Collapsing Empire: US Bows To African Revolutionaries
Kit Klarenberg, Global Delinquents, Feb 09, 2026
On February 2nd, the BBC published an extraordinary report on how the Trump administration “has declared a stark policy shift” towards Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, the governments of which have sought to eradicate all ties to Western imperial powers, and forged the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). The independent bloc is a revolutionary enterprise, with the prospect further countries will follow its members’ lead. Washington is under no illusions about the new geopolitical realities unfolding in Africa.
The British state broadcaster records how Nick Checker, State Department African Affairs chief, is due to visit Mali to convey US “respect” for the country’s “sovereignty”, and chart a “new course” in relations, moving “past policy missteps.” Checker will also express optimism about future collaboration with AES, “on shared security and economic interests.” This is an absolutely unprecedented development. After military coups deposed the elected presidents of all three countries 2020 – 2023, the trio became Western pariahs.
France and the US initially aimed to isolate and undermine the military governments, halting “cooperation” projects in numerous fields. Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States, a neocolonial union of which all three were members, first imposed severe sanctions on Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, before its combined armed forces prepared to outright invade the latter in summer 2023. The three countries didn’t budge, and in fact welcomed Western isolation, forging new international partnerships and strengthening their ties. ECOWAS military action never came to pass.
In January 2025, the trio seceded from the union and created AES. Western-funded, London-based Amani Africa branded the move “the most significant crisis in West Africa’s regional integration since the founding of ECOWAS in 1975,” claiming it dealt “a significant blow to African…cooperation architecture.” Meanwhile, Burkina Faso’s leader Capt Ibrahim Traoré has become a media hate figure. A disparaging May 2025 Financial Times profile slammed him as a cynical opportunist leading a “Russia-backed junta”, and his supporters a “cult”.
As the BBC unwittingly explains, such antipathy towards Traoré stems from establishing himself “as a standard-bearer in resisting ‘imperialism’ and ‘neocolonialism’.” Via “vigorous social media promotion, he has gained huge support for this stance and personal popularity among young people across the continent and beyond,” ever since seizing office in September 2022. Far from just talk, Traoré and his fellow AES “junta” leaders have systematically neutralised malign Western influence locally, while pursuing left-wing economic policies for the good of their populations.
France and the US have proven markedly powerless to hamper, let alone reverse, this seismic progress…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/collapsing-empire-us-bows-to-african
If You Think Our Rulers Do Bad Things In Secret, Wait Til You See What They Do Out In The Open.
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 09, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/if-you-think-our-rulers-do-bad-things?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187345674&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
They launched a live-streamed genocide in full view of the entire world.
They’re openly targeting civilian populations with siege warfare in Iran and Cuba in full view of the entire world.
They openly kidnapped the president of a sovereign nation in full view of the entire world.
They deliberately provoked a horrific and dangerous proxy war in Ukraine in full view of the entire world.
They spent years actively backing Saudi Arabia’s monstrous genocidal atrocities in Yemen in full view of the entire world.
They’re plundering and exploiting the resources and labor of the global south in full view of the entire world.
They’re killing the biosphere we all depend on for their own enrichment in full view of the entire world.
They’re circling the globe with hundreds of military bases to secure planetary domination in full view of the entire world.
They engage in nuclear brinkmanship and wave around armageddon weapons like pistols in full view of the entire world.
People go homeless and die of exposure while billionaires buy private islands and choose the next president in full view of the entire world.
Weapons manufacturers lobby for wars and then profit from the death and destruction they cause in full view of the entire world.
The president of the United States has repeatedly admitted to being bought and owned by the world’s richest Israeli in full view of the entire world.
The US Treasury Secretary has been repeatedly admitting that the US deliberately sparked the violence and unrest in Iran by methodically immiserating the population via economic warfare, in full view of the entire world.
I keep seeing people freaking out and asking how it’s possible that the individuals in the Epstein files haven’t been arrested for their secret nefarious behavior. And I always want to ask them, mate, have you seen the nefarious behavior they’re engaging in right out in the open?
Pay attention to the Epstein files. Pay attention to what little we can learn about how these freaks conduct themselves behind closed doors. By all means, pay close attention to these things.
But don’t forget to also pay attention to the far greater evils they are inflicting in full view of the entire world.
Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, USA (2000–2018)
18 December 2025, Springer Nature, Volume 24, article number 92, (2025)
“………………………………………. Results
Proximity to plants significantly increased cancer incidence, with risk declining by distance. At 2 km, females showed RRs of 1.52 (95% CI: 1.20–1.94) for ages 55–64, 2.00 (1.59–2.52) for 65–74, and 2.53 (1.98–3.22) for 75 + . Males showed RRs of 1.97 (1.57–2.48), 1.75 (1.42–2.16), and 1.63 (1.29–2.06), respectively. Cancer site-specific analyses showed significant associations for lung, prostate, breast, colorectal, bladder, melanoma, leukemia, thyroid, uterine, kidney, laryngeal, pancreatic, oral, esophageal, and Hodgkin lymphoma, with variation by sex and age. We estimated 10,815 female and 9,803 male cancer cases attributable to proximity, corresponding to attributable fractions of 4.1% (95% CI: 2.4–5.7%) and 3.5% (95% CI: 1.8–5.2%).
Conclusions
Residential proximity to nuclear plants in Massachusetts is associated with elevated cancer risks, particularly among older adults, underscoring the need for continued epidemiologic monitoring amid renewed interest in nuclear energy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-025-01248-6
Trump is not threatening war on Iran over its nuclear program, but because it challenges U.S. dominance.
In short, it is about removing Iran from the strategic playing field, as it is the sole actor in the region that is powerful, influential, and beyond the United States’ direct control. The U.S. and Israel desperately want to remove that oppositional force.
So Trump is buying time by agreeing to talks that cannot succeed on the terms he and Rubio have laid down. He is likely to use that time to magnify the threat against the Iranian leadership in the vain hope that they will acquiesce to his demands.
The U.S. is once again threatening a war on Iran that could devastate the region. Trump knows Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but that has never been the point. It is about removing Iran as the only actor in the region beyond U.S. control.
By Mitchell Plitnick February 6, 2026, https://mondoweiss.net/2026/02/trump-is-not-threatening-war-on-iran-over-its-nuclear-program-but-because-it-challenges-u-s-dominance/
American and Iranian negotiators are meeting in Muscat to see if they can come to an agreement and avoid an American attack on Iran. The chances don’t look good.
There was some initial hope because Donald Trump agreed to hold talks at all. The buildup of American forces in the region and the frequent planning meetings with Israeli political and military officials gave the appearance of an unstoppable buildup to war.
But American allies Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman have been working hard to convince Trump not to attack Iran. They fear the potential backlash of an American attack on the Islamic Republic, believing that Iran is not likely to respond to an attack with the restraint they have shown in the past.
Israel is urging Trump to attack, as the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is the one entity that stands to benefit from the chaos that an attack on Iran could bring.
Indeed, Iran has warned that an attack this time will be met with a very different response than previous ones. Yet, paradoxically, it is the very fact that Iran is capable of a more damaging response than it has taken in the past that creates the impasse that is likely to derail negotiations.
What each side wants
Iran’s desires from any talks with the U.S. are straightforward: they want the U.S. to stop threatening to attack, and to lift the sanctions that have helped to cripple Iran’s economy.
But the United States has more complicated demands.
- The United States wants Iran to completely abandon nuclear power. This demand is not just about weaponry, but includes all civilian nuclear power under Iran’s control. No uranium at all can be enriched by Iran, regardless of whether it is for civilian or military purposes, and all enriched uranium Iran has must be handed over.
- The U.S. is demanding that Iran agree to limits dictated by Washington on the range and number of ballistic missiles it can possess.
- The U.S. is demanding that Iran end its support of any and all armed resistance groups in the region.
All of these demands are unreasonable. But the United States is holding a loaded gun to Iran’s head. The U.S. has moved a large carrier group into the waters near Iran, and between American and Israeli intelligence, they surely have a very clear map of where they want to strike to go along with the technical capability to essentially ignore Iran’s defenses.
But while Iran can do very little to shield itself from an American or Israeli attack, it is capable of responding to one. That is what the last two American demands are focused on, and it’s really the reason all of this is happening.
If the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran and Iran elects to respond with all of its capabilities—which it has not done in previous attacks—it has the ability to kill many American soldiers, severely disrupt oil production in the Gulf, or cause significant damage to Israel.
Iran can do this because it has a large battery of long-range ballistic missiles. It has already shown, last June, that it can hurt Israel, and that was an attack largely meant to be a warning.
Iran also backs various militias in the region, some large, like Ansar Allah in Yemen, others smaller. That means it can launch guerrilla attacks on American bases or other key sites in places like Iraq and Syria.
Iran can also target oil fields throughout the region, either with missiles or drones or with militia attacks. That’s a major reason Trump’s friends in the Gulf are reluctant to see him start a war.
The ability to do all of that gives Washington pause. Donald Trump likes it when he can do quick operations with little or no pushback, as he did recently in Venezuela or last year in Iran. Trump has carefully avoided situations where American soldiers might be killed. Iran might not let the U.S. off so easily this time around.
The reality behind U.S. demands
That brings us to why talks are so unlikely to succeed.
Iran has already made it clear it has no intention to negotiate on their support for groups throughout the region or on their ballistic missile arsenal. They understand that the reason the United States is trying to force them to agree to such measures is that it would leave Iran defenseless. Giving in to these demands would be tantamount to national suicide.
The Iranian leadership is more than happy to discuss the issue of nuclear power. As unfair as the terms might be, they might even be willing to reach a compromise that allows them to use nuclear power without enriching uranium themselves. That’s far from ideal, but Iran is facing a considerable threat.
But this holds little interest for the Trump administration. Despite American chest-thumping, they know that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, nor were they before the U.S. damaged so much of their nuclear infrastructure last year. Trump’s own intelligence corps confirmed that Iran was not actively seeking a nuclear weapon, just as it had affirmed that finding every year since 2007.
But none of this has ever been about an Iranian nuclear weapon. Rather, it has always been about pressuring the Islamic Republic either to fall or to radically change its behavior in the region. It has always been about getting Iran to stop supporting the Palestinian cause rhetorically and to stop arming Palestinian factions. It has always been about stopping Iran from supporting militias in the region that act outside of the American-run system, unlike those that are backed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or other states in the region that are on good terms with Washington.
In short, it is about removing Iran from the strategic playing field, as it is the sole actor in the region that is powerful, influential, and beyond the United States’ direct control. The U.S. and Israel desperately want to remove that oppositional force.
Trump weighs the consequences of attacking Iran
Does Trump really want a war? That concern with Iran is a long-term U.S.-Israeli policy goal. What Donald Trump personally wants is always difficult to know. It can change from day to day, and is often based on a less-than-full understanding of the real world.
From all appearances, Trump felt emboldened by the American success in Venezuela. He kidnapped the head of state and his wife, and suffered no American casualties in doing so. The short-term political backlash, both in Latin America and in the U.S., was brief and minimal.
No doubt, he envisioned a similar success in Iran, when the protests there and the Iranian government’s brutal response helped to create what might have looked superficially like similar circumstances. Trump began issuing one threat after another, and while their frequency has been intermittent, they have not stopped.
But his friends in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, and elsewhere in the Mideast explained to Trump that the outcome in Iran would be very different from that in Venezuela. Iran has the capabilities we’ve already discussed here, but there are other key differences.
For one, Iran has a deep governmental infrastructure, and there is no one in it who is both capable of taking over from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and willing to compromise with Trump in the way Delcy Rodriguez has in Caracas. Despite the occasional protester in Iran calling out the name of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, who was deposed in 1979, there is no infrastructure of support for him in Iran, and it would likely be impossible to simply install him without a full-scale invasion of the country.
So Trump is buying time by agreeing to talks that cannot succeed on the terms he and Rubio have laid down. He is likely to use that time to magnify the threat against the Iranian leadership in the vain hope that they will acquiesce to his demands.
But the primary purpose of that time is to continue to position American and Israeli forces to counter what they can anticipate of an Iranian response. That would mean not just the stationing of ships in striking distance of Iran, but also positioning whatever military assets they might have in countries like Iraq and Syria, as well as in other Gulf states, to counter guerrilla attacks by Iran-aligned militias and getting friendly states to agree to help with shooting down Iranian missiles and drones, as they did last year.
With Rubio and Benjamin Netanyahu pushing Trump toward a regime change war with Iran, and given the amount of bluster he has already put out there, it is hard to see Trump backing away from a war if Iran will not agree to compromise on its missiles and the militias it supports. And Iran is not about to do that.
The war that will ensue stands a good chance of toppling the Iranian government, but with nothing to replace it, the power vacuum that will surely follow will mean chaos not only for Iran but for the whole region. That isn’t really in Trump’s interests, and it certainly does not benefit his Gulf Arab allies.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, will have made the “neighborhood” that much more dangerous just as Israel’s election season begins to ramp up. While many Israelis have lost faith that “Mr. Security” can protect them after October 7, a heightened sense of danger to Israelis remains the atmosphere that is most favorable to Netanyahu electorally. It’s therefore no surprise that Israel is the one actor in the region that is pressing for this regime change war.
Averting that war will mean the Trump administration climbing down from its maximalist demands. There are indications that the U.S. is looking, at least,for an option that allows it to do that without appearing to have shied away from Iranian retaliation. But that remains an unlikely outcome, as hawks in Israel, Washington, and among the anti-regime exile Iranian community continue to urge an attack.
Why Iran–US negotiations must move beyond a single-issue approach to the nuclear problem
By Seyed Hossein Mousavian | February 5, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/02/why-iran-us-negotiations-must-move-beyond-a-single-issue-approach-to-the-nuclear-problem/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Iran-US%20negotiations&utm_campaign=20260209%20Monday%20Newsletter
Iran’s nuclear crisis has reached a point at which it can no longer be treated as a purely technical or legal dispute within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It has evolved into a deeply security-driven, geopolitical, and structural challenge whose outcome is directly tied to the future of the nonproliferation order in the Middle East and beyond. If the negotiations scheduled for Friday between Iran and the United States are to be effective and durable, they must move beyond single-issue approaches and toward a comprehensive, direct, and phased dialogue.
The format and venue of Iran–US negotiations. The first round of talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff took place on April 12, 2025, in Muscat, Oman. At Iran’s insistence, these negotiations were defined as “indirect.” On April 8, 2025, I emphasized in a tweet that direct negotiations—particularly in Tehran—would significantly increase the chances of reaching a dignified, realistic, and timely agreement. “Wasting time is not in the interest of either country,” I insisted. Despite these warnings, nearly 10 months were lost, during which the region suffered heavy and regrettable losses.
It now appears that Tehran has agreed to direct talks among Witkoff, son-in-law and key adviser to President Trump Jared Kushner, and Araghchi, again in Oman. The most effective format going forward, however, would be to hold direct talks in Tehran and then in Washington. This formula would not only break long-standing political taboos but also enable deeper mutual understanding. A visit by Witkoff and Kushner to Tehran would allow them to engage not only with the foreign minister but also with other key decision-makers, including the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, members of parliament, and relevant institutions—engagement that is essential if any sustainable agreement is to be achieved. Araghchi should engage in Washington not only with US negotiators, but also with President Trump, officials from the Pentagon, and members of the US Congress, to gain a clearer understanding of the current political environment in Washington.
Why a single-issue agreement is not sustainable. In hundreds of articles and interviews since 2013, I have argued that a single-issue agreement—even if successful on the nuclear file—will be inherently unstable. Under current conditions, three core issues require reasonable, dignified, and lasting solutions.
The US demand for zero enrichment. Ahead of negotiations, the United States is demanding that Iran entirely stop all uranium enrichment and give up its stockpile of around 400-kilograms of highly enriched uranium, steps that would prevent Tehran from possible diversion toward weaponization. Since 2013, a group of prominent nuclear scientists from Princeton University and I have proposed a “joint nuclear and enrichment consortium” for the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East as a way for Iran to continue its peaceful nuclear program and for the United States and regional countries to be reassured that program will not be used as a cover for the production of nuclear weapons. This proposal was repeatedly articulated—up to 10 days before the 2025 Israeli and US attacks on Iran—but unfortunately failed to gain serious attention.
Today, the only realistic solution to the question of uranium enrichment remains the establishment of a joint nuclear and enrichment consortium involving Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and major global powers. This model would address nuclear proliferation concerns while safeguarding equal access to peaceful nuclear technology.
Iran’s missile and defensive capabilities. Defensive capabilities are the ultimate guarantor of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national security. Since 2013, I have repeatedly recommended two regional agreements: a conventional weapons treaty and a non-aggression pact among the states in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. A regional conventional weapons treaty would ensure a balance of defensive power, while a non-aggression pact would lay the foundation for collective security. Without these frameworks, expectations for unilateral limitations on Iran’s defensive capabilities are neither realistic nor sustainable.
Iran’s support for the “axis of resistance” and regional security order. My book, A New Structure for Security, Peace, and Cooperation in the Persian Gulf, presented a comprehensive framework for regional cooperation and collective security, including a nuclear and weapons of mass destruction free zone. This framework would enable progress on four major issues: the roles of non-state and semi-state actors; the Persian Gulf and energy security; the antagonism among Iran, the United States, and Israel; and a safe and orderly US withdrawal from the region.
If a sustainable agreement is to be reached, Iran and Israel must put an end to mutual existential, military, and security threats. “Despite major differences, the United States and China both worry about the conflict. China has close Iran relations, and Israel is a US strategic partner, making them qualified mediators serving as communication channels,” I suggested in 2023.
A warning to Washington: Iran’s nuclear file and the future of nonproliferation. The global non-proliferation order is undergoing a fundamental transition. The world is moving away from a system in which nuclear strategy is defined by possession or non-possession of nuclear weapons, and toward one defined by positioning, reversibility, and strategic optionality.
Nuclear-weapon states have not only failed to meet their NPT obligations to make good-faith efforts toward nuclear disarmament; they are also actively modernizing and expanding their arsenals. At the same time, some non-nuclear states that face threats to their security are seeking deterrence without formal weaponization, and political leverage without legal rupture.
The Iranian case demonstrated that full compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran nuclear deal) and unprecedented cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not produce security for Iran. The US withdrawal from the agreement, the imposition of sweeping sanctions, and subsequent military attacks conveyed a clear message to the Iranian government: Maximum restraint can create vulnerability. Meanwhile, Israel—outside the NPT and enjoying unwavering US support—remains the region’s sole nuclear-armed state.
For the first time in the history of nuclear non-proliferation, safeguarded nuclear facilities of a non-nuclear-weapon state were attacked, without meaningful condemnation from either the IAEA or the UN Security Council. This episode has fundamentally altered the meaning of non-proliferation commitments.
The conclusion is clear: If Iran’s nuclear crisis is treated as a narrowly defined, Iran-specific issue, it will not lead to a sustainable agreement. Instead, it will accelerate the spread of “nuclear ambiguity” across the Middle East as multiple countries seek the capability to build nuclear weapons, even if they do not immediately construct weapons. Any new nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States must therefore be firmly grounded in the principles and obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), applied in a balanced, non-discriminatory, and credible manner. The fate of Iran-US negotiations is inseparably linked to the future of non-proliferation in the region and around the world. Decisions made today will shape regional and international security for decades to come.
Trump nixes nukes from environmental reviews
February 5, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/trump-nixes-nukes-from-environmental-review/
White House Executive Order & DOE set rule for “categorical exclusion” of new reactors from NEPA environmental impact statements
On February 2, 2026, the American Nuclear Society’s NuclearNewsWire headlined the US Department of Energy (DOE) announcement for the exclusion of experimental advanced nuclear reactors (ANR) from environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The February 2, 2026 Federal Register notice states that the Trump White House by Executive Order (E.O.) 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy” (May 23, 2025), Section 6, Streamlining Environmental Reviews directs U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright to create “categorical exclusions as appropriate for reactors within certain parameters.” The categorical exclusion was made effective immediately on February 2, 2026.
Beyond Nuclear encourages you to submit your comment on the new categorical exclusion rule up until March 4, 2026, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Public comments must include the agency name (“Department of Energy,”) and docket number, (DOE-HQ-2025-0405) and labeled “DOE categorical exclusion for Advanced Nuclear Reactors (ANR).”
The new DOE categorical exclusion rule establishes some specific conditions allegedly before the nuclear industry can proceed through licensing for mass production, construction and operation its ANR projects unfettered by any environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as otherwise required under NEPA law.
Beyond Nuclear’s first examination of the DOE’s qualifying conditions for claiming categorical exclusion eligibility to apply finds them contradicting facts and without meeting the legal standard of “reasonable assurance”.
Here are a few samples of prepared comments that Beyond Nuclear will be submitting to the DOE on these bogus conditions of eligibility:
Inherent/Passive Safety Features: The new reactor design must employ “inherent safety” features and systems.
Based on available information of currently funded nuclear power startup companies in the United States, none of the known startups, or any of the established nuclear power corporations like Westinghouse Electric have formally declared they will refuse US government limited liability protection from a catastrophic nuclear power accident under the Price-Anderson Act. In fact, as quietly tacked onto to “An Act: To authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs, to advance the benefits of nuclear energy, and for other purposes,” the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2024—without a single public hearing—Congress extended the industry’s limited liability protection beyond the scheduled expiration of Price-Anderson on December 31, 2025 with a 40-year extension to December 31, 2065. The original Price-Anderson Act of 1957 has long been and remains essential for the nuclear industry to secure what meager private investment it can still attract by maintaining its federally limited liability and indemnification from catastrophic radiological contamination by nuclear accidents and malevolent acts. It is highly improbable that any nuclear power startup or current operational nuclear companies will voluntarily forgo the federal government’s limited liability nuclear accident financial shelter, given developing advanced reactors still face unacceptable uncertainty from severe nuclear accident risks and bad actors. This demonstrated lack of industry confidence contradicts its own claims of “inherent safety” from a well established and acknowledged “inherently dangerous” nuclear power technology.
Advanced Fuel and Coolant Systems: The reactor must utilize well-established fuel, coolant, and structural materials that support a, low-risk safety design basis.
Many of the emerging US advanced reactor designs will rely upon an advanced nuclear fuel identified as High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) nuclear fuel. HALEU fuel is not “well-established” in the US market. HALEU is fissionable uranium-235 enriched to just under 20% U-235. (Conventional nuclear fuel is enriched to 3-5% U-235). The only commercial-grade HALEU fuel available globally today is state-owned and controlled by Russian oligarchy. Even the US current operating fleet of commercial reactors only resources roughly 1% or less of low enriched U-235 domestically to fuel its existing fleet. It is heavily reliant upon foreign uranium. According to the US Energy Information Administration, Russia and the Russia-influenced countries of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan provide approximately 48% of the total US domestic reactor nuclear fuel purchases.
What’s more, at just under an upper limit near 20% enriched U-235, HALEU fuel significantly reduces the effort needed to produce nuclear weapons-grade material under the guise of advanced reactor deployment and fuel development. This results in an increased threat to global safety and security with accelerated nuclear weapons proliferation that would likely result with the commercial trafficking and expansion of advance reactor technology and the higher enriched uranium nuclear fuel.
The number of advanced reactor design coolant systems that plan to use highly reactive and “hazardous” liquid metal and liquid salt combined with nuclear power operations warrant the NEPA requirement for “reasonable assurance” analysis and public interrogation by environmental impact statements. In the context of advanced nuclear coolants, this refers to materials that are chemically reactive in air and water (sodium) or highly corrosive (molten salts) both of which are balanced with safety tradeoff benefits that come with low-pressure operation. However, historical accounts demonstrate numerous and recurring of reactor coolant leaks and fires in different countries involving sodium coolant do not provide the “reasonable assurance” for the blanket categorical exclusion of environmental reviews for these advanced reactors.
Japan’s Monju sodium cooled reactor had numerous and significant leaks and fires over its operational history including one major accident and widely reported sodium leak and fire accident in 1995. The accident dominated Monju’s operational history associated with forced shutdown for nearly 15 years and its eventual abandonment of operation. This 1995 accident was compounded by a scandal where the operator (JAEA) attempted to hide the extent of the damage, leading to a significant loss of Japan’s public confidence in nuclear power. Monju was permanently closed in 2016 and decommissioned. This operational history in Japan does not demonstrate “reasonable assurance” in the technology to warrant a blanket categorical exclusion of NEPA’s required environmental impact statement on the risks and consequences also associated with a catastrophic nuclear accident.
Another example documented by historical operating data comes from France’s sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor (FBR) program, specifically the Phénix (multiple sodium-air and recurring sodium-water reactive events in its steam generators). Additionally, France’s Superphénix reactors experienced a major sodium reactive event that shut down the reactor for four years. These combined incidents and accidents were frequent and costly enough to lead to major, long-term shutdowns and France’s eventual abandonment of the technology altogether in the late 1990s. Again, the operational history in France does not provide “reasonable assurance” for the DOE to grant a categorical exclusion of NEPA’s required environmental impacts statement on the resumption of yet another experimental reactor coolant failure, significant fire and/or explosion that could precipitate significant radiological releases.
Safe Waste Management: The project must demonstrate that any hazardous waste, radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel can be managed in accordance with applicable requirements.
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report “Nuclear waste from small modular reactors,” on May 31, 2022. The significance of this study authored by finds “few studies have assessed the implications of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste stream characterization presented here reveals that SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs (the US conventional large Light Water Reactor fleet), which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste.”
“‘Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 for the reactors in our case study,’ said study lead author Lindsay Krall, a former MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). ‘These findings stand in sharp contrast to the cost and waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies.’”
Study Conclusions
“This analysis of three distinct SMR designs shows that, relative to a gigawatt-scale PWR, these reactors will increase the energy-equivalent volumes of SNF (spent nuclear fuel), long-lived LILW (low and intermediate level radioactive waste), and short-lived LILW by factors of up to 5.5, 30, and 35, respectively. These findings stand in contrast to the waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies. More importantly, SMR waste streams will bear significant (radio-) chemical differences from those of existing reactors. Molten salt– and sodium-cooled SMRs will use highly corrosive and pyrophoric fuels and coolants that, following irradiation, will become highly radioactive. Relatively high concentrations of 239Pu (plutonium) and 235U in low–burnup SMR SNF will render recriticality a significant risk for these chemically unstable waste streams.”
These few excerpts from scientific findings by the peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences do not provide “reasonable assurance” to meet a legal standard for the DOE to grant a categorical exclusion of NEPA’s required environmental impacts statement.
Additional samples of the critical comments already submitted to the DOE:
“DOE-HQ-2025-0405 is illegal, absurd, arbitrary, and capricious.
Per NEPA: § 4336e. Definitions. In this subchapter: (1) Categorical exclusion. The term ‘categorical exclusion’ means a category of actions that a Federal agency has determined normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 4332(2)(C) of this title. Obviously, nuclear reactors significantly affect the quality of the human environment when they fail (e.g. Three-Mile Island, Fukishima, and Chernobyl). DOEHQ-2025-0405 excludes experimental nuclear technologies from review without any analysis. DOE-HQ-2025-0405 briefly mentions that these experimental technologies will ‘limit adverse consequences from releases of radioactive or hazardous material from construction, operation, and decommissioning.’ This statement implies that there will be ‘releases of radioactive or hazardous material,’ and ‘adverse consequences’ from those releases, but that the unproven technologies will somehow ‘limit’ those adverse consequences. To be clear, releases of radioactive and hazardous materials significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”
“The new policy of waiving regulatory hurdles is INSANITY! Whole communities, town and cities are at risk for nuclear contamination. Surely you’ve documented our history of radiation contamination not only in our country but around the globe. Trump’s administration acts before thinking, studying, and reasoning. If there is anything to be done in advance of nuclear projects going online please for the sake of humanity stop this nonsense.”
“Department of Energy DOE-HQ-2025-0405. Given the controversial nature of nuclear power generation and disposal of associated waste, as well as earlier reactor disasters around the world compliance with NEPA requires the completion of an EIS not a CX. The long term environmental impacts and alternatives require a more complete and scientically informed analysis before a decision can be made.”
Has Trump been trumped by large, powerful, resolute Iran?
Trump is also not the master of his destiny with Iran. He knows Iran poses no threat whatsoever to US interests. But Trump also knows he’s subservient to his Israeli masters who demand he attack Iran
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 8 Feb 26
Last June Israel attacked Iran, got blooded bad enough to beg Trump to negotiate a ceasefire. Trump got a reality lesson as well. Iran responded with its own attack to Trump’s one-off strike that did not “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear program, damaging a US base in Qatar. The message was clear. Any all out US attack could bring home hundreds, possibly thousands of US body bags.
Both Iranian responses demonstrate Iran has enormous firepower to both defend any US Israeli attack, but also inflict enormous damage on its attackers. And that damage would not only be to US, Israeli forces, it would shut down the Strait of Hormuz, likely wrecking the US, Israeli; indeed world economy.
Did Trump get the message? At first no. He conspired with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in December to foment violent domestic protests to overthrow the Iranian regime. Trump planned a mid-January attack to push the protesters to victory. But when Iran crushed the protests, Trump backed down once again, realizing a strengthened Iranian regime would repel any attack just like in June.
That has left Trump in an impossible quandary. He’s put the massive US military armada on Iran’s doorstep knowing he cannot possibly succeed without incurring US, Israeli losses. But his credibility is destroyed if he admits defeat and withdraws the US armada.
What to do? Trump’s M.O. when cornered is to set up fake, negotiations with his adversary to buy time and seek trifling concessions so he can claim a complete, overwhelming victory. That won’t work with Iran. His upcoming negotiations with Iran will fail worse than his failed negotiations with Denmark and NATO to gobble up Greenland. Trump’s demands going in are so extreme, essentially guaranteeing end of Iranian sovereignty, they are a non-starter.
Trump is also not the master of his destiny with Iran. He knows Iran poses no threat whatsoever to US interests. But Trump also knows he’s subservient to his Israeli masters who demand he attack Iran to destroy Israel’s last Middle East hegemonic competitor. Even major US casualties could serve Israel’s agenda by forcing Trump launch all out war to avenge those casualties as not dying in vain. It’s even possible that Israel would use their own massive casualties to drop a nuke on Tehran. Once Trump pulls the trigger on his armada installed at Israel’s behest, there is no reversal of the inevitable catastrophe for Middle East peace; possibly world peace.
It was a snap for Trump to bring his military up to Venezuela’s border and slaughter a few hundred folks with boat strikes and outright invasion to score a presidential kidnapping. Bringing that same military up to Iran’s border will be a criminal war too far for Trump. Either he blows up the Middle East, destroying US and Israeli forces along with Iran in a conflict that could go nuclear, or he admits defeat, turns tail and sheds his warrior credibility.
By caving to Israeli demands, Trump has left himself no satisfactory way out. Has he met his match in large, powerful, resolute Iran? Sure looks like it.
Hegseth calls for U.S. space dominance.
Trump’s War Department is returning to this illusory vision that hopes to erase the multi-polar world in favor of American global dominance. Thus, despite all the nice talk about negotiating with China, Russia, Iran and other BRICS+ nations, the US is stepping deeply back into the big muddy. This time though it includes a major league arms race in space.
For years China and Russia have been introducing a global ban on weapons in space treaty at the United Nations. The US and Israel have been blocking the development of such a treaty that would close the door to the barn before the horses get out.
Bruce K. Gagnon , 7 Feb 26, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2026/02/hegseth-calls-for-us-space-dominance.html
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth delivered an overly confident and aggressive speech at Blue Origin’s Rocket Park in Florida (owned by Jeff Bezos), emphasizing the strategic importance of space in U.S. war-making.
Speaking to employees and big-wigs, Hegseth declared: ‘We will unleash American space dominance’.
He underscored that space is the ultimate high ground, criticized the Biden administration, and praised the military initiatives of President Trump, highlighting the urgency of American leadership in the ‘space race’.
This is not completely new as the US Space Command (and now the US Space Force) have long been calling for ‘America to come out on top’ in space.
He said, ‘We have a Commander in Chief who is interested in winning’.
The big difference these days is the current level of braggadocio and arrogance inside this administration.
‘We are just unleashing the war fighter to be lethal, disciplined, trained, accountable and ready’, he claimed.
Hegseth called it his ‘arsenal of freedom tour’ during the next month across the country. He declared that the administration intends to spend $1.5 trillion this year on war-making. ‘We will dominate in every domain’, he bragged.
Those funds include $25 billion to start work on Golden Dome – ‘total orbit supremacy’ he called it. ‘We have to dominate the space domain’.
He congratulated ‘America’s deterrence in action’ at the US border, in Venezuela, Yemen, and Iran.
He described the Pentagon as a place where we ‘rip out the bureaucracy….and expedite innovation for the war fighter’.
This aggressive talk reminds me of an Iraq-war era speech by author Thomas Barnett where he told an assembly of Pentagon and CIA reps that America’s role in the coming years would be ‘security export’. He said at that time that we won’t make shoes, cars, refrigerators and the like. It is cheaper to produce those products overseas. Our role under corporate globalization will be to play the role of world policeman.
Barnett declared that the Pentagon would go into nations not currently under our ‘control’ with overwhelming force – what he called ‘Leviathan’. But the problem he said, is who will run these countries after we take them over?
What we need he said is a force to run these nations after the initial take down. He called this team ‘Systems Administration’. Not too soon after watching his presentation I noticed that Lockheed Martin had received a huge contract to train ‘Sys Ad’ forces. Barnett said our ‘Sys Ad’ troops would never come home.
Barnett also claimed that the US would need legions of young people to go into the ‘Leviathan’ force and they would be easy to find because there are essentially no jobs in this country anymore. He said that we need to recruit these ‘angry young men’ who wile away their time playing violent video games. There is an endless supply of them across America.
Trump’s War Department is returning to this illusory vision that hopes to erase the multi-polar world in favor of American global dominance. Thus, despite all the nice talk about negotiating with China, Russia, Iran and other BRICS+ nations, the US is stepping deeply back into the big muddy. This time though it includes a major league arms race in space.
For years China and Russia have been introducing a global ban on weapons in space treaty at the United Nations. The US and Israel have been blocking the development of such a treaty that would close the door to the barn before the horses get out.
Trump appears to want to release all the war horses, and come what may, vainly attempt to make America ‘Mr. Big’ once again.
Does his administration understand they are on a crash course with WW3 – total global annihilation?
There is always an Achilles’ heel. In the case of the US it is our crumbling economy. Hegseth declares big dreams for global control. But where will the $$$ come from to pay for it? Do they intend to take Social Security for example?
Time will tell but in the meantime we all need to be on the case.
Protest and survive. Build resilience and hope. Keep paddling.
The Military’s AI Strategy Threatens Everything We Love
For Hegseth, the tech bros, and technofascists who have infiltrated the government, all of the above represent the best of American innovation. For them, innovation is a pseudonym for constant surveillance, never-ending warfare, and widespread environmental destruction.
On the same day as Hegseth’s SpaceX speech, a report revealed that the first four military bases to add data centers will be Fort Hood (Texas), Fort Bragg (North Carolina), Fort Bliss (Texas), and Dugway Proving Ground (Utah). Hegseth said these facilities will be developed through private partnership agreements with companies such as Google, Amazon Web Services, Oracle, SpaceX, and Microsoft.
February 7, 2026, By Chris Jeske for Codepink, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/07/the-militarys-ai-strategy-threatens-everything-we-love/
As did many fellow Americans, I chuckled when President Trump announced the creation of the U.S. Space Force on December 20, 2019. I even remember laughing heartily while taking in the late-night circuit’s many Star Trek jokes that day. Yet, I had mostly forgotten that the Space Force still exists until last week when Secretary of War Pete Hegseth started a policy speech alongside Elon Musk at SpaceX’s headquarters by flashing the Vulcan salute and affirming Musk’s desire to “make Star Trek real.”
The absurdity of Musk’s introduction–in which he spoke of “going beyond our star system to other star systems, where we may meet aliens or discover long dead alien civilizations” as if this could happen in any of our lifetimes–belied the seriousness of the new U.S. Military Artificial Intelligence strategy that Secretary Hegseth proceeded to announce.
Before an audience of Pentagon leadership and SpaceX employees, Hegseth outlined the structures, initiatives, and objectives in place to bring about what he called “America’s military AI dominance,” with his remarks largely following the plan documented in the July 2025 report “America’s AI Action Plan.”
A core goal Hegseth specified was “becoming an AI-first warfighting force across all domains.” He elaborated that AI will be deployed in three ways: for “warfighting, intelligence, and enterprise missions.”
Hegseth shared that the military’s generative AI model, known as genai.mil, launched last month for all three million Department of War (DOW) employees and will run on “every unclassified and classified network throughout our department.” The initial model was developed with Google Gemini and will soon incorporate xAI’s Grok. In its first month, one-third of DOW’s workforce (one million people) has used the generative AI model.
In the speech, Heseth repeated phrases such as “removing red tape,” “blowing up bureaucratic barriers,” and “taking a wartime approach” to the people and policies that he called “blockers.” Specifics he voiced disdain for included regulations in “Title 10 and 50″–referring to Title 10 of the U.S. Code (the legal bedrock of the armed forces, including the configuration of each branch) and Title 50 of the U.S. Code (the laws which govern national security, intelligence, defense contracts, war powers, and more). These don’t sound like the types of data, processes, and policies to treat with a ‘move fast and break things’ approach.
How genai.mil might be used is even more frightening, especially as we learn how other AI programs are already being used to direct intelligence, surveillance, and warfare.
An April 2024 report from +972 unveiled an Israeli military AI program known as “Lavender,” which was used to generate kill lists of Palestinians. Despite the program reportedly having a known 10 percent false identification rate, no human validation was required before launching air strikes on the AI-identified targets. Another system, known as “Where’s Daddy?,” employed AI to locate targeted individuals. The program was often most confident in a target being at a specific location when they were at home, so the air strikes regularly killed entire families instead of just the targeted individual.
Hegseth eagerly addressed the need for “responsible AI,” but this proved to be another instance of doublespeak. His description was as follows: “We will not employ AI models that won’t allow you to fight wars.” Perhaps the reason he needs to state this is that, in theory, a properly trained AI model would not likely recommend military action in most instances–especially if built upon the data of recent U.S.-involved wars.
Furthermore, Hegseth echoed President Trump, promising that the military’s AI will not be ‘woke’ or ‘confused by DEI and social justice.’ Such declarations raise the question of whether this could mean military AI models will be designed with explicit white supremacist biases. A July 2025 incident involving xAI’s Grok offers a prescient case study: After Elon Musk claimed to remove ‘political correctness’ and ‘wokeness’ from Grok, the program proceeded to praise Hitler, claim to be “MechaHitler,” and spew a series of antisemitic tropes.
Regardless of how genai.mil is ultimately used, it will require extraordinary computing power. While hyperscale data centers are already massive environmental risks, Executive Order 14318, “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure,” signed by President Trump on July 23, 2025, exempts qualifying projects from virtually all federal environmental regulations.
Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright is ‘all-in’ with the development of federal data centers and the required energy infrastructure. He’s joyfully referred to such initiatives as “the next Manhattan Project” on multiple occasions. As of July 2025, four national lab sites have been selected for data center and energy infrastructure development: Idaho National Laboratory (Idaho), Oak Ridge Reservation (Tennessee), Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Kentucky), and Savannah River Site (South Carolina).
On the same day as Hegseth’s SpaceX speech, a report revealed that the first four military bases to add data centers will be Fort Hood (Texas), Fort Bragg (North Carolina), Fort Bliss (Texas), and Dugway Proving Ground (Utah). Hegseth said these facilities will be developed through private partnership agreements with companies such as Google, Amazon Web Services, Oracle, SpaceX, and Microsoft.
These same companies are frequently the driving force behind commercial data centers popping up in municipalities across the nation. Regardless of where data centers are located–municipalities, national lab sites, or military bases–the environmental costs are massive. Aaron Kirshenbaum, CODEPINK’s War is Not Green Campaigner, documents power consumption, water usage, noise pollution, toxic waste, and rare mineral extraction among the many negative local impacts of data centers in our communities. “They must be fought against at all costs,” Kirshenbaum says.
For Hegseth, the tech bros, and technofascists who have infiltrated the government, all of the above represent the best of American innovation. For them, innovation is a pseudonym for constant surveillance, never-ending warfare, and widespread environmental destruction.
Yet, some wisdom never ages. George Manuel in The Fourth World: An Indian Reality speaks of the destructive tendencies of ‘innovations’ developed by settlers: “Europe’s most important contributions that are still of value today seem either to be means of transport or instruments of war: ships, wagons, steelware, certain breeds of horses, guns. Most of the other things that were brought to North America by Europeans came from other parts of the world: paper, print, gunpowder, glass, mathematics, and Christianity.”
So many science fiction classics are rooted in the truth of Manuel’s observation–that western industrial development fuels a lust for warfare and environmental destruction. The authors of these sci-fi classics–unlike our technofascist ‘geniuses’–are true visionaries who are concerned with the future of humanity, and who feel compelled to warn of what might become if we follow these dangerous ideologies that have fuelled centuries of colonialism, imperialism, and white supremacy to their logical conclusions.
Even Star Trek itself famously depicts a utopian future where humankind has moved beyond racism, beyond conquest, and beyond capitalism itself. “There simply couldn’t be a more anti-Trek idea than an ‘AI-first warfighting force across all domains,” says Gerry Canavan, a professor of English at Marquette University specializing in science fiction studies. “Watch just one episode of the show, and you’ll see.”
While it’s hard to take Musk and Hegseth seriously when they talk about making Star Trek real, I don’t doubt for a minute that they can find many new ways to violate our rights and destroy what we love about the natural world.
But we aren’t without hope. “For every science fiction narrative about a new technological means for violence and oppression,” Canavan says, “there’s another about what happens when the people suffering under the machine finally unite together to smash it, and take the future back for themselves.”
Just as the protagonists in our favorite science fiction stories actively struggle for and create the world they want to live in, so can we.
Chris Jeske is an organizer with CODEPINK Milwaukee and Associate Director of the Marquette University Center for Peacemaking.
Sorrowful day for peace largely ignored thruout America
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 7 Feb 26
The New Start Treaty between Russia and US expires today and America largely yawned. Big story on mainstream news? Faggedaboudit. Ask the person on the street about New Start and he might mutter something about giving disadvantaged kids free comprehensive early childhood education. Wait, wait…that’s Head Start.
Nope, New Start is the 16 year old treaty Obama signed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on February 8, 2010. It caps the number of nuclear warheads each side can deploy at 1,550 and limits the number of deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers to 800. Still enough for either side to incinerate us all, but prevents a senseless arms race and symbolic of the critical need to reduce nuclear tensions.
But limited US Russian nuclear arsenals go back 54 years as 2010 Russian New Start signer Medvedev reminded us yesterday. “That’s it. For the first time since 1972, Russia (the former USSR) and the US have no treaty limiting strategic nuclear forces. SALT 1, SALT 2, START I, START II, SORT, New START – All in the past, winter is coming.”
President Trump rebuffed Russian President Putin’s offer to extend the limits for another year for sensible diplomacy to negotiate a new treaty.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio used the lame excuse that any new treaty must include China. But with a nuclear arsenal a pittance of the two nuclear giants, China demurred saying any treaty involving China must include US Russian nuclear stockpiles reduced to China’s level. Rubio knew his requirement was a poison pill deal breaker for any new extension of New Start.
Dumping nuclear agreements is nothing new for Trump. He left office in January 20, 2021 ignoring New Start’s eminent expiration. Successor Biden promptly renewed New Start for 5 years, exactly 5 years ago today. This time Trump has succeeded in letting it expire on his watch.
This gives Trump a trifecta in dumping critically needed nuclear agreements. In August 2019 Trump withdrew from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that banned all land-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km. . In November 2020, just before leaving office, Trump withdrew from the 2002 Open Skies Treaty which allowed the US and Russia to conduct short-notice, unarmed reconnaissance flights over each other’s territory to monitor military activities.
The only positive glimmer to put on Trump’s refusal to extend New Start, even for a measly year to negotiate a long term agreement? Trump has no more nuclear agreements to withdraw from in the last sorrowful 3 years of his second term.
This January the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock, symbolic of approaching global catastrophe, to 85 seconds to Midnight, the closest in its 79 year history. With Trump president, the Bulletin might want to quickly reconvene for another gander at our march toward world annihilation. Next January, none of us might around to hear the 2027 announcement.
The US Keeps Openly Admitting It Deliberately Caused The Iran Protests
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 06, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-us-keeps-openly-admitting-it?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=187080859&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explicitly stated that the US deliberately caused a financial crisis in Iran with the goal of fomenting civil unrest in the country.
Asked by Senator Katie Britt what more the US can be doing to place pressure on the Ayatollah and Iran, Bessent explained that the Treasury Department has implemented a “strategy” designed to undermine the Iranian currency which crashed the economy and sparked the violent protests we’ve seen throughout the country.
“One thing we could do at Treasury, and what we have done, is created a dollar shortage in the country,” Bessent said. “At a speech at the Economic Club in March I outlined the strategy. It came to a swift and I would say grand culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under. There was a run on the bank, the central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded, and hence we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.”
This is not the first time Bessent has made these admissions. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, the treasury secretary said the following:
“President Trump ordered Treasury and our OFAC division, Office of Foreign Asset Control, to put maximum pressure on Iran. And it’s worked, because in December, their economy collapsed. We saw a major bank go under; the central bank has started to print money. There is dollar shortage. They are not able to get imports, and this is why the people took to the street. So, this is economic statecraft, no shots fired, and things are moving in a very positive way here.”
Following these remarks, Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Farres wrote the following for Common Dreams:
“What Secretary Bessent describes is of course not ‘economic statecraft’ in a traditional sense. It is war conducted by economic means, all designed to produce an economic crisis and social unrest leading to a fall of the government. This is proudly hailed as ‘economic statecraft.’
“The human suffering caused by outright war and crushing economic sanctions is not so different as one might think. Economic collapse produces shortages of food, medicine, and fuel, while also destroying savings, pensions, wages, and public services. Deliberate economic collapse drives people into poverty, malnutrition, and premature death, just as outright war does.”
Bessent laid out these plans in advance at the Economic Club of New York back in March of last year, saying the following:
“Last month, the White House announced its maximum pressure campaign on Iran designed to collapse its already buckling economy. The Iranian economy is in disarray; 35% official inflation, has a currency that has depreciated 60% in the last 12 months, and an ongoing energy crisis. I know a few things about currency devaluations, and if I were an Iranian, I would get all of my money out of the Rial now.
“This precarious state exists before our Maximum Pressure campaign, designed to collapse Iranian oil exports from the current 1.5–1.6, million barrels per day, back to the trickle they were when President Trump left office.
“Iran has developed a complex shadow network of financial facilitators and black-market oil shippers via a ghost fleet to sell oil, petrochemical and other commodities to finance its exports and generate hard currency.
“As such, we have elevated a sanctions campaign against this export infrastructure, targeting all stages of Iran’s oil supply chain. We have coupled this with vigorous government engagement and private sector outreach.
“We will close off Iran’s access to the international financial system by targeting regional parties that facilitate the transfer of its revenues. Treasury is prepared to engage in frank discussions with these countries. We are going to shut down Iran’s oil sector and drone manufacturing capabilities.
“We have predetermined benchmarks and timelines. Making Iran Broke Again will mark the beginning of our updated sanctions policy. Watch this space.”
The US has been orchestrating plans to foment unrest in Iran by causing economic strife for years. In 2019 Trump’s previous secretary of state Mike Pompeo openly acknowledged that the goal of Washington’s economic warfare against Iran was to make the population so miserable that they “change the government”, cheerfully citing the “economic distress” the nation had been placed under by US sanctions.
As unrest tore through Iran last month, Trump egged protesters on and encouraged them to escalate, saying “To all Iranian patriots, keep protesting, take over your institutions, if possible, and save the name of the killers and the abusers that are abusing you,” adding, “all I say to them is help is on its way.”
Deliberately trying to ignite a civil war in a country by immiserating its population so severely that they start attacking their own government out of sheer desperation is one of the most evil things you can possibly imagine. But under the western empire it’s just another day. They’re doing it in Iran, and they’ve also aggressively ramped up efforts to do it in Cuba, where the government has just announced it will be rationing oil as the US moves to strangle the island nation into regime change.
A lot of attention is going into the Epstein files right now, and understandably so. But it’s worth noting that nothing in them is as depraved and abusive as what our rulers are doing right out in the open.
US and Russia negotiating New START deal – Axios.
The issue was reportedly discussed on the sidelines of the Ukraine peace talks in Abu Dhabi
5 Feb, 2026 , https://www.rt.com/news/632065-us-russia-negotiate-new-start/
Moscow and Washington are working on a deal to continue the New START nuclear reduction treaty, Axios reported on Thursday, citing three sources familiar with the issue. The strategic arms control agreement officially expired on February 5.
Signed in 2010, the treaty put caps on the number of strategic nuclear warheads and launchers that can be deployed and establishes monitoring mechanisms for both Russian and American arsenals. It was initially set to expire in 2021 but was extended for five years at the time.
According to Axios, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff discussed the issue with the Russian delegation on the sidelines of the Ukraine peace talks in Abu Dhabi. “We agreed with Russia to operate in good faith and to start a discussion about ways it could be updated,” a US official told the media outlet. Another source claimed that the sides had agreed to observe the treaty’s terms for at least six months as the talks on a potential new deal would be ongoing.
Earlier on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow suggested sticking to the treaty’s provisions for another year but its initiative “remained unanswered.” Russia will “keep its responsible attentive approach in the field of strategic stability [and] nuclear weapons” but will be always “primarily guided by its national interests,” he said.
The UN also called the treaty expiration “a grave moment for international peace and security.” Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that “the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades” as he urged Moscow and Washington to negotiate a successor framework.
Russian President Vladimir Putin had earlier proposed to his US counterpart Donald Trump a one-year extension of the treaty but the American president said that he wanted a “better” agreement that includes China.
On Thursday, Peskov said that China considers joining the talks on a new treaty “pointless” since its nuclear arsenal is incompatible with that of Russia and the US. “We respect this position,” the Kremlin spokesman said.
Trump to Congress: “I don’t need your stinkin’ approval to fund Israeli genocide in Gaza”
4 February 2026 AIMN Editorial Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL https://theaimn.net/trump-to-congress-i-dont-need-your-stinkin-approval-to-fund-israeli-genocide-in-gaza/
Trump is so anxious to continue funding Israel’s genocide of Palestinians Gaza that he won’t wait for customary congressional approval.
He authorized a mammoth weapons tranche of $6.6 billion to Israel which includes:
- AH-64E Apache Helicopters and related equipment costing $3.8 billion
- Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and related equipment costing $1.98 billion
- Armored Personnel Carrier equipment and related logistics support costing $740 million
- AW119Kx Light Utility Helicopters and related equipment costing $150 million
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House oversight committee, blasted Trump’s action.
“Just one hour ago, the Trump administration informed me it would disregard congressional oversight and years of standing practice, and immediately notify over $6 billion in arms sales to Israel. Shamefully, this is now the second time the Trump administration has blatantly ignored long-standing Congressional prerogatives while also refusing to engage Congress on critical questions about the next steps in Gaza and broader US policy,”
Trump has no interest in using our tax dollars to fund decent health care, education, affordable housing, green energy, infrastructure; indeed everything needed to uplift the commons. But like predecessor Biden did when Israeli Prime Minister calls for more genocide weapons, Trump listens… then stands and delivers.
The U.S. occupation of Gaza has begun
The plans for Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” show that the goal is not just to make Gaza a playground for the wealthy, but to put it under permanent American occupation.
Mondoweiss, By Mitchell Plitnick January 30, 2026
This week, Drop Site News revealed a draft resolution from Trump’s newly christened “Board of Peace.” The resolution outlines what is, in essence, Phase Two of Trump’s unrealistic peace plan that ushered in a new phase of horror in Gaza under the guise of a ceasefire.
The actions outlined in the resolution ignore realities on the ground and paint a very grim picture of what the United States is planning for Gaza. Far from abandoning the ludicrous and offensive imagery Trump shared in that AI video from last year of himself and Elon Musk on a beach in an unrecognizable Gaza, this resolution is the battle plan to turn Gaza into the playground for the wealthy that Jared Kushner presented to the World Economic Forum at Davos last week. It’s a Gaza where the only Palestinians remaining are those chosen to be the servants in the new regime.
It’s a Gaza under permanent American occupation.
The “Executive Board” that would control Gaza
The Board of Peace (BoP) itself has drawn the most attention, but it is not the focal point for Gaza. The BoP is being set up as an international force to challenge the United Nations. It is currently populated entirely by far-right and autocratic figures, and will likely stay that way.
The BoP will be headed by Donald Trump and his role as Board Chair is personal, disconnected from his role as President of the United States. He has full power over the Board’s composition and full veto power over all of its actions. Trump will remain in control of the BoP until he decides to leave or he dies, and he has the sole authority to name his successor. You couldn’t build a clearer autocracy.
The BoP can delegate its authority as it wishes, and that is what it has done regarding Gaza. The “Executive Board” (EB) is the body that will govern Gaza. The EB itself will also have other areas within its portfolio, so it, too, has delegated its power to yet another group, dubbed the Gaza Executive Board (GEB). There is considerable overlap between the members of the EB and GEB.
The members of the GEB include some very familiar names like Steve Witkoff, Trump’s lead negotiator; Susan Wiles, his Chief of Staff; Jared Kushner, his son-in-law; and Tony Blair the former PM of the UK and a war criminal in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The rest of the names may be less familiar, but they are all important and, together, they draw a very worrisome picture of how this Board will behave ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Palestinians not included in planning Gaza’s future
While there are no Israelis on the Executive Board, it is stacked with extreme supporters of the Israeli right and of Netanyahu. This makes the vague mandate of the entire enterprise much more concerning.
The proposal published by Drop Site states that “the reconstruction and rehabilitation activities of the Board shall be dedicated solely to those who regard Gaza as their home and place of residence.”
But the proposal offers no opportunity for the people of Gaza to have any say at all in their present situation, let alone their future. The EB governs all of the laws. An American-led International Stabilization Force (ISF) controls all security.
The ISF is to be under the command of American Major General Jasper Jeffers. Trump, and Trump alone, has the power to remove the commander of the ISF and must personally approve any nominee to replace him.
The plan further states that “only those persons who support and act consistently [with Trump’s Comprehensive Plan for Gaza] will be eligible to participate in governance, reconstruction, economic development, or humanitarian assistance activities in Gaza.”
In other words, Palestinians who wish to be part of Gaza in any way must meet Trump’s litmus test of support for the external American control of the Gaza Strip. The same will be true for any business, NGO, or even individual who wants to participate in any way in rebuilding Gaza, physically, politically, or economically.
Ideally, for Trump and Jared Kushner, Gaza would be transformed into a giant “company town.” Most of the coastline would be dedicated to tourism. The bulk of Gaza’s eastern border with Israel would be dedicated to industrial zones and huge data centers, doubtless reflecting the massive investments Trump and his Emirati friends are making in AI.
In between would be residential areas separated by parks, agricultural, and sporting sites. In the West Bank, such parks and agricultural areas are frequently declared closed military zones and used for other purposes by the occupying force.
As has been apparent from the beginning, the only role currently envisioned for Palestinians is in the administration of the Executive Board’s decisions. In other words, Palestinian technocrats, laborers, and office workers would be “permitted” to carry out the decisions made for them by others.
The U.S. occupation of Gaza
This resolution provides only a bit more substance to the half-baked ideas Trump has been putting forward since October. And it continues to envision a near-future where Hamas has voluntarily disarmed, Israel has pulled out of Gaza, and the ISF has assumed security control that is welcomed by whatever Palestinians remain in Gaza.
All of that remains fully in the realm of fantasy.
Hamas has repeatedly made it clear that it is willing to discuss decommissioning its weapons, but would not disarm. Given that Israel is, once again, funding rogue Palestinian gangs in Gaza, complete disarmament is suicide for many members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other factions.
The United States is discussing offering amnesty and even a buy-back program for the weapons, but these offers are hardly useful if the lives of Hamas members are put at grave risk by disarmament, even if we assume that the U.S. keeps to its word and that Israel does not itself hunt these fighters down.
Moreover, Israel is bristling at this entire plan. They prefer to bring the hammer down again on Gaza, especially now that there are no hostages, dead or alive, to be concerned with.
Netanyahu is openly stating that Israel will allow no rebuilding in Gaza—where it is killing people, including infants, not only with its weapons but by denying Palestinians the materials to shelter from the winter elements—until Hamas is “disarmed.”
…………………………Israel has already reportedly drawn up a plan for a major military operation, a return to the full-blown genocide of last year, which it plans to launch in March unless the U.S. refuses to allow it to do so.
…………………..What is taking shape in Gaza is a new kind of foreign occupation. This time, the U.S. would be the leading force on the ground unless it allows Israel to renew its aggression, something Trump doesn’t want.
………………………….An American occupation of Gaza on Israel’s behalf will be just as unwelcome by Palestinians as an Israeli one backed by the United States. It may take some time for the people of Gaza to regroup from the past two and a half years to organize impactful resistance, but it will come, as it always has.
The solution is simple: allow Palestinians their freedom and their rights. But that solution is beyond the imagination of Washington and Tel Aviv. So, meet the new occupation. It will be no more pleasant than the old one. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/01/the-u-s-occupation-of-gaza-has-begun/
Dissecting The Belief That The US Should Forcibly Remove Tyrannical Governments
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 02, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/dissecting-the-belief-that-the-us?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=186562873&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
“Government X does bad things” and “therefore the US should forcibly overthrow Government X” are two completely different claims. Propagandists keep acting like they’re the same claim and like the second claim naturally follows the first, and I’m seeing far too many people accepting this manipulation without question.
They are not the same claim. They’re entirely unrelated. It should not be necessary to explain this to grown adults, but here we are.
Even if we accept as fact all the claims about how badly the US-targeted government is behaving, and even if we ignore the obvious fact that unilateral US regime change wars are against international law, there is still no valid reason to accept that a government doing bad things justifies US regime change interventionism.
Just because a foreign government has done bad things does not mean it would be good if another government took military action to overthrow them. This is uniquely true of the United States, who is quantifiably the single most tyrannical government on earth, and whose regime change interventionism reliably causes more death, suffering and abuse than its proponents claimed they were trying to stop.
The United States is the very last government on earth who has any business engaging in humanitarian interventionism. Literally dead last. No other government has been responsible for more catastrophic military actions justified under humanitarian pretenses than Washington and its network of allies and proxies.
Most of the violence, chaos and instability we’ve seen in the middle east in recent decades has been the fallout from prior western interventionism under the leadership of the United States. Dropping a Jewish ethnostate on top of a pre-existing civilization, installing puppet regimes, setting up military bases, invading Iraq, backing the Saudi genocide in Yemen, deliberately fomenting violent uprisings in Libya and Syria, and countless other interventions have kept the middle east from following the rest of humanity into a state of relative peace and stability after the second world war.
“Therefore the US should forcibly overthrow Government X” also doesn’t naturally follow from “Government X does bad things” because the US generally doesn’t overthrow governments who do bad things. A majority of the world’s dictatorships are armed and supported by the United States.
There are many, many tyrannical governments in our world whose abuses you hardly ever hear about, because they are not enemies of the US empire. You don’t hear western media and western governments constantly shrieking about the mass atrocities of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other tyrannical Gulf state monarchies, for example, because they are aligned with the global interests of the US hegemon.
This shows that the US never actually attacks countries to stop their governments from doing bad things. That might be the excuse, but it’s never the reason. The governments targeted by the United States do tend to be more authoritarian than the western liberal ideal because if they weren’t controlling their country with an iron fist they would have already folded to US efforts to absorb them into the imperial power umbrella a long time ago, but that’s never the real reason for targeting them.
The real reason is global hegemony. The US never attacks foreign governments because they are doing bad things, it only ever attacks them for being disobedient and failing to kiss the imperial ring.
It is therefore crazy and stupid to pretend “Government X does bad things” should naturally give rise to the expectation that the US should forcibly overthrow that government. The US never deposes foreign governments for doing bad things, and when it does depose them it reliably leads to far more chaos, suffering and destruction than if it had just minded its own affairs.
Propagandists rely on repetition, echo chambers, information dominance and narrative distortion to manipulate our minds. But they also rely on our own lack of basic critical thinking skills. A little robust examination of our underlying assumptions goes a long way.
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (102)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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 