage military aid to Israel or threaten to cut it off to get Israel to end its war in southern Lebanon, which has continued, though at a lower intensity, since the announcement of the US-Iran MoU, which calls for a complete halt to the conflict.
Iranian officials have said that the MoU hinges on ending the Lebanon was and an Israeli withdrawal from the country. “The end of the war includes the end of occupation. Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories they occupied during this war, the war will have not been fully brought to an end,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this week.
The Collapse of the Sacred Alliance: How Israel Is Losing America
Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, June 20, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/06/20/the-collapse-of-the-sacred-alliance-how-israel-is-losing-america/
The US’s once-unwavering support for Israel is rapidly eroding due to shifting public opinion driven by open information and Netanyahu’s own actions, leading to a rethinking of US-Israel relations.
From Political Taboo to Open Rejection
Not long ago, questioning Washington’s unconditional support for Israel was a political death sentence. American lawmakers, presidential candidates, and even human rights advocates steered clear of the topic as if it were a cursed circle. Today, that circle has been broken. Since October 2023, public opinion in the United States has undergone a tectonic shift. What was built over decades with billions of dollars in lobbying efforts is collapsing before our very eyes. And the numbers are relentless.
Numbers You Can’t Ignore
American approval of Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip has fallen to a catastrophic 32 percent. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Among Americans under 35, that figure is a paltry 9 percent. Nine. Percent.
The Chicago Council on International Relations, which has tracked U.S.-Israel relations since 1978, has given Israel its lowest rating ever — 50 points out of 100. The worst score in nearly half a century.
This isn’t a statistical blip. This is a historic failure.
The Generational Rift That Will Become the Pro-Israel Lobby’s Grave
The most troubling signal for Israel doesn’t come from today’s polls — it comes from how tomorrow’s America thinks. Only one in ten young Americans approves of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Among people over 55, that number is one in two.
On Iran, the picture is the same: 15 percent of young people supported Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, compared with 55 percent of older Americans.
And mind you, this is among Democrats. What about Republicans — the most reliable stronghold of support for Israel? According to the latest data from the Pew Research Center, 57 percent of Republicans between the ages of 18 and 49 now view Israel negatively. A year ago, that number was 50 percent. The trend is accelerating.
Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky told Politico: “My constituents no longer understand why their tax dollars are being used to bomb hospitals in Gaza. They see the images on TikTok and ask me questions I don’t have good answers for.”
The Gulf Between Official Rhetoric and Reality
So what happened? Why did something built over decades collapse in just a few months?
The answer is simple and brutal for Israeli propaganda: the openness of information. Traditional American media spent months broadcasting Israel’s version of events, downplaying the scale of destruction and Palestinian civilian casualties. But social media told a different story.
Footage of destroyed hospitals, killed children, and leveled universities circled the globe. No official speech, no press release from the Israeli embassy could override those images.
Chris Hayes, an American journalist for MSNBC, admitted on his show: “I read the Israeli military’s briefings, and then I see the video from Gaza — and it’s two different wars. Trust erodes when the gap becomes too obvious.” (MSNBC, April 2, 2025)
AIPAC Is Losing Its Stranglehold
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was long considered the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington. Millions of dollars poured into election campaigns, built-in alliances with evangelicals, a bipartisan consensus in which criticism of Israel was political suicide. Today, that machine is sputtering.
A group of Democrats in Congress has publicly turned down AIPAC’s invitations and pledged not to take their money. Among them: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, and Senator Bernie Sanders.
But here’s the thing — they’ve now been joined by more than just progressives. Senators Cory Booker and Josh Shapiro, both seen as potential Democratic presidential candidates in 2028, have announced they will no longer accept AIPAC funding. California Governor Gavin Newsom has made a similar pledge.
A year ago, that would have been unthinkable. Today, it’s becoming the norm.
Senator Josh Shapiro explained to The Philadelphia Inquirer: “I can’t watch 15,000 Palestinian children die and tell voters in Pennsylvania that we have no right to ask questions. That’s not antisemitism. That’s humanism.” (The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 28, 2025)
Strange Bedfellows: The Left and the Right Against Israel
Something unprecedented is happening in modern American politics. Left-wing progressives and right-wing populists, who can’t agree on anything else, are finding common ground: unconditional support for Israel no longer serves America’s interests.
Former Trump allies — Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene — have openly accused the president of letting Israel drag the U.S. into a conflict with Iran.
Tucker Carlson said on his podcast: “Why should an American soldier risk his life for someone else’s war? Israel is a sovereign nation. Let them figure it out. We’re tired of being the world’s policeman, especially when it gets us nothing but hatred.”
Even Robert Kagan, the neoconservative intellectual and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, warned in Foreign Affairs (March 2025): “This conflict could end very badly for Israel. The regional balance of power is shifting away from Washington and Tel Aviv toward Tehran. Netanyahu’s stubbornness will come at a high price.”
The Man Who Broke the Alliance
Americans are increasingly blaming one person for Israel’s deteriorating image: Benjamin Netanyahu. According to a CNN poll, 59 percent of Americans don’t trust him. Last year, that number was 42 percent.
But here’s the most telling part — the distrust cuts across party lines. 81 percent of older Democrats don’t trust Netanyahu. And 58 percent of young Republicans don’t either.
Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead observed: “Netanyahu has done the impossible — he’s united a generation against Israel that should have been the most pro-Israel in history. Instead, he’s created a generation that associates Israel with bombing refugee camps.”
What Future for U.S.-Israel Relations?
Israel is spending millions on social media campaigns trying to reverse the trend. It’s useless. The shift is structural, not rhetorical. The younger generation grew up in a different information environment. The Democratic Party is moving decisively left on foreign policy. Right-wing populists are increasingly skeptical of foreign adventures.
For decades, Israel took America’s unconditional support for granted. Like air. Like water. Like something inalienable.
Perhaps those years were the exception, not the rule. And now Israel is about to find out what it’s like to be on the other side. Isolated. Under a microscope. Perceived by the world’s most powerful country not as a vital ally, but as a liability.
University of Chicago political science professor John Mearsheimer
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (174)
- 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)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 