Trump’s Will Be Done
SCHEERPOST, April 14, 2026 Joshua Scheer Intro
At a moment when political power is increasingly wrapped in spectacle, symbolism, and something closer to religious devotion than democratic accountability, this piece from ScheerPost cuts straight through the illusion. In “Trump’s Will Be Done,” Kenneth A. Carlson examines the dangerous fusion of faith and politics that has helped elevate Donald Trump beyond the realm of politician and into something far more untouchable in the eyes of his followers.
Republishing this now feels especially urgent. As imagery, rhetoric, and power continue to blur into something resembling mythology, Carlson’s question lingers with uncomfortable clarity: not just what would Jesus do—but what happens when political loyalty begins to replace it.
As the war abroad spirals and the stakes grow more dangerous by the day, the spectacle at home has taken on an almost surreal edge. President Donald Trump briefly posted—and then deleted—an AI-generated image depicting himself in Christ-like form, hands glowing as he “healed” the sick, wrapped in flags, fighter jets, and divine symbolism. When pressed, Trump dismissed the backlash, claiming it was merely an image of him as a doctor, not a messianic figure.
But the moment lands differently in a political climate already saturated with religious imagery, blind allegiance, and the merging of power with mythology. It’s not just a post—it’s a signal—one that fits neatly into a broader pattern where politics becomes performance, leadership becomes spectacle, and belief begins to blur into something far more dangerous.
Which brings us to the reality this piece explores: what happens when illusion collides with consequence.
By Kenneth A. Carlson ScheerPost
Trump’s Will Be Done
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Today, Donald Trump, the former reality TV star, and those around him, understand how to do this all too well. They took their skillset to a new level as they somehow succeeded in fashioning him, and/or he fashioned himself, into a new role as a modern-day messiah — the Chosen One, the Second Coming, the Son of God. And I truly believe he sees himself this way. Remember, this is the same man who once bragged, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” The shocking thing about that statement? It’s likely to be 100% true.
And why? I believe it’s due to some extent to the unfortunate fact that critical thinking in our society is on life-support. People don’t question. They don’t dive deeply and independently into issues. They let others feed it to them in their own private echo chambers. The thirst for knowledge has been replaced by blind allegiance, paving the way for the rise of Donald “The Music Man” Trump — a master showman selling a reckless and dangerous illusion. ……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………. what Donald Trump has tapped into. He positions himself as a godlike figure, offering his followers a false sense of security — a “Daddy’s Home” mentality (yes, there are actual T-shirts for sale on Amazon).
Trump has lulled his base into a dangerous complacency, even as they watch stock markets tumble, inflation soar, entire agencies dismantled, jobs slashed, tariff wars escalated, and unemployment climb. Yet the news they consume assures them it’s all part of his grand plan, and so they wait — idly, expectantly — for a miracle. I never thought my livelihood would be at risk when I voted for him, they say, as if the consequences were unforeseeable.
But critical thinking has been shoved to the backseat, while blind faith handed Trump the wheel. Many have stopped questioning, stopped discerning, stopped seeking truth — because they believe the Almighty Donald Trump will ultimately take care of business.
Nothing could be further from the truth — and the sheer number of his businesses that have filed for bankruptcy should be proof enough. Six of his companies (that we know of) have sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, allowing them to continue operating while erasing massive debts. But behind that legal maneuvering lies a harsh reality: hundreds, perhaps thousands, of workers, vendors, and small businesses left unpaid for their goods and services, are bearing the cost of his failures.
But none of that seems to matter to his unwavering base — the citizens of this so-called God-fearing nation. As a collective, today’s Evangelical and Charismatic Christians appear all too willing to believe a man who promises to end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East within hours, slash grocery prices, “end inflation,” and miraculously lower the cost of eggs. He also assures us the economy will be “the best ever” — thanks, in large part, to tariffs imposed on both allies and adversaries alike. Few reputable economists would dispute the fact that American consumers will ultimately bear the cost of these tariffs — better known as taxes.
And yet, just over two months into his second term, none of these campaign promises have materialized — not even close. In fact, some might argue the exact opposite has happened.
So why do people still believe him? Why do they worship him with such fervent devotion? Why do they trust him with blind, unquestioning enthusiasm? I believe it’s because he has transcended the role of a mere politician. He has fashioned himself into something greater — a deity of sorts — untouchable, unquestionable, and, to many, infallible.
Trump’s will be done.
So when I ask myself today, ”What would Jesus do?,” the answer seems clear: seek truth, think critically, care for “the other” and break free from the echo chambers that breed blind allegiance. Because if we don’t, our Constitution could erode, our democracy could falter, and Donald Trump could seize the power to declare himself president for an unconstitutional third term — or worse, for life.
Not a Ceasefire—A Reset: The Quiet Expansion of Palestinian Incarceration
April 14, 2026, ScheerPost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/14/not-a-ceasefire-a-reset-the-quiet-expansion-of-palestinian-incarceration/
While global attention drifts, the machinery of occupation does not slow—it tightens. Arrests replace releases. Silence replaces scrutiny. And behind it all, a system of incarceration continues to expand, largely out of view.
In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa sits down with scholar-activist Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi to expose what they describe as a revolving door of detention shaping daily life for Palestinians. What emerges is not simply a prison system—but an architecture of control that extends far beyond prison walls, touching every aspect of Palestinian existence.
More than 9,000 Palestinians are currently held in Israeli custody—a number that continues to climb even after high-profile prisoner releases.
Despite the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners during what was labeled a ceasefire in October 2025, a new wave of arrests has already erased that moment. Today, more than 9,000 Palestinians are again held in Israeli custody, according to Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, with the total constantly shifting as new detentions replace those released.
“It’s a revolving door,” she explains. “You release prisoners—and then you arrest more.”
At the center of that system is administrative detention—imprisonment without charge, without trial, and often without end. Detainees may never be told what they’re accused of, while access to lawyers, family, and even basic information is severely restricted.
Two legal systems operate side by side: one for Israeli settlers, another for Palestinians. Even children are caught in it—Palestinian minors can be prosecuted as adults under military law, stripped of protections others receive.
Inside prisons, conditions continue to deteriorate: reduced food, denied medical care, and near-total isolation since October 2023.
But the system doesn’t end at the prison gates.
Night raids, arbitrary arrests, and movement restrictions turn daily life into an extension of confinement—what Abdulhadi describes as a reality where prison becomes a condition, not just a place.
Children grow up inside it. Families are fractured by it. Entire communities are shaped around it.
And still, the cycle continues.
“The people will resist because they want to live,” Abdulhadi says. This is not a story of what has happened—but of what is still happening, in front of our very eyes.
About children who can identify military aircraft before they can read. Children who grow up navigating checkpoints, raids, and the constant threat of arrest.
“They should not be scared every night,” Abdulhadi says. “They should not have nightmares.”
CND opposes new contract to build nuclear reactors on Anglesey.
COMMENT Just by the way, in this new Trumpian era, our nuclear sites become a useful weapon for an enemy – an appealing target to be attacked
Anti-nuclear campaigners have condemned plans to build small modular
reactors (SMRs) at Wylfa on Anglesey, dismissing claims that they will
bring energy independence as a “fantasy” today.
CND Cymru commented
after contracts to construct Britain’s first SMRs in north Wales were
signed. Anglesey was selected last year to become the site of the SMR
programme by the Labour government at Westminster.
CND Cymru national
secretary Dylan Lewis-Rowlands said: “Nuclear power does not deliver
energy independence. Wales doesn’t mine fissile material, lacks the
ability to enrich it and convert it into fuel, and has no storage capacity.
“We need to end the corporate nuclear fantasy and focus on the
deliverable solutions that can be done quicker, cheaper and placed in the
hands of communities — that is how we truly make Wales energy
independent.”
Morning Star 13th April 2026, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/cnd-opposes-new-contract-build-nuclear-reactors-anglesey
US Aims at Heavy Staff & Budgetary Cuts for United Nations, Seeks to Launch Cost-Saving Artificial Intelligence at UN meetings
By Thalif Deen, UNITED NATIONS, Apr 6 2026 (IPS) –
The US has spelled out in detail its own concept of what a restructured United Nations should look like: after drastic reductions in staff, cutting down its budget, avoiding duplication in mandates, slashing peacekeeping operations worldwide and deploying artificial intelligence (AI) for translations and interpretations in six languages.
As the biggest single contributor to the UN budget—and despite nearly $4.0 billion in unpaid dues—it is using its perceived financial clout to help radically change the world body.
The US says it wants to “make UN great again (MUNGA)”—a variation of President Trump’s oft-repeated slogan “Make America Great Again (MAGA).” ”.
But will it work? And is it feasible?
Ambassador Mike Waltz, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, addressing a Congressional Field Hearing on UN Reform, said last week, “As I stated in my confirmation hearing, the UN truly does need to get what we’re calling back to basics and back to its original mission, from its founding, back to maintaining international peace and security.
“As I’ve mentioned in my hearing then, the UN’s budget in the last 25 years has quadrupled. We have not seen, arguably, a quadrupling of peace and security around the world commensurate with those hard-earned dollars, he said.
“So, we are pressing it. We’re pressing it to streamline its bureaucracy, to eliminate duplication. We’ve made it clear that we will cease participation in some UN agencies that undermine our sovereignty and cannot be reformed.”
Earlier this year, he pointed out, President Trump announced “our withdrawal from 66 international organizations. That review is ongoing. And from my perspective, let me be clear, the U.S. will not fund organizations that act contrary to our interests.”
“On UN compensation and personnel,” he said, “We’re leading reforms to what are often exorbitant compensation and benefit standards that the over 100,000 UN staff receive. The UN pays 17% more than US equivalent civil servants, even though many of them are right here in New York.
“They also have additional generous benefits packages far exceeding what our great civil servants, both here and abroad, receive. And staff costs alone are 70% of their regular budget for these things we’re trying to bring back in line.
“So, we need to, and we are working to bring those compensation and benefits packages back in line with common-sense standards. Part of that will be the pension. There’s over $100 billion in management in the UN pension with 16%—I don’t know of an employer or a government out there that contributes 16% to their pension.”
And there are other reforms, he said.
For example, the number of interpreters and translators—times six for the six UN languages here—technology can be used, AI can be used, and remote translation can be used that will save a lot of the travel and the conference costs, said Waltz.
Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and director of Middle Eastern Studies, who has written extensively on the politics of the United Nations, told Inter Press Service (IPS) this is not about cost-cutting or fiscal responsibility.
“Like cutbacks to important U.S. government agencies and domestic programs, the Trump administration appears determined to dismantle the system itself.”
This should be understood in the context of pulling out of international organizations and treaties, the establishment of the so-called “Board of Peace,” the Iran War, and the recently announced dramatic increases in military spending—it is about undermining international legal institutions and replacing them with an imperial order backed by raw military force, said Zunes.
Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, told IPS in the first half of 2025, U.S. policy towards the UN was pretty chaotic, and diplomats from other countries really had no idea what Washington wanted from the world organization.
Like it or not, he said, Mike Waltz and his team have brought some message discipline and are clarifying their goals for the UN pretty sharply.
“Most diplomats say that Waltz can be reasonable in private and that ultimately, he and his team want to reshape the UN rather than just wreck it. There are times when Waltz goes out of his way to bash the UN and individual UN officials on social media, but I think that is partly him playing to the Republican base.”
Waltz is clear that he wants a slimmed-down UN, Gowan pointed out, and it is worth admitting that this is a popular message among many UN member states. The U.S. is not alone in thinking that the organization’s bureaucracy has grown too big and needs a tough financial diet.
“Trump, Rubio and Waltz are pretty consistent in arguing that the UN should focus on peace and security issues. But I think the administration has not really convinced most other UN members that it has a plan to make the UN deliver on conflict prevention and diplomacy again.”
Instead, he said, the U.S. appears to have a very selective and instrumentalist approach to when and how it uses the UN as a security partner. It wants the UN to help in Haiti but to get out of the way in Lebanon. I do not think there is really a coherent vision at work here. It is a very ad hoc, case-by-case approach.
“Trump’s boosting of the Board of Peace as a potential alternative to the UN has complicated Waltz’s position too. The fact that Trump is willing to flirt with the Board, even if it is not a very serious institution, makes it harder to believe that Washington really wants the UN to regain credibility on peace and security,” declared Gowan.
Meanwhile, excerpts from Ambassador Waltz’s testimony include the following:
- “On budget and staffing cuts, the UN should be doing less and doing it better. Let’s get it more focused and actually achieve more results. The 2026 UN regular budget was estimated at $3.45 billion. The U.S. funds roughly a fifth of that at $820 million in 2025 alone.
- Again, I think we need to reduce the UN’s size and assure every taxpayer dollar is spent responsibly, and thanks to the strong efforts by the United States, led by Ambassador Bartos here and his team in what we call the UN’s Fifth Committee, which approves its budget, we are working towards a leaner and better prioritized 2026 budget going forward.
- In December, we led Member States to adopt a historic 15% cut. $570 million out of the UN’s regular budget. That will eliminate nearly 3000 headquarters positions. And for our contribution, it will reduce our assessment by $126 million. So just in the six months that we’ve been here, we will see going forward, $126 million savings to the U.S. taxpayer.
- We’ve also pushed for a 25% reduction in peacekeeping troops, and I’ll talk a bit about other peacekeeping reforms in a moment that will also save us tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars while enabling what we call here the repatriation, the sending home of poorly performing peacekeeping troops.
- From an oversight perspective, beyond the salaries and benefits, oversight is essential. We’re leading efforts to empower oversight bodies to root out waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct.
- On peacekeeping reform, he said, the administration has been clear about focusing on the core mandate of peace and security, and we’re leading efforts to wind down some of these ineffective and costly peacekeeping missions.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. “We will have a new Secretary-General elected this year, and we’re having those conversations now with the candidates about what they seek to keep and continue or what new things they seek to put in place, but reform is at the top of our list as we meet with some of these candidates.
“So, this is a critical moment with senior leadership transitions approaching here over this next year. We need to have a clear message. We will prioritize qualified Americans. Representative DeLauro, along the lines of what you sought to do so many years ago, of having qualified Americans in UN leadership positions, not just here, but across the ecosystem in Geneva, in Vienna, and Nairobi and other places where you have UN agencies.
“And I’ll just conclude with echoing President Trump’s own words.
“As he said most recently at the General Assembly, the UN has tremendous potential. My charge from him is to help it realize that potential. We are dedicated to making the UN live up to that promise, to making the UN great again—if I can say so, our new acronym is MUNGA…………. https://www.ipsnews.net/2026/04/us-aims-at-heavy-staff-budgetary-cuts-seeks-to-launch-cost-saving-artificial-intelligence-at-un-meetings/?utm_source=email_marketing&utm_admin=146128&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=US_Pushes_Sweeping_UN_Cuts_Including_Staff_Reductions_and_Budget_Slashes_Inequalities_in_Human_Morta
Ceasefire Exemptions and Quarries of Death: Israel’s War on Lebanon
11 April 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/ceasefire-exemptions-and-quarries-of-death-israels-war-on-lebanon/
In the Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defines peace as a period of cheating between two periods of fighting. The Israeli version of a ceasefire might be defined as a moment of war deceptively halted to enable conflict to continue. War as cosplay and camouflage. Under such fragile conditions, military objectives can still be pursued with a ruthlessness offensive to international law, custom and common sense.
Seeing as Israel was a central, if not the central power in pushing the crime of aggression on February 28 against Iran, wooing with seductive voice and lurid promise a deranged egoist in the White House (glory and oil awaits thee, Mr President), not to mention the dedicated thorn in any Middle East peace process that threatens sabotage to any enduring arrangements, the continued attacks on Lebanon seemed quotidian. With a war crimes habit well and truly formed, Israel had already issued displacement orders for some 14% of Lebanon, including areas south of the Zahrani River, a majority chunk of Beirut’s southern suburbs and cuts of the Beqaa region.
With their campaign hitting its strides, the Israeli Defense Forces showed no intention of ceasing operations, despite a Pakistan mediated ceasefire that had paused hostilities between Tehran and Washington. While the parties wrangled over what conditions the Strait of Hormuz would be opened under and what a more lasting peace agreement might look like, Israel exempted itself. While not striking Iran, it would continue its onslaught in Lebanon, despite statements from Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that the ceasefire would also apply to Lebanon. In the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Israel supports President Trump’s decision to suspend strikes against Iran for two weeks subject to Iran immediately opening the straits and stopping all attacks on the US, Israel and countries in the region.” However, the “ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”
Even homicidal routines can shock with spikes of freakish, callous intensity. These included the 100 strikes within 10 minutes on April 8 that resulted in the deaths of at least 303 people, with 1,150 injured. The Israeli authorities claimed that the majority of those killed were members of Hezbollah, though even a two-third fraction takes it into less than principled territory. The targets lay in the southern suburbs of Beirut, southern Lebanon and the eastern Bekaa Valley. In justifying the slaughter, the IDF expressed the usual pride akin to tribes seeking scalps: the raids had “eliminated Ali Yusuf Harshi, the personal secretary and nephew of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem.” Another official dead, only for another to take his place in due course.
The usual, casual destruction of infrastructure that would rankle most justice departments was also celebrated, with the IDF striking “two key crossings used by Hezbollah terrorists and commanders for movement from north to south of the Litani River in Lebanon to transfer thousands of weapons, rockets, and launchers.” Use of such crossings by civilians was of no interest, though the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) did state on March 23 that the destruction of crucial bridges had “significantly [disrupted] movement and humanitarian access,” with certain strikes severing the link between Tyre and Nabatieh, while also limiting “movement between south Lebanon and West Bekaa, including Marjayoun and Hasbaya.”
The previous night, Israeli forces struck a building in front of Hiram Hospital in Al-Aabbassiye, near Tyre. This damaged the hospital and cost the lives of four people. Another strike on the Islamic Health Authority in Qlaileh hit an ambulance, resulting in three deaths. When it comes to targeting and the IDF, categories are highly mutable.
The scale of such killings astonished the United Nations Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. “The scale of the killing and destruction in Lebanon today is nothing short of horrific,” stated the High Commissioner on April 8. “Such carnage, within hours of agreeing to a ceasefire with Iran, defies belief. It places enormous pressure one a fragile peace, which is so desperately needed by civilians.” In truth, they need far more than a fragile peace, and certainly not the targeting pedantry that appears in IDF briefings and justifications, the sort that see corpses as more useful and living civilians. Even in war, Türk states in firm reminder, “Each and every attack must comply with international humanitarian law fundamental principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions to protect civilians.”
The UN official must surely know by now that Israel operates in a vacuum all who have committed crimes in international law inhabit, the quarry of the necropolis, the architectural vision of the Grim Reaper. Even the names for Israel’s military operations are drawn increasingly from the dark – literally. “Operation Eternal Darkness was a very powerful blow to Hezbollah, leaving it stunned and confused by the depth of the penetration and the scale of the track,” glowed Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz in his video statement. “More than 200 terrorists were eliminated yesterday, bringing the number of those eliminated in this campaign to 1,400.” This was “more than double the number in the Second Lebanon War.” It’s all about thanatotic accounting.
This butchery has taken place in conjunction with the establishment of a four-line security zone in Lebanon. The first is the unimaginative and common destruction of Lebanese villages that might serve as launching posts for Hezbollah attacks and briefing notes for prosecutors of international criminal law; the second constitutes a “defensive line” in Lebanon, currently made up of five forward army posts, and set to bulk to 15. The third comprises the “anti-tank” line and the fourth the Litani River, a goal of security so cherished as to be fetishised in Israeli military objectives. There, according to Katz, the IDF will “prevent further infiltration of terrorists and the return of residents southbound.”
A stunning volte face in these arrangements would be the acceptance of a ceasefire and a genuine affirmation that peace is preferable to war. But the Israeli military-political complex seems to relish the view of US President Theodore Roosevelt, who proudly thundered that the benefits of a prosperous peace would never eclipse or exceed those of war, especially waged with a righteous temper. But budgets for killing and conquest thin over time, as do the support of powers who, for all their abundant hypocrisy, may finally relinquish their backing. The momentum is against Israel, however slow the turning.
A Case for War? Iran’s Non-Existent Nuclear Weapons Program
ByWilliam O. Beeman, Apr 14, 2026, https://americancommunitymedia.org/oped/a-case-for-war-irans-non-existent-nuclear-weapons-program/
The United States’ repeated attacks on Iran over more than 40 years are based on a lie: that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Vice-President J.D. Vance, who led the U.S. delegation in cease-fire talks with Iran on April 10-11, once again repeated this lie in his demand that Iran declare that it “will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon.”
The current Iranian regime has done much that has disturbed the world community since the Islamic Revolution of 1978-1979. They have supported Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, the Assad Regime in Syria, and militant groups throughout the Middle East. They have repressed dissent in their own country, including incarceration and execution of many thousands of Iranian citizens, with little justification. For these actions the regime deserves severe condemnation.
However, what Iran has not done and has never done is to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran’s critics hide behind the phrase “Iran’s nuclear ambitions” as if that vague phrase constitutes proof that a nuclear weapons program exists. It does not exist and has never existed. So why does this unsubstantiated accusation remain a live issue?
The answer is surprisingly simple. When Iran was an ally of the United States during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was re-installed from exile in a CIA-led coup in 1953, the United States fervently encouraged Iran to develop nuclear technology. After the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79, when Iran was seen as opposed to the United States, its nuclear program was suddenly seen as suspect and dangerous.
Iranian nuclear development started during the Eisenhower administration as part of the “Atoms for Peace” program. In 1957, the United States signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with Iran stipulating that the United States would provide Iran with technical assistance, nuclear fuel, and a small research reactor. This resulted in the establishment of the Tehran Nuclear Research Center in 1959. In 1967, under the Johnson administration, the United States delivered a five-megawatt research reactor to Iran along with weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to fuel it.
In 1968, Iran and the United States were founding signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which was eventually signed by virtually every nation on earth except for Israel, India, and Pakistan. (North Korea initially signed and then withdrew. South Sudan, founded in 2011, never signed the treaty).
The NPT prohibits nations that did not have a nuclear weapons program at the time of signing from ever developing nuclear weapons. At the same time, the NPT guarantees the right of all countries to pursue non-nuclear-weapons programs to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The treaty also requires nations that already had nuclear weapons to protect the rights of other nations to develop their own nuclear technology, including the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. (Aside from Iran, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, and Argentina all have active nuclear enrichment programs today).
From this point on, until the 1978-79 Revolution, the United States encouraged nuclear development in Iran, urging companies like Westinghouse and General Electric to sell nuclear power reactors to the Shah’s government. At one point 23 nuclear power plants were envisioned.
But following the Iranian Revolution and the 444-day hostage crisis when U.S. officials were held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran became suspect in the eyes of the United States. The nuclear program that had once been so fervently encouraged became a point of attack against the Islamic Republic.
The idea that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon stems from a 1984 United Press International article entitled “Ayatollah’s Bomb in Production for Iran.” On April 26, 1984, the U.S State Department under the Reagan administration — with no evidence that Iran had the equipment or the capability to produce a bomb — nevertheless urged a world-wide ban on providing nuclear materials to the country.
The eight-year Iran-Iraq war was then underway, and the Reagan administration feared that Iran could develop a weapon to use against Iraq. Another press article from The Washington Post in 1987 entitled “Atomic Ayatollahs” continued the alarm.
Even though Western intelligence agencies repeatedly insisted that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program, U.S. officials — buoyed by negative public opinion of the Iranian regime — continued the accusation. The first U.S. imposed economic sanctions levied on Iran in relation to its nuclear program were imposed by President Bill Clinton in 1995.
In 2003 the George W. Bush administration, under urging from neo-conservatives bent on effecting regime change throughout the Middle East, again accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons program.
From this point on, the specter of Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” became a mantra in Washington, despite Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei having issued a religious edict prohibiting nuclear weapons development that same year. President Bush imposed further U.S. economic sanctions, increasing tensions between the two nations.
After more than 10 years, the Obama administration was able to create the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As part of the agreement, Iran agreed to curtail its uranium enrichment program as a “confidence building” measure to assure that it would not violate the provisions of the longstanding NPT.
After President Trump canceled the JCOPA during his first presidential term in 2017, the idea that Iran still had “nuclear ambitions” became the baseline excuse for continued U.S. sanctions. No matter Iran’s transgressions, this one accusation remains the principal reason for continued hostilities culminating in the current war between the two nations.
The base fact is that Iran has never been shown to have had a nuclear weapons program. All intelligence organizations involved with nuclear containment agree on this fact. Nevertheless, as was seen in the failure of the Islamabad talks, Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” continue to be the pretext for U.S. attacks.
Will Trump nuke Iran?
Never has humankind seen so much power concentrated in the hands of one so capricious. Whether the ceasefire will hold, for how long, and in what ways is for the days ahead to tell. No one—not even Donald Trump—knows the end game. But the constant is the man whose finger can push the nuclear button. A man used to quick, vacuous victories through bullying and unbridled force is rancorous, thwarted, and vengeful.
What once seemed preposterous is now a palpable possibility.
When Trump, echoing Gen. Curtis LeMay’s 1965 threat toward North Vietnam, threatened to “obliterate” Iran and bomb it “back into the Stone Age”—rhetoric repeated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—he wasn’t just posturing. In fact he was signaling that in an administration which respects no norms, mushroom clouds may be acceptable.
By Pervez Hoodbhoy | Opinion | April 10, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/will-trump-nuke-iran/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Will%20Trump%20nuke%20Iran%3F&utm_campaign=20260413%20Monday%20Newsletter
No one—not even Donald Trump—knows the end game as the six-week old US-Israeli war on Iran enters a temporary ceasefire. Just look at the head-spinning time-line:
Sunday, April 5 (infrastructure destruction-I): “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the fucking strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
Monday, April 6: (infrastructure destruction-II): “Their infrastructure could be taken out in one night. I’m telling you, no bridges, no power plants. I’m considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil.”
Tuesday, April 7 (morning) (threat to commit genocide): “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change… maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?”
Tuesday, April 7 (evening): Announcement of two-week Pakistan-mediated ceasefire.
Never has humankind seen so much power concentrated in the hands of one so capricious. Whether the ceasefire will hold, for how long, and in what ways is for the days ahead to tell. No one—not even Donald Trump—knows the end game. But the constant is the man whose finger can push the nuclear button. A man used to quick, vacuous victories through bullying and unbridled force is rancorous, thwarted, and vengeful. He has been stymied by a recalcitrant theocratic state that has taken blow after blow, withstood the killing of its venerated leader, the bombing of its cities, the destruction of vital infrastructure, and the systematic targeting of its schools and universities.
Weeks later, when it should rightly be on its knees, Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz and refuses to negotiate while it is being bombed. Instead, it continues to cause mayhem among America’s allies and take potshots at Israel. Imagine Trump’s frustration, especially after his bloodless victory in Venezuela.
But a so-far-unbroken taboo, inviolate since the nuclear ash settled over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, may crack. What once seemed preposterous is now a palpable possibility. When Trump, echoing Gen. Curtis LeMay’s 1965 threat toward North Vietnam, threatened to “obliterate” Iran and bomb it “back into the Stone Age”—rhetoric repeated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—he wasn’t just posturing. In fact he was signaling that in an administration which respects no norms, mushroom clouds may be acceptable.
The “how” and “when” remain open questions, but if the ceasefire ceases to hold the crosshairs are likely fixed on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant or, just as probably, Isfahan, where Iran’s fissile material was allegedly transferred before the June 2025 attack. Buried deep beneath a mountain of solid rock, Fordow is the nuclear facility that Trump had earlier claimed to have “obliterated.”
The math of escalation is inexorable: Iran reportedly holds roughly 450 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium. While a rudimentary gun-type nuclear weapon would be assembled using 80-100 kilograms of this material, a sophisticated implosion-type bomb needs 20-25 kilograms of uranium enriched to contain 90 percent of the uranium 235 isotope, a process requiring only some weeks. If Iran has mastered the complex engineering required for the latter, its current reserves represent a potential arsenal of eight to 10 nuclear warheads.
The game hinges on the upgrade. Iran can push its stockpile to weapons-grade in a matter of weeks. Conventional “bunker busters” like the GBU-57 have already failed; 14 were dropped on Fordow and Natanz in 2025, yet the heart of the program kept beating. To achieve absolute destruction, the hammer would have to be nuclear.
If the United States chooses to go nuclear in Iran, the Pentagon’s solution would likely be an earth-penetrating warhead like the B61-11 or the newly deployed B61-12. Washington would frame such a strike not as a Hiroshima-style apocalypse but as a “clinical necessity”—a tactical operation designed to kill hundreds rather than tens of thousands.
But Iran will not surrender quietly and would retaliate with everything it has. A lucky strike from a sophisticated missile could sink an American aircraft carrier; a coordinated swarm of drones and missiles could turn major Arab oil terminals into pillars of fire. At that point, the “clinical” experiment could end, and the apocalypse might begin as the United States reaches for its next nuclear target.
Even for a man who finds gratification in the suffering of others—who celebrated the recent destruction of Iran’s biggest bridge followed by cars plummeting down—Trump’s nuclear ambitions are constrained by American electoral politics and the upcoming November elections, a potentially hostile public reaction, and a somewhat reluctant military.
For now, America and Israel are operating in lockstep. They reportedly executed coordinated strikes on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant—which has nothing to do with bomb-making—on March 18 and April 4. These were presumably “signaling strikes” since they destroyed only an auxiliary building and killed a single guard. Their intent was clear—even if the endgame is not. The message has been received: In coordination with the Israeli Defence Forces, over 200 high-level Russian technicians have already evacuated Bushehr, leaving behind only a skeleton crew to manage a potential emergency shutdown.
But “signaling” near a live reactor is a high-stakes gamble with an unclear ultimate purpose. While the plant continues to feed the grid, a direct hit on its containment dome would trigger a radiological catastrophe far exceeding that of Chernobyl or Fukushima. With 70-80 tons of uranium dioxide in its core and a massive inventory of spent fuel lying in nearby cooling ponds, a breach would shroud the Persian Gulf with a lethal miasma of radioiodine and cesium-137. This wouldn’t just be a strike against a regime; it would be a death sentence for the region’s environment and its people.
Israel—which pulverized Gaza to rubble and seeks a similar outcome in South Lebanon—may have fewer inhibitions than the United States. Where Washington might hesitate, Israel may well aim for the dome. For America’s Gulf allies—the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman—the fallout would range from the devastating to the permanent, the outcome depending on wind direction and speed.
With an undeclared arsenal of over 150 warheads and reliable means to deliver them to any corner of Iran, Israeli nuclear strikes on Iranian population centers are no longer a fringe theory; they would become a live strategic option in Jerusalem if somehow Iran manages to breach the Israel’s Iron Dome missile defenses more regularly and with greater effectiveness.
Operation Epic Fury is now entering its sixth week. As yet there are no direct negotiations, just a temporary ceasefire. With optimism in short supply, the world is watching a grim lesson unfold. The takeaway for every middle power and so-called rogue state is becoming undeniable: If you have the bomb, you don’t get bombed. The race is on to get it while they still can.
Trump’s Extreme Use of Military Is Stirring a Crisis of Conscience Among Troops
US soldiers have a rich history of questioning the wars they’re told to wage abroad.
By Sam Carliner , Truthout, April 13, 2026
s President Donald Trump increasingly uses the U.S. military to carry out his agenda through brute force, organizations that provide counseling services for U.S. servicemembers are reporting growing numbers of calls. These calls have further spiked in response to Trump’s war on Iran, one of the most unpopular in U.S. history.
The United States has carried out the war through intense attacks on densely populated civilian areas, the impact of which was clearly shown in the bombing of a girls’ school, killing well over 100 children. Not even concerned with selling the war to the public, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has leaned into treating the intervention as a “holy war” for Christianity.
Mike Prysner, an Iraq War veteran and executive director at the Center on Conscience & War (CCW), told Truthout that troops are telling his organization that they don’t want to be involved in the killing.
“That’s pretty much all of the cases that we have,” Prysner said. “It’s all people who don’t want to take part in killing in a war that they don’t believe in, and this war has made them realize that they can’t take part in any kind of U.S. military action ever again.”
The CCW, formerly the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors, was founded in 1940 to assist religious communities whose beliefs prohibited them from participating in war. Over time, and as a result of broadening criteria for who can qualify as a conscientious objector (CO), the organization evolved to assist troops of all backgrounds whose values prevent them from being able to participate in war.
Prysner told Truthout that in recent weeks CCW has already been able to help several servicemembers become COs to avoid being deployed.
To reach more servicemembers experiencing crises of conscience, CCW and other organizations including the Quaker House founded the GI Rights Hotline in 1994. Steve Woolford, a resource counselor at the Quaker House, has taken calls for the hotline since 2001 and agreed that the war on Iran, and Trump’s broader use of the military, has caused a spike in calls.
“The biggest increase has come from people who are feeling a lot of opposition to the ways the military’s currently being used,” Woolford said. “That includes people who feel like they don’t want to be sent into cities and point a weapon at U.S. citizens, they don’t want to be part of what to many of them look like war crimes, shooting down speedboats in Venezuela that wouldn’t be able to make it to the United States, and I would say with the invasion, or whatever you want to call it, ‘Operation Epic Fury’ in Iran, there’s been significant opposition to that.”
Woolford clarified that not all troops who call the hotline are able to leave the military by filing as COs. While every member of the military has that right, the process requires applicants to prove that they have deeply held antiwar beliefs. This means that even if someone is opposed to certain orders or operations, they don’t qualify as CO if they aren’t opposed to participation in all wars.
Prysner said that the social pressure in the military can also make it difficult for troops to declare themselves COs.
“Especially for people who have deployments happening, you’re telling all of your brothers and sisters in uniform that you don’t believe in what you’re doing and you’re not gonna be able to do it with them,” Prysner said. “The thing is, the people that we’re dealing with, they simply don’t have any other choice … They cannot live with themselves participating.”
Echoes of Antiwar History
This is not the first time that members of the military have questioned their role in U.S. wars. In fact, there is a rich history of GI dissent throughout U.S. history.
The role of antiwar veterans was especially important in bringing about the end of the Vietnam War. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-extreme-use-of-military-is-stirring-a-crisis-of-conscience-among-troops/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=de92a70740-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_04_13_09_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-de92a70740-650192793
Israel is losing its grip on U.S. politics
By Dave Reed , Mondoweiss, April 12, 2026
We’ve been covering the shift in American politics on Israel for years. Donald Trump’s disastrously failed war on Iran has accelerated it.
For years, conventional wisdom held that support for Israel was a third rail in U.S. politics. Phil Weiss has written a library of analysis and coverage on that here at Mondoweiss over the past 20 years. Uncritical support for Israel was toxic for politicians to touch, impossible to oppose, and self-reinforcing across both parties through the combined pressure of donor money, media consensus, and institutional loyalty. That consensus is broken forever. It didn’t break because of a sudden moral awakening in Washington. That will never happen, on virtually any issue. If you need any more proof of that, just look at the way the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein are being treated, or refer to the fact that even massacres of schoolchildren haven’t moved Congress to do something about guns in the country. The consensus across the political elite on Israel broke because Israel’s conduct in Gaza, Lebanon, and now in its open effort to torpedo an end to the war with Iran, has become a liability that American politicians can no longer ignore.
Michael Arria, our U.S. correspondent, documented this week how military aid to Israel has finally become a true litmus test in Democratic Party primaries. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced she will vote against all military aid to Israel, including weapons classified as “defensive,” a position she had previously hedged. Even J Street, the organization meant to offer a counter to AIPAC’s extremism but locked in perpetual confusion about its identity, is even now opposing U.S. support for the Iron Dome missile defense system. AIPAC, once considered the most powerful of all the many lobby groups, is now a liability in Democratic races, losing key primaries and watching candidates run against it by name. A recent NBC News poll shows just 13 percent of Democrats view Israel positively. These numbers are not marginal; they represent a fundamental and permanent realignment of the Democratic base. Politicians, candidates, and political institutions are paying attention.
This fracturing is thankfully not limited to the left. The Iran war has cracked open the MAGA coalition in ways that the genocide in Gaza could not. Powerful conservative commentators commanding huge audiences and figures closely aligned with the MAGA movement have been openly and harshly critical of Trump over the war. The widespread, and correct, view is that Netanyahu manipulated Trump into a conflict that serves Israeli interests, not American ones. The critique of the tail wagging the dog is now being advanced loudly by people who would never have entertained it two years ago. The political ground is moving, dramatically, in the months before an all-important mid-term election. Republican figures with aspirations for more power, such as J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, are beginning to distance themselves from the Iran debacle………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/04/weekly-briefing-israel-is-losing-its-grip-on-u-s-politics/
Jeffrey Sachs: Ending Israel’s War on Peace
To make lasting peace in the Middle East, the US must end its blank check to Israel’s perpetual wars and join with the rest of the world to force Israel to live within its internationally recognized borders of June 4, 1967.
Jeffrey D. SachsSybil Fares, Apr 09, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/israel-war-on-peace
A two-week ceasefire has partially halted the Israel-US war on Iran. The war accomplished precisely nothing that a competent diplomat could not have achieved in an afternoon. The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war and it is open again now, but with more Iranian control.
Meanwhile, the chaos continues. Israel is intent on blowing up the ceasefire, as this was Israel’s war from the start. Israel dazzled Trump with the prospect of a one-day decapitation strike that would put Trump in charge of Iran’s oil. Israel, in turn, was out for bigger prey: to bring down the Iranian regime and thereby become the regional hegemon of Western Asia.
The foundation of the ceasefire is Iran’s 10-point plan, which Trump (perhaps unwittingly) called a “workable basis on which to negotiate.” The plan makes sense, but it is a major climbdown for the US, and probably a redline for Israel. Among other points, the plan calls for an end to the wars raging in the Middle East, almost all of which have Israel at their root cause. The plan would also resolve the nuclear issue, essentially by going back to the JCPOA that Trump ripped up in 2018.
The Iran War, and the other wars raging across the Middle East, trace back to one core Israeli idea, that Israel will permanently and steadfastly oppose a sovereign Palestinian state and will topple any government in the Middle East that supports armed struggle for national sovereignty. It is crucial to note that the UN General Assembly has passed multiple resolutions, such as Resolution 37/43 (1982), affirming that political self-determination is so vital, that armed struggle in the quest for self-determination is legitimate. The UN was born, in part, out of the determination to end the centuries of European imperial domination over Africa and Asia. Of course, there would be no cause for armed struggle if Israel would accept a political solution, notably the two-state solution that has overwhelming support throughout the world.
The peace is within reach, if the US grasps it.
Netanyahu’s core goal may be summarized as Greater Israel. This means no Palestinian sovereignty, and no clear boundaries for Israel even beyond the boundary of historical Palestine under British rule after WWI. Zionist extremists like Netanyahu’s political allies, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich favor Israeli control over parts of Lebanon and Syria, as well as permanent control over all of what was British Palestine. America’s Christian Zionists, exemplified by the US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, and a strong voter base of Trump, speak of God’s promise to Israel of the lands between the Nile and the Euphrates. Crazy stuff, but these are real beliefs, nonetheless, and they are conveyed in the White House.
Israel’s strategy is therefore regime change in every country that resists Greater Israel, a plan already foreshadowed in the famous political document “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” written by US Zionist neocons as a platform for Netanyahu’s new government in 1996. We’ve had constant wars in the Middle East since then to implement the Clean Break vision. This has included the war in Libya to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi, the wars in Lebanon, the war to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, the war to overthrow Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, and now the war to topple the Iranian regime.
This is not to say that the US lacks its own grandiose ideas. Israel wants regional hegemony, this is not a secret. Netanyahu confirmed these ambitions in his recent remarks about Israel becoming “a regional power, and in certain fields a global power.” On the other hand, American officials dream of global hegemony. And Trump dreams of money. He craves the Iranian oil and repeatedly said so.
In any event, it’s clear that this war was Netanyahu’s creation. He and the Mossad chief came to Washington to sell Trump a bill of goods. It’s not hard. Trump was suckered, while everybody else had their doubts about Netanyahu’s claims of an easy one-day decapitation strike—essentially a replay of the US operation in Venezuela.
It’s pathetic to “listen in” on the White House discussion, as revealed by the New York Times. Netanyahu, a con man, presented rosy scenarios of regime change that US intelligence contradicted, yet Trump foolishly accepted. Trump and Netanyahu were cheered on by Christian Zionists (Hegseth), Jewish Zionists and real-estate developers (Kushner and Witkoff), a faith healer (Franklin Graham), and high-level sycophants (Rubio and Ratcliffe).
While Trump was telling the world that Iran was begging for a ceasefire, it was Trump himself who was begging for a ceasefire.
Until Tuesday evening, it looked like Trump might lead the world blindly to World War III. The vulgarity and brutality of his public rhetoric was unmatched in US presidential history. Now we know that he was desperately seeking an off-ramp and using Pakistan for that purpose. While Trump was telling the world that Iran was begging for a ceasefire, it was Trump himself who was begging for a ceasefire. The Pakistani leader delivered it.
The ceasefire is good, and the 10-point plan is good, even if perhaps Trump didn’t know what was in it when he said that it was a good basis for negotiation. Israel will, in any event, work overtime to break it, and has already started to do so, with carpet bombing of Beirut that is killing hundreds of civilians, and with other strikes. A permanent US-Iran agreement is the last thing that Netanyahu wants. That would end his dream of Greater Israel.
Yet there is a way to peace and that is for the US to face reality. Israel is the real “terror state,” waging perpetual war throughout the Middle East for a wholly indefensible reason—to have unchecked freedom to terrorize and rule over the Palestinian people and to expand its borders as Israel’s zealots see fit. To make lasting peace in the Middle East, the US must end its blank check to Israel’s perpetual wars and join with the rest of the world to force Israel to live within its internationally recognized borders of June 4, 1967. Iran’s 10-point plan can be the basis of a comprehensive regional peace—if the US accepts the reality of a state of Palestine. In that case, Iran would likely agree to stop funding non-state belligerents, and Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and the entire region could live in mutual security and peace. That outcome should be the basis of a negotiated agreement of the US and Iran in the next two weeks.
Israel is the real “terror state,” waging perpetual war throughout the Middle East for a wholly indefensible reason…
The American people have made their views clear. A 2025 Pew survey finds most Jewish Americans lack confidence in Netanyahu and back the two-state solution. Most Americans now view Israel unfavorably, the highest unfavourability in history. Sympathy for Israel has hit a 25-year low. Now the political class must catch up with the public.
The peace is within reach, if the US grasps it. Iran’s proposal is serious and the ceasefire is a fragile opening for a comprehensive settlement. The question is whether the US will, once again, allow Israel to destroy the peace, or rather this time stand up for America’s interests and the world’s interests in a lasting peace.
Goiânia Survivors Challenge Netflix: ‘A Crime Against the Truth’
09.04.26 – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Pressenza New York, https://www.pressenza.com/2026/04/goiania-survivors-challenge-netflix-a-crime-against-the-truth/
In 2017, Odesson Alves Ferreira, a survivor of the 1987 Goiânia nuclear disaster in central Brazil, received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the International Uranium Film Festival. Odesson himself was severely contaminated by the highly radioactive cesium-137 and lives with the consequences. For over 30 years, he has campaigned for the recognition and fair compensation of the hundreds of cesium victims and for ensuring that this radioactive disaster in Goiânia is never forgotten and never repeated. Now he is strongly criticizing the new Netflix miniseries “Radioactive Emergency”.
By Norbert Suchanek
Netflix series “Radioactive Emergency” distorts facts
In September 1987, the worst nuclear disaster in Latin American history occurred in the central Brazilian city of Goiânia. A scrap metal dealer unknowingly released highly radioactive cesium-137 from an abandoned cancer treatment device, contaminating parts of the city and hundreds of people. Now, in March Netflix has released the miniseries “Radioactive Emergency,” based on this nuclear disaster and claiming to be inspired by true events. However, cesium-137-survivors dispute this. They argue that the Netflix series distorts the facts and ignores the victims.
“The distortion of historical facts is not only a narrative error, but in my view, also a profound disrespect to the memory of the victims and to us survivors,” criticizes Odesson Alves Ferreira, brother of scrap metal dealer Devair Alves Ferreira, who in 1987 bought the lead-encased radioactive head from two young waste pickers without even suspecting that it contained radioactive material.
In his statement to the Brazilian news portal Metrópoles regarding “Radioactive Emergency,” Odesson says: “By distorting the tragic historical facts for the sake of expediency, to make the plot more scientific and commercial, Netflix committed a crime against the truth. The true story we experienced doesn’t need sensational embellishments; it was tragic enough in itself.”
According to the 71-year-old, the streaming service “turns the victims of an irresponsible system into perpetrators and trivializes the tragedy. The memory of Brazil’s worst radioactive tragedy must be protected. We will not simply accept history being rewritten for convenience, because those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.” The former president of the Association of Cesium Victims (AVCésio) also criticizes that the Netflix film crew did not consult those actually affected beforehand.
According to the association, which represents more than 1,000 victims of the Goiânia radioactive disaster, its members were neither consulted on the script nor asked to share their experiences.
“We were not consulted during the production of the series based on our story. Filming didn’t even take place in Goiânia, but in São Paulo. How can you make a series about this story and not let those who experienced it firsthand have their say?” Metropóles quotes the association’s current president, Marcelo Santos Neves. He says, the film crew only contacted the former president, Suely Lina Moraes Silva, once. She reports that she accompanied a small group from the production team on a visit to the contaminated areas in Goiânia. After that, however, there were no further discussions with the team.
Although the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) described the “Cesium-137 disaster” in Goiânia as an “accident,” it was, in the opinion of the victims and others, a crime. However, the villains are not the two young waste pickers, as the Netflix production suggests. “One of the most dangerous nuclear disasters in the world started with a stolen medical device,” the streaming service emphasizes on its website.
In fact, the two youngsters didn’t steal the device; they found it in a partially demolished building, where it had been left behind like trash. And collecting discarded waste for recycling isn’t a crime.
The real culprits are the owners of the partially demolished former cancer treatment center “Instituto Goiano de Radiologia”, who left the dangerous radiotherapy machine there unattended and unsecured like garbage, while at the same time the Brazilian Atomic Energy Commission (CNEN) failed to fulfill its supervisory responsibility for radioactive materials.
Therefore, years later, in the 1990s, the Brazilian judiciary sentenced CNEN to a fine of one million reais (about 200,000 US dollars) and the owners of the Instituto Goiano de Radioterapia to three years in prison.
In its statement to Metrópoles regarding criticism of “Radioactive Emergency,” Netflix affirmed that historical accuracy was a priority in the production of the miniseries. And according to its website, the responsible film team consulted experts from various fields, including doctors and physicists, during the development of the screenplay.
Brasiliens Tschernobyl
Exposição “Mãos de Césio”
When Flotillas Fight for Life, Not Empire
April 10, 2026 , Olivia DiNucci for Codepink, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/10/when-flotillas-fight-for-life-not-empire/
Flotillas have historically been fleets of military vessels—tools of empire designed for swift offensive or defensive operations at sea. The images they evoke are ones of imperial power and looming violence. Just look at the massive US naval buildup that surrounded Iran as part of the recent US attacks.
But peace activists have also developed a new kind of flotilla.
Instead of instruments of war, flotillas have become symbols of peace—acts of humanitarian direct action, civil resistance, and cross-border solidarity. Take the flotillas that have tried to reach Gaza, like the Global Sumud Flotilla. Even though they have been illegally intercepted by the Israeli military, they have educated millions of people worldwide about Israel’s atrocities, activated entire cities to shut down, and offered a beacon of hope to the beleaguered people of Gaza.
As U.S. policy continues to sanction and blockade Cuba—causing immense hardship for the Cuban people—I, along with many others, felt compelled to escalate our own tactics of solidarity by joining the recent flotilla to Cuba as part of the Nuestra América Convoy. Our boat carried 15 tons of aid, part of the more than 40 tons delivered by the convoy.
The United States is currently imposing some of the harshest sanctions on Cuba in recent history, compounding a 67-year blockade that has restricted access to medicine, fuel, and food. But in recent months, the US added another dimension: a naval blockade to severely limit fuel imports, leading to a humanitarian crisis.
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need fossil fuels—we would already have made a just transition to renewable energy. And while Cuba is working at lightning speed to expand solar power, the current reality is stark: people still need fuel to cook, to transport food, to operate ambulances, to power hospitals, and to keep ventilators running.
The international community has responded to this escalation in U.S. economic warfare with intensified solidarity. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have been mobilizing to send aid and condemn the US blockade. In March, Progressive International, CODEPINK, and The People’s Forum launched the Nuestra América Convoy, bringing together over 600 people from 33 countries. We came with millions of dollars’ worth of aid—from urgently needed medical supplies to longer-term solutions like solar panels.
While many of my friends boarded planes to Havana, packing every inch of their luggage with medicine, hygiene products, vitamins, and art supplies, I traveled to Mexico to meet the flotilla crew. We spent four days at sea together—activists, journalists, organizers. Some had helped organize the Gaza Sumud Flotilla; others had taken part in mass protests in solidarity with Palestine.
Our goal was to deliver much-needed aid to the people of Cuba. But just as important was challenging the dominant narrative—that Cuba’s suffering is the result of its own government, rather than decades of U.S. cruel policy.
Even though the boat was full of journalists documenting the trip, their cameras could not fully capture the sense of community among strangers united by a shared mission. I remember being nervous about the cold and the possibility of seasickness, but within minutes, people were offering ginger chews, acupressure bracelets, and rain gear.
Our departure was delayed due to weather, boat repairs, and the logistics of loading the aid. In the meantime, we stayed with supporters in Mexico who couldn’t join the voyage but found other ways to contribute. We shared a send-off dinner at an Egyptian restaurant whose owner had followed the Gaza flotillas. He told us how proud he was to see a flotilla to Cuba leaving from his small town.
On the boat, we shared cooking, dishwashing, and night watch shifts—standard practice in occupations, encampments, and direct actions where resources are limited but creativity and collaboration are abundant. At sea, a simple breakfast of rice, beans, eggs, guacamole, and toast tastes like a feast. We slept under galaxies of stars, woke to sunrises on the horizon, and at sunset made music with whatever we had—a guitar, a bucket drum, water bottles filled with dry beans.
Meanwhile, I stayed connected to those traveling by plane, watching group chats fill with photos of carefully packed bags and urgent questions: Who can fit more supplies? How many solar batteries can we carry on? The coordination was constant, collective, and inspiring.
The blockade severely limits what goods can reach Cuba. While US citizens can still travel there under certain categories, they face restrictions and often risk questioning upon return. But solidarity is not tourism. It is not about swooping in, taking photos, and leaving. It is about building relationships, listening, and committing to ongoing struggle from our home countries.
We had a beautiful reception from the Cuban people when we landed, and then had the opportunity to speak directly with community groups about current conditions.I learned how they overcome so much by placing value in community over the individual.
The US empire is indeed dying, and it is up to us to not just reimagine the better world we need and want, but to actually put that world into practice. Reflecting on my experience, I started thinking — if we can turn flotillas from a force of evil into vessels of hope and solidarity, then what else can we change? What if we built schools around the world instead of sending bombs? What if, like the Cubans, we funded healthcare over warfare and sent doctors to cure people instead of soldiers to kill them?
You don’t have to board a boat with humanitarian supplies to show solidarity. Flotillas are one tactic, but we need a variety and diversity of tactics right now, and always. You can move forward by showing solidarity to your neighbors at home, as well as to our neighbors 90 miles off our shores. Because what we build together, in community—whether through a peace flotilla or local mutual aid—is stronger than anything built through force.
Olivia CODEPINK’s DC Coordinator, who seeks to build and bridge connections from issues to people. She came to this work after living and working abroad as an experiential learning facilitator with college students. She is active in arts and creative communities, direct action, and building out more local to global solidarity in DC through deepening and weaving relationships.
US’s Erosion of the Right to Cartoon Is No Laughing Matter
Hank Kennedy, April 9, 2026 https://fair.org/home/uss-erosion-of-the-right-to-cartoon-is-no-laughing-matter/
During World War II, cartoonist Bill Mauldin was summoned to a meeting with Gen. George S. Patton. Mauldin’s Stars and Stripes cartoons drew Patton’s ire over his matter-of-fact depictions of war and American GIs.
To Mauldin, war was no fun adventure. In Up Front, his Willie and Joe were war-weary and disheveled soldiers, not heroes ready for movie stardom. They expressed a darkly comic view of the life of an infantryman. In an exemplary cartoon, one of the duo says to a medic attempting to hand out a medal: “Just gimme th’ aspirin, I already got a Purple Heart.”
Mauldin avoided punishment when Gen. Dwight Eisenhower circulated a letter instructing all officers “not to interfere” with “such things as Mauldin’s cartoons” (Oklahoman, 4/16/82). Mauldin won the Pulitzer twice for his editorial cartooning, once during the war and once afterwards.
Perhaps Donald Trump’s Pentagon saw itself as acting in the Patton tradition when it eliminated comics from Stars and Stripes. As FAIR (3/20/26) previously documented, Pete Hegseth has taken steps to crack down on the independence of the Pentagon’s own newspaper. Among the new guidelines to promote “good order and discipline” is a ban on syndicated material, including comics (Stars and Stripes, 3/13/26). US servicemembers have now been saved from the woke, subversive influences of Doonesbury, Pearls Before Swine and, perhaps worst of all, Beetle Bailey.
A global trend
Hegseth’s anti-comics viewpoint is part of a global trend. Cartooning for Peace, Cartoonists Rights, Reporters Without Borders and several others have teamed up to produce Under Pressure; the March 2 report surveys the status of caricaturists around the world.
Under Pressure collects the stories of some of the most grave casualties in the global war on satire. Egyptian Ashraf Omar has been imprisoned for over a year, awaiting trial under specious charges of terrorism (Committee to Protect Journalists, 3/2/26). Saudi Cartoonist Mohammed Al Ghamdi (pen name Al Hazza) faces a 23-year sentence for “sympathizing with Qatar” (Reporters Without Borders, 7/23/25)—reflecting a since-resolved quarrel between the two governments—and because he allegedly “insulted the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” . In 2024, Palestinian cartoonist Mahasen al-Khateeb was killed in Gaza by Israeli bombardment (Middle East Eye, 10/20/24).
When the survey turns to the United States, things remain ominous. Kak, the president of Cartoonists for Peace whose work appears in L’Opinion, found the “same tactics” that appear in authoritarian regimes, or those headed in a dictatorial direction, “are being used” in the US. He continued that “the ‘Land of the Free’ is now flashing bright red on our threat map,” putting the US in the same crowd as Iran, India, Turkey and Russia.
It’s quite a shift from the 2023 report Cartoonists on the Line, which had no section dedicated to the United States. Much has changed for the worse in three years.
Trump has long mused about using official pressure to suppress satirical responses to his government. In 2018, he threatened to sue Saturday Night Live over their mockery of his administration (Mother Jones, 12/16/18). His FCC chair, Brendan Carr, argued that it was in the “public interest” to threaten Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night ABC show over the host’s comedy (Variety, 12/17/25). These words and deeds have created a climate of fear in the United States, one that political cartoonists are feeling.
‘Long overdue for a housecleaning’
The report cites a few US examples that paint a dark portrait of freedom of expression under the second Trump administration. Some of them have previously been covered by FAIR, including the resignation of Ann Telnaes from the Washington Post (FAIR.org, 1/7/25), the firing of Palm Beach Post editorial page editor Tony Doris (FAIR.org, 3/27/25) and Bob Whitmore’s firing and belated reinstatement to Creative Loafing (FAIR.org, 9/30/25).
There are other examples, however, that deserve more examination.
In 1999, Felipe Galindo (Pen name Feggo) drew “4th of July From the South Border,” an endlessly reproduced and reprinted piece criticizing the militarization of the border with Mexico. Starting in 2022, Feggo’s work hung in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History as part of the ¡Presente! A Latino History of the United States exhibit. Feggo’s illustration was taken down after the Trump White House (8/21/25) attacked it as part of an “anti-American exhibition” that showed the US’s legacy of “colonization” and the history of Latino “victimhood and exploitation.” A crowing editorial in the Washington Examiner (8/24/25) asserted “the Smithsonian is long overdue for a housecleaning” over its “fashionable, culturally Marxist ideas.” The New York Times (3/28/25) described Trump’s interference with the Smithsonian as seeking “a more positive view of American history.” More positive for whom, is a question left unasked. Artist Rigoberto Gonzalez, whose “Refugees Crossing the Border Wall Into South Texas” was likewise removed, compared the administration’s censorship to the Nazi campaign against “degenerate art” (NPR, 8/24/25).
Julie Trébault of Artists at Risk Connection, who wrote Under Pressure‘s section on the United States, said it was a “rare and significant move” for the executive branch to single out “a specific work for removal from a federal museum.”
‘Direct threats’
The report cited another Pulitzer winner, Adam Zyglis, in its section on the United States. His July cartoon for the Buffalo News (7/7/25) on flooding in Texas showed a MAGA hat-sporting Texan being swept away while proclaiming, “Gov’t is the problem not the solution!”
The New York Post (7/10/25) reran a Fox News piece (7/9/25) that slammed the cartoon as “vile.” The Post’s conscience is an interesting development, considering that the paper ran a cartoon in 2009 comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee (Guardian, 2/18/09), echoing a well-known racist trope.
The slings and arrows of press criticism were nothing compared to what was to come. In response to this cartoon, Zyglis was subject to numerous death threats. An appearance at Buffalo Museum was canceled over public safety concerns (Politico, 7/11/25). The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists all released statements condemning the threats and supporting Zyglis (Daily Cartoonist, 7/17/25).
Trébault notes this as a sinister development. To criticize “the government’s actions or positions,” she wrote, “now exposes artists to direct threats.”
Heads in the sand
Unfortunately, Under Pressure has received little coverage in the United States, excepting the Daily Cartoonist (3/4/26). This contrasts with the coverage in New African Magazine (3/2/26), which gave the incidents the report highlights on that continent wider publicity.
The lack of attention media outlets gave to Under Pressure comes at a dangerous time for press freedom. The Inter American Press Association, a hemispheric media watchdog, recently classified the United States as a nation with “‘restrictions’ on freedom of speech” and of the press (AP, 3/10/26). By not giving reports like Under Pressure attention, media outlets are placing their heads in the sand.
Beyond open political censorship, there are also economic pressures on political cartoonists. Many newspapers do not employ their own cartoonists. Instead they choose material from syndicates, which reduces the amount of total cartoonists employed. It’s simple math. Why hire a dedicated cartoonist when syndicated material can be purchased for a fraction of the price?
The venues for cartoonists are also shrinking and sometimes disappearing. Since 2005, around 3,500 newspapers have shut down (Poynter, 10/20/25). Publications like the Atlantic Journal-Constitution, the Newark Star-Ledger and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are either ending their print editions or shutting down entirely. Cartoonist Walt Handelman (Editor & Publisher, 2/18/26), recently retired from the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Advocate, said he was “optimistic about satire…. The real question is, how do you make a professional living doing it.”
Are there still political cartoonists out there worth looking for? Of course. In These Times has a vibrant comics section with witty and insightful commentary from the likes of Mattie Lubchansky, Jen Sorenson, Tom Tomorrow and others. The annual collection World War 3 Illustrated provides a perspective not likely to be found in other outlets, as exemplified by last year’s issue dedicated to Palestinian cartoonists. In between winning awards for Insectopolis, his comic study of creepy crawlies, Peter Kuper’s work enlivens The Nation. Cartoonists may be “under pressure,” but the best of them are capable of rising to the challenge.
Finland Is About to Open the World’s First Permanent Nuclear Waste Site
By Haley Zaremba, Oil Price, – Apr 13, 2026
- Finland’s Posiva is on the verge of receiving an operating license for the world’s first permanent nuclear waste disposal facility, built 400 meters underground in 1.9-billion-year-old bedrock at a cost of 1 billion euros.
- Global spent nuclear fuel stocks are set to surge alongside the nuclear energy renaissance, but as of 2024, the U.S. alone faces a $44.5 billion liability with no permanent storage solution in place.
- The U.S. is inching forward: ARPA-E’s SCALEUP Ready program has directed $40 million to two deep borehole disposal projects, including one from Deep Isolation, which calls it the biggest milestone in the company’s history.
Nuclear energy is experiencing a resurgence in popularity on a global scale, thanks to a resurgence in energy security anxieties worldwide. The AI boom has majorly ramped up energy demand projections around the world at the same time that climate pledges are inching dangerously close with perilously little progress to show. Add to this a near-endless cycle of energy crisis and geopolitical conflict, and you’re presented with a majorly heightened energy trilemma: how to source energy that is sufficient, affordable, and sustainable. To solve this puzzle, nuclear energy — a reliable round-the-clock source of carbon-free energy production — can no longer be ignored.
But a nuclear renaissance, while a no-brainer for energy security and climate goals, will also come with a major uptick in nuclear waste, posing a big problem for public health and safety, as well as for the taxpayers that fund its maintenance. Between the 1950s and 2022, it is estimated that nearly 400,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel were generated on a global scale. Of those 400,000 tons, one-third has been ‘recycled’ in a complex and costly process, and two-thirds remain in temporary storage, either in nuclear fuel pools on-site at individual nuclear energy plants or in dry cask storage sites.
However, neither of these storage options are considered to be permanent solutions, and the global quantity of radioactive nuclear waste is about to explode. In fact, the policy and science behind the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel remains a critical liability at a global scale, and especially in the United States. As of 2024, it was estimated that the United States’ spent fuel liability clocked in at a jaw-dropping $44.5 billion.
A report from the National Center for Energy Analytics published earlier this month blasts the United States, the world’s biggest nuclear energy producer, for its kick-the-can-down-the-road approach to this critical issue, decrying that “Federal [nuclear waste] management has been a major black eye and policy failing for nuclear energy generation and technology.”
However, the world is, at long last, currently making great progress toward establishing the world’s first-ever permanent nuclear waste disposal site. In fact, a site on the West Coast of Finland is expecting to receive its license to begin operations in just a few months, an incredibly short stretch of time compared to the more-than two decades that the facility has been under construction. The facility will house canisters of spent fuel 400 meters underground in a remote region, housed in earthquake-resistant 1.9 billion-year-old bedrock……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Finland-Is-About-to-Open-the-Worlds-First-Permanent-Nuclear-Waste-Site.html
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 (92)
- 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 