Jeffrey D. Sachs: Stop Netanyahu Before He Gets Us All Killed

We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation.

Jeffrey D. Sachs , Sybil Fares, Jun 16, 2025, Common Dreams, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/netanyahu-war-on-iran

For nearly 30 years, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government. His long-sought war, just launched, might just get us all killed in a nuclear Armageddon, unless Netanyahu is stopped.

Netanyahu’s fixation on war goes back to his extremist mentors, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin. The older generation believed that Zionists should use whatever violence–wars, assassinations, terror–is needed to achieve their aims of eliminating any Palestinian claim to a homeland.

The founders of Netanyahu’s political movement, the Likud, called for exclusive Zionist control over all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine. At the start of the British Mandate in the early 1920s, the Muslim and Christian Arabs constituted roughly 87% of the population and owned ten times more land than the Jewish population. As of 1948, the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews roughly two to one. Nonetheless, the founding charter of Likud (1977) declared that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” The now infamous chant, “from the River to the Sea,” which is characterized as anti-Semitic, turns out to be the anti-Palestinian rallying call of the Likud.

Israel’s war on Iran is the final move in a decades-old strategy. We are witnessing the culmination of decades of extremist Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy.

The challenge for Likud was how to pursue its maximalist aims despite their blatant illegality under international law and morality, both of which call for a two-state solution.

In 1996, Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a “Clean Break” strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims—waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel’s dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel’s behalf.

The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”

The first of the wars, in early 2003, was to topple the Iraqi government. Plans for further wars were delayed as the US became mired in Iraq. Still, the US supported Sudan’s split in 2005, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Ethiopia’s incursion into Somalia that same year. In 2011, the Obama administration launched CIA operation Timber Sycamore against Syria and, with the UK and France, overthrew Libya’s government through a 2011 bombing campaign. Today, these countries lie in ruins, and many are now embroiled in civil wars.

For nearly 30 years, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government. His long-sought war, just launched, might just get us all killed in a nuclear Armageddon, unless Netanyahu is stopped.

Netanyahu’s fixation on war goes back to his extremist mentors, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin. The older generation believed that Zionists should use whatever violence–wars, assassinations, terror–is needed to achieve their aims of eliminating any Palestinian claim to a homeland.

The founders of Netanyahu’s political movement, the Likud, called for exclusive Zionist control over all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine. At the start of the British Mandate in the early 1920s, the Muslim and Christian Arabs constituted roughly 87% of the population and owned ten times more land than the Jewish population. As of 1948, the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews roughly two to one. Nonetheless, the founding charter of Likud (1977) declared that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” The now infamous chant, “from the River to the Sea,” which is characterized as anti-Semitic, turns out to be the anti-Palestinian rallying call of the Likud.

Israel’s war on Iran is the final move in a decades-old strategy. We are witnessing the culmination of decades of extremist Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy.

The challenge for Likud was how to pursue its maximalist aims despite their blatant illegality under international law and morality, both of which call for a two-state solution.

In 1996, Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a “Clean Break” strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims—waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel’s dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel’s behalf.

The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”

The first of the wars, in early 2003, was to topple the Iraqi government. Plans for further wars were delayed as the US became mired in Iraq. Still, the US supported Sudan’s split in 2005, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Ethiopia’s incursion into Somalia that same year. In 2011, the Obama administration launched CIA operation Timber Sycamore against Syria and, with the UK and France, overthrew Libya’s government through a 2011 bombing campaign. Today, these countries lie in ruins, and many are now embroiled in civil wars.

Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice–either in public or behind the scenes–together with his neocon allies in the U.S. Government including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, and others.

Testifying in the U.S. Congress in 2002, Netanyahu pitched for the disastrous war in Iraq, declaring “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” He continued, “And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.” He also falsely told Congress, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.”

The slogan to remake a “New Middle East” provides the slogan for these wars. Initially stated in 1996 through “Clean Break,” it was popularized by Secretary Condoleezza Rice in 2006. As Israel was brutally bombarding Lebanon, Rice stated:

“What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one.”

In September 2023, Netanyahu presented at UN General Assembly a map of the “New Middle East” completely erasing a Palestinian state. In September 2024, he elaborated on this plan by showing two maps: one part of the Middle East a “blessing,” and the other–including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran–a curse, as he advocated regime change in the latter countries.

The premise of Israel’s attack on Iran is the claim that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Such a claim is fatuous since Iran has repeatedly called for negotiations precisely to remove the nuclear option in return for an end to the decades of US sanctions.

Since 1992, Netanyahu and his supporters have claimed that Iran will become a nuclear power “in a few years.” In 1995, Israeli officials and their US backers declared a 5-year timeline. In 2003, Israel’s Director of Military Intelligence said that Iran will be a nuclear power “by the summer of 2004.” In 2005, the head of Mossad said that Iran could build the bomb in less than 3 years. In 2012, Netanyahu claimed at the United Nations that “it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.” And on and on.

This 30-year-plus pattern of shifting deadlines has marked a deliberate strategy, not a failure in prophecy. The claims are propaganda; there is always an “existential threat.” More importantly, there is Netanyahu’s phony claim that negotiations with Iran are useless.

Iran has repeatedly said that it does not want a nuclear weapon and that it has long been prepared to negotiate. In October 2003, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production and use of nuclear arms—a ruling later officially cited by Iran at an IAEA meeting in Vienna in August 2005 and referenced since as a religious and legal barrier to pursuing nuclear weapons.

Even for those skeptical of Iran’s intentions, Iran has consistently advocated for a negotiated agreement supported by independent international verification. In contrast, the Zionist lobby has opposed any such settlements, urging the US to maintain sanctions and reject deals that would allow strict IAEA monitoring in exchange for lifting sanctions.

In 2016, the Obama Administration, together with the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia, reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran—a landmark agreement to strictly monitor Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Yet, under relentless pressure from Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby, President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018. Predictably, when Iran responded by expanding its uranium enrichment, it was blamed for violating an agreement that the US itself had abandoned. The double-standard and propaganda is hard to miss.

On April 11, 2021, Israel’s Mossad attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz. Following the attack, on April 16, Iran announced that it would increase its uranium enrichment further, as bargaining leverage, while repeatedly appealing for renewed negotiations on a deal like the JCPOA. The Biden Administration rejected all such negotiations.

At the start of his second term, Trump agreed to open a new negotiation with Iran. Iran pledged to renounce nuclear arms and to be subject to IAEA inspections but reserved the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The Trump Administration appeared to agree to this point but then reversed itself. Since then, there have been five rounds of negotiations, with both sides reporting progress on each occasion.

The sixth round was ostensibly to take place on Sunday, June 15. Instead, Israel launched a preemptive war on Iran on June 12. Trump confirmed that the US knew of the attack in advance, even as the administration was speaking publicly of the upcoming negotiations.

Israel’s attack was made not only in the midst of negotiations that were making progress, but days before a scheduled UN Conference on Palestine that would have advanced the cause of the two-state solution. That conference has now been postponed.

Israel’s attack on Iran now threatens to escalate to a full-fledged war that draws in the US and Europe on the side of Israel and Russia and perhaps Pakistan on the side of Iran. We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation. The Doomsday Clock is at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest to nuclear Armageddon since the clock was launched in 1947.

Over the past 30 years, Netanyahu and his US backers have destroyed or destabilized a 4,000-km swath of countries stretching across North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Asia. Their aim has been to block a Palestinian State by overthrowing governments supporting the Palestinian cause. The world deserves better than this extremism. More than 170 countries in the UN have called for the two-state solution and regional stability. That makes more sense than Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims.

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Rosatom: A company at war

June 15, 2025 by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/06/15/rosatom-a-company-at-war/

Nuclear state entity is on the ground in Ukraine and smoothing the way for new atomic tests, writes Charles Digges

If Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom is to be believed, 2024 was a banner year.

It is expanding its footprint in new markets in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, as well as in Central Asian post-Soviet states. It is running an expansive development program along the Northern Sea Route, the 6,000-kilometer Arctic shipping corridor uniting Europe and Asia, and is responsible for everything from nuclear icebreaker construction to port infrastructure along its reach. It is powering the mining of rare earth minerals essential for renewable energy and electronics in operations from the Kola Peninsula to Siberia. It is acquiring domestic energy firms and making forays into transport, housing and utilities. And, of course, it is building nuclear power plants in foreign markets — including in some NATO members — at a pace unmatched by any other country or corporation.

But the slick commercial rhetoric belies the fact that Rosatom is a company that is literally at war.

As one of the Kremlin’s prize state industries, Rosatom has reoriented its practices to align with Moscow’s war economy as the invasion of Ukraine drags on. For this, it receives lavish state support and is overseen by members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle. Yet, unlike other energy producers in Russia’s oil and gas sectors, Rosatom has thus far managed to sidestep any serious sanctions from the West, attesting to the dependence it has fostered on the international nuclear market.

Recently, Western markets have begun to challenge Rosatom’s dominance as they attempt to shift their dependence away from Russian-produced nuclear fuels and other technologies. But our new report suggests that Rosatom is preparing for such shortfalls by changing customers and expanding its operations into industries beyond the nuclear — including further enmeshing itself in Moscow’s war as an active military participant. These are the corporate achievements that are less likely to appear in the company’s glossy public relations materials.

Rosatom at war

For instance, the putatively civilian corporation is helping Russian arms makers sidestep bans on Western-produced components for weapons used on the Ukrainian front. It has also developed technology for the Oreshnik line of ballistic missiles, producing a warhead tip so durable that the company brags it can withstand temperatures as hot as the surface of the Sun.

The corporation also seems to be smoothing the way for various weapons tests, including nuclear tests, on Novaya Zemlya, an Arctic archipelago used by the Soviets as an atomic bomb testing range. Most recently, it has been the site of trials for the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile developed by Rosatom technicians.

Russia’s recent withdrawal from its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and its abandonment of other arms agreements with the West coincides with a hive of activity on this frozen strip of land, suggesting Russia may be moving back toward testing nuclear weapons. Rosatom, the steward of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, will surely be at the center of it.

Rosatom likewise continues to tighten its grip on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine — Europe’s largest atomic energy station — which the Russian military seized in the opening days of its invasion in 2022. It is widely assumed from the Kremlin’s official statements that Rosatom intends to absorb the plant, making it the 12th nuclear power plant in its purview — and marking one of the most breathtaking seizures of war booty in modern warfare.

What the corporation is ignoring

Alongside these endeavors stands the fact, which Rosatom is loath to mention in its brochures, that Rosatom’s domestic fleet of 36 reactors is aging. Most need to be replaced by 2065, but the funds for this are severely lacking. The company’s current plans to extend runtimes at several aged Chernobyl-style reactors suggest that this is a problem the corporation will not be able to solve anytime soon.

Rosatom has also snuffed out its past efforts to clean up Russia’s Soviet nuclear legacy, retooling many of the constituent enterprises that were responsible for that to handling non-nuclear hazardous waste. These moves turn away from more than two decades of effort with the international community and mark the corporation’s increasing efforts to shut itself off both from the West and from scrutiny at home.

The war in Ukraine and accompanying stifling of civil society organizations — including my employer, Bellona — that once held Rosatom to account has fueled that opacity.

In fact, such organizations once formed Rosatom’s Public Council, which kept the corporation in conversation with environmentalists and the public it purported to serve. While the Public Council still exists, it is staffed by Putin’s cronies, including one from his intramural hockey team.

Nor is there anything left of the robust network of strident Russian-grown, anti-nuclear NGOs that for years fought to keep Rosatom’s activities in the public eye. Their disappearance has left Rosatom to its own secretive devices, the organizations themselves hounded out of existence by the Kremlin’s war bureaucracy.

Rosatom helps Moscow divide the world

All of this taken together — both what the corporation will and will not tell us — paints a picture of Rosatom as primarily a formidable political tool. This allows it to couple a broad mandate at home with a campaign of influence abroad. By offering its reactor customers enormous state-backed loans to build nuclear plants that Rosatom will service, fuel and, in many cases, even staff for decades to come, the corporation is vital to creating regimes that are friendly to — and dependent on — Moscow around the world.

While the war in Ukraine has perhaps cost Rosatom some of its former markets in the West, the company has, as our report shows, survived these geopolitical shifts and remained a powerful vector of Russian influence. As a result, the company will continue to help cleave away many of the world’s nations to Moscow’s geopolitical cause.

Charles Digges is an environmental journalist and researcher who edits the website of the Norway-based NGO Bellona.

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Russia | Leave a comment

Major radiation warning as Israel says it’s ‘on verge of destroying 10 nuclear sites’

International Atomic Energy Agency director Rafael Mariano Grossi said protective measures need to be put in place due to the risk of radiation at the Natanz nuclear facility.

Chiara Fiorillo News Reporter, 17 Jun 2025, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/major-radiation-warning-israel-says-35407962

A major radiation warning has been issued after Israel’s Defence Minister said his country is “on the verge” of destroying “more than 10 nuclear targets” in Iran. Israel Katz said the Israeli Air Force will strike “very significant targets, strategic targets, targets of the regime and infrastructure” in Tehran today. One of the targets include the underground Fordow facility which Katz said is “an issue that will certainly be addressed.”

The Natanz nuclear facility has already been hit by Israeli strikes and after the latest warning from Israel, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi, warned of the widespread risks posed by attacks on such facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said there is a risk of of both radiological and chemical contamination within Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facility.

“Based on continued analysis of high resolution satellite imagery collected after Friday’s attacks, the IAEA has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz,” the agency said on X. “No change to report at Esfahan and Fordow,” the IAEA added.

The radiation poses significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. Appropriate protective measures are needed to manage the risk, including using respiratory protection devices while inside the facilities. Mr Grossi said currently, radiation levels outside complex are normal.

Located 220km (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, the Natanz facility was protected by anti-aircraft batteries, fencing and Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. The underground part of the facility is buried to protect it from airstrikes and contains the bulk of the enrichment facilities at Natanz, with 10,000 centrifuges that enrich uranium up to 5 per cent, experts assess.

The IAEA had earlier reported that Israeli strikes had destroyed an above-ground enrichment hall at Natanz and knocked out electrical equipment that powered the facility. However, most of Iran’s enrichment takes place underground.

Although Israel has struck Natanz repeatedly and claims to have inflicted significant damage on its underground facilities, Tuesday’s IAEA statement marked the first time the agency has acknowledged impacts there.

Iran has not discussed the damage done in depth at Natanz as the country is reeling from the ongoing Israeli strikes that are dismantling its air defence and killing its top military commanders.

Israel says its sweeping assault on Iran’s top military leaders, nuclear scientists, uranium enrichment sites and ballistic missile program is necessary to prevent its adversary from getting any closer to building an atomic weapon.

The strikes have killed at least 224 people in Iran. Iran has retaliated by launching more than 370 missiles and hundreds of drones at Israel. So far, 24 people have been killed in Israel.

The Israeli military said a new barrage of missiles was launched on Tuesday. Iran maintains its nuclear program is peaceful, and the United States and others have assessed Tehran has not had an organized effort to pursue a nuclear weapon since 2003.

But the head of the IAEA has repeatedly warned that the country has enough enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs should it choose to do so.

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, radiation | Leave a comment

Government holds no record of taxpayer funding arrangements for UK’s historic nuclear stations

17 Jun, 2025 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/government-holds-no-record-of-taxpayer-funding-arrangements-for-uks-historic-nuclear-stations-17-06-2025/

The government has revealed that it doesn’t know how much public money was spent on any of the country’s 19 historic nuclear power plants ahead of their respective final investment decisions (FIDs).

The FID is the agreement between public and private parties on how a major project will be funded, paving the way for the main construction to commence.

Pre-FID financing has risen up the agenda because of the £18bn of public money spent on Sizewell C despite its FID not having been confirmed. This means that the project is not yet guaranteed to go ahead and presents huge risks for taxpayers if the scheme falls through.

You are here:Latest

Government holds no record of taxpayer funding arrangements for UK’s historic nuclear stations

17 Jun, 2025 By Tom Pashby

The government has revealed that it doesn’t know how much public money was spent on any of the country’s 19 historic nuclear power plants ahead of their respective final investment decisions (FIDs).

The FID is the agreement between public and private parties on how a major project will be funded, paving the way for the main construction to commence.

Pre-FID financing has risen up the agenda because of the £18bn of public money spent on Sizewell C despite its FID not having been confirmed. This means that the project is not yet guaranteed to go ahead and presents huge risks for taxpayers if the scheme falls through.

The rhetoric from the government about Sizewell C is centred on its confidence about the future of the project, but potential private sector investors including Centrica have aired concerns about the viability of the power station.

NCE submitted a request using the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) for information on how much public money was committed to the UK’s 19 historic nuclear energy projects ahead of their respective FIDs or equivalent project milestones.

The 19 projects were Calder Hall, Chapelcross, Berkeley, Hunterston A, Hinkley Point A, Bradwell, Trawsfynydd, Dungeness A, Sizewell A, Oldbury, Wylfa, Dungeness B, Hunterston B, Hinkley Point B, Hartlepool, Heysham 1, Heysham 2, Torness and Sizewell B.

All are either operating or in the decommissioning phase of their lifecycles.

In response to the FOI request, DESNZ said: “The department does not hold the historic information requested relating to the UK’s current operational fleet, and projects which have been or are being decommissioned.”

DESNZ added that “the government did not make any funds available” to Hinkley Point C ahead of its FID.

“For Sizewell C, details of the subsidy schemes made by the government and the funds made available can be found on the subsidy transparency database,” it added.

“The DEVEX Scheme has been made for £5.5bn for the SZC company. Under this scheme to date £3.9bn has been awarded to the company – which would be available for them to draw down. Other future awards may be made up to the maximum amount of the scheme.”

The statements from DESNZ on Sizewell C were made ahead of the Spending Review (SR). The day before the SR, the chancellor of the exchequer committed additional public money to the project, bringing total pre-FID public support for the plant to £18bn.

Sizewell C facing scrutiny of its total costs

Campaigners and politicians have spent years trying to get the UK Government to reveal the estimated total costs of Sizewell C, including by calling for the National Audit Office and Office for Value for Money to review the project.

The total final cost estimate has not been officially revealed, with the government citing concerns about commercial sensitivity. The Financial Times reported in January 2025 that costs are expected to reach £40bn, though the government has said it does not recognise this figure.

In a letter dated 10 June 2025, the Office for Value for Money confirmed to the National Audit Office that it would not be looking at the project.

Office for Value for Money independent chair David Goldstone said: “In line with our principle not to duplicate the work of others we did not review HS2, Sizewell C and Dreadnought, as they are already subject to extensive review processes.”

Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes told NCE: “The government continues to stonewall questions about Sizewell C’s cost, and how £6.4bn of taxpayers’ money ahead of a final investment decision is being used, an amount that is double what was spent by EDF at Hinkley Point C to get to the same point.

“Given the further £11.5bn allocated to Sizewell C over the next few years, and the fact that consumers could soon begin to pay a Sizewell tax on their bills, it is woeful that the independent chair of the Office of Value for Money decided not to scrutinise this monster of a project.”

DESNZ was approached for comment but did not provide one.

EDF scaled back financial interest in Sizewell C

You are here:Latest

Government holds no record of taxpayer funding arrangements for UK’s historic nuclear stations

17 Jun, 2025 By Tom Pashby

The government has revealed that it doesn’t know how much public money was spent on any of the country’s 19 historic nuclear power plants ahead of their respective final investment decisions (FIDs).

The FID is the agreement between public and private parties on how a major project will be funded, paving the way for the main construction to commence.

Pre-FID financing has risen up the agenda because of the £18bn of public money spent on Sizewell C despite its FID not having been confirmed. This means that the project is not yet guaranteed to go ahead and presents huge risks for taxpayers if the scheme falls through.

The rhetoric from the government about Sizewell C is centred on its confidence about the future of the project, but potential private sector investors including Centrica have aired concerns about the viability of the power station.

NCE submitted a request using the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) for information on how much public money was committed to the UK’s 19 historic nuclear energy projects ahead of their respective FIDs or equivalent project milestones.

The 19 projects were Calder Hall, Chapelcross, Berkeley, Hunterston A, Hinkley Point A, Bradwell, Trawsfynydd, Dungeness A, Sizewell A, Oldbury, Wylfa, Dungeness B, Hunterston B, Hinkley Point B, Hartlepool, Heysham 1, Heysham 2, Torness and Sizewell B.

All are either operating or in the decommissioning phase of their lifecycles.

Labour’s nuclear dream has destroyed my home: inside the Sizewell C planning row.

As the Government pledges £14.2 billion for the new power
station on the Suffolk coast, it faces fierce opposition from residents.
Eastbridge, a small Suffolk village two miles inland from the coast,
surrounded by marshland, has looked much the same for centuries.

Over the past year, however, it has been transformed. Huge swathes of the
surrounding countryside have been dug into a strange lunar landscape of
sand and soil to make way for construction associated with Sizewell C,
including a vast accommodation campus for workers on the outskirts of the
village. The scale of the site is only really clear from aerial
photographs, which shows a patchwork of grey, orange and brown where there
once was lush green. And this is just the beginning.

Last week, the Government pledged £14.2 billion for the project at Sizewell, which will
eventually provide low-carbon electricity for six million homes for a
lifespan of 60 years. The only published overall cost for the scheme was
£20 billion in 2020, but it has reportedly now ballooned to over £40
billion. Still a fair price, many argue, for a source of “clean,
homegrown power” – as Ed Miliband says – to future-proof Britain’s
energy security.

Inevitably, however, it has faced fierce opposition from
residents in the surrounding area, with some locals arguing the Government
hasn’t counted the true cost of the lengthy construction period and the
damage to the natural landscape and neighbouring communities.

Alison Downes, the director of Stop Sizewell C, began campaigning against the
project in 2013 on the grounds of the impact on the local area. “In the
early days we were trying to persuade the project to amend its proposal,
including the location of the [accommodation] campus at Eastbridge,” she
says. “It was of grave concern that it was proposed for 3,000 people –
it’s gone down a little bit, but not much.” Then, she says, as she
learnt more about the project, “all these other issues [came] to the
fore.” Downes, a career campaigner, has wisely focused on scrutinising
Sizewell on issues of national, rather than localised, importance.

Stop Sizewell C argues that the project is bad value for money, will be too slow
to address climate change (it will take at least 10-12 years to build,
according to the EDF), and will ultimately load too much risk onto the
taxpayer.

Telegraph 18th June 2025,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/18/labours-nuclear-dream-has-destroyed-my-home-inside-the-size/

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s Bakers’ union rejects new nuclear reactors, calls for socialist Green New Deal

Bakers’ union rejects new nuclear reactors, calls for socialist Green New
Deal. Tens of thousands of energy jobs could be created with a socialist
Green New Deal without the need of new nuclear reactors, the bakers’
union said today. Delegates from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union
(BFAWU) passed a motion calling for the democratic public ownership of all
forms of energy. They condemned the loss of skilled jobs in North Sea
industry and Grangemouth oil refinery, saying they have “no faith” in
private firms to tackle the climate crisis “nor do we accept that nuclear
power is a clean form of energy production.”

Morning Star 16th June 2025
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/bakers-union-rejects-new-nuclear-reactors-calls-socialist-green-new-deal

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | employment, politics, UK | Leave a comment

The Office of Value for Money did NOT assess Sizewell C nuclear project

Correspondence published today from the independent Chair of the Office of
Value for Money, David Goldstone, to the National Audit Office’s
Comptroller General, Gareth Davies, confirms that the Office of Value for
Money did NOT assess Sizewell C (page 4 of link). We have sent out a
response expressing our disappointment and frustration, and would like to
thank everyone who signed our petition, as well as Dale Vince who also
wrote to David Goldstone.

Office for Value for Money 10th June 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/684bfd5ebd35d2f88bcba2b8/DG_to_GD_-_OVfM_progress_to_SR2025_-_100625.pdf

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Israel publicly confirms its military involvement in Ukraine

Lucas Leiroz. June 13, 2025, Strategic Culture Foundation,

In the end, the Zionist entity and the Kiev regime are instruments of the same Western hegemony project

While global attention remains focused on the rising tensions between Israel and Iran, a significant development has been largely ignored by Western media in recent days: the revelation of Israel’s involvement in the arming campaign for Ukraine.

Despite publicly maintaining an appearance of military neutrality in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, the State of Israel has quietly deepened its collaboration with Western military interests in Ukraine. Recent statements from Israeli diplomatic representatives make it clear that Tel Aviv not only politically supports Kiev but also directly participates in the military effort against Russia.

In an interview with Ukrainian media, the Israeli ambassador in Kiev confirmed that air defense systems originally supplied by the United States to Israel were transferred to Ukraine. According to him, the delivery was deliberately kept secret and away from international headlines, demonstrating Israel’s attempt to participate in the conflict without attracting negative consequences.

The omission of logistical details about the delivery reveals a clear attempt to preserve an appearance of neutrality before the public. It remains unclear whether the equipment was sent directly by Israel or through third parties, suggesting an internationally coordinated operation to avoid diplomatic friction with Moscow.

Until recently, Tel Aviv claimed a stance of non-involvement in the Ukraine conflict, citing concerns about potential Russian retaliation—particularly in Syria, where Russian forces maintain a strategic presence. However, this justification is becoming increasingly obsolete in light of Israel’s actual behavior…………………………………..

The recent neutralization of Shiite militias in Syria, which were aligned with Tehran, and the rapprochement between the new Syrian government and Israel have created a more favorable environment for Tel Aviv’s foreign military maneuvers. Feeling less vulnerable to indirect retaliation, Israel now appears more willing to expand its involvement in conflicts beyond the Middle East, such as the one in Ukraine……………………………………………..

Israel’s decision to more openly support the Kiev regime marks a significant shift in its foreign policy, abandoning previous caution in favor of a stance more aligned with the interests of the Collective West. However, this move may bring unforeseen consequences — not only at the regional level but also in the structure of its bilateral relationship with Moscow…………………………. https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/06/13/israel-publicly-confirms-its-military-involvement-in-ukraine/

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US assisted Israeli war on Iran just another US regime change operation

16 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow https://theaimn.net/us-assisted-israeli-war-on-iran-just-another-us-regime-change-operation/

In the 80 years since WWII, the US has engaged in roughly 80 regime change operations, an average of one per year. Some utilized outright war. Some used proxies. Some consisted of crippling economic sanctions designed to hurt the people so severely they would overthrow the targeted ruler.

Some succeeded immediately. Some took years to achieve regime change. Many failed.

The 1960 regime change operation in Cuba initially used sanctions. When that failed the US used Cuban dissident proxies in an invasion ending in catastrophe. Cuba brought in Russian missiles to prevent further regime change shenanigans. That nearly blew up the whole world simply to change out the Cuban communist regime in a tiny land 1/90th America’s size with a population just 3% of the American behemoth. After 65 years US embargo still makes life horrible for Cubans but does nothing to achieve regime change.

Then there is the current US regime change operation targeting Iran. The US has been itching to change out the Islamic theocracy ruling Iran since their 1979 revolution kicked out the US puppet we installed after our 1953 regime change operation deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

But the current Iran regime change operation is truly unique. It’s being conducted by our best buddies in the Middle East, Israel, who launched a ferocious attack against Iran wholly supported, indeed cheered on by the US. Israel is ecstatic the US enabled their war since they’re even more committed to Iran regime change than America.

In possibly the most despicable, duplicitous act of diplomatic treachery in US history, the US lulled Iran from being on alert for attack by scheduling a sixth negotiating session on Iran’s nuclear program while knowing the bombs were about to fall. An Israeli official admitted to the Jerusalem Post; “The round of US-Iranian nuclear negotiations scheduled for Sunday was part of a coordinated US-Israeli deception aimed at lowering Iran’s guard ahead of Friday’s attack.”

Besides keeping Iran’s defenses from preparing for attack, the deception was designed to keep military, political and nuclear scientists from moving to safety. Some were killed in their imagined safe homes.

Israel claims their attacks were defensive to keep Iran from building a nuclear bomb. Poppycock. That argument was simply a MacGuffin, a Hitchcock style directorial plot device to keep the narrative moving. And that narrative is regime change of the theocracy ruling Iran and inflicting massive devastation so Iran will no longer be a hegemonic rival to Israel for Middle East supremacy.

The US is delighted that it may finally achieve its first Iran regime change since deposing Moseddgegh 72 years ago. And it will do so without dropping a single bomb or losing a single soldier or civilian. Firing the bombs and burying their dead will fall to its proxy Israel which, in their lust to topple Iran, is only too happy to fill that proxy role.

On December 6-7, 1941, two Japanese diplomats were still negotiating with US officials in DC when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The US charged Japan with dastardly deception to enable their attack. But history later attributed the two events as unrelated due to the slow, poor communication methods of 84 years ago. Not so with America’s grotesque use of diplomacy to achieve, as Sen. Lindsay Graham gloated “Game on” for regime change in Iran.

Next time the US wants to negotiate a sensitive issue of war and peace, the opposition will not say; ‘Remember Pearl Harbor.’ They’ll proclaim; ‘Remember Iran.’

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How Iran Turned Israel’s Iron Dome Against Itself Using Clever Jamming

Sputnik International, Ekaterina Blinova 16.06.2025

New evidence suggests that Iran successfully compromised Israel’s vaunted air defense systems during recent attacks — forcing Tel Aviv to fire on its own positions. How?

Iran overwhelmed Israeli defenses by breaching the data transmission and correction system early in flight, explains military expert and historian of the Air Defense Forces Yuri Knutov.

Based on the footage that was released, it seems that the Iranians were able to breach the data transmission and correction signal system at the early stage when the missiles were flying, using an inertial guidance system. As a result, the system misdirected the missiles, not toward their intended target, but toward Israel’s own surface-to-air missile batteries, leading to a strike on them.”

The attack included:

100+ Shahed drones (swarming tactics)

Decoy ballistic missiles (old models to waste interceptors)

Fattah hypersonic missiles (unstoppable by Israeli Arrow/PAC-3)

As a result, the Iron Dome’s interception rate dropped drastically to just 10-15%.

“The use of jamming against surface-to-air missiles and missile defense systems is actually a fairly old tactic. During the Vietnam War, the Americans used jamming to mislead missiles by range, angle, and many other active interference methods. Special transmitters were deployed to create the illusion of aircraft presence on the radar screens of Vietnamese missile guidance stations,” Knutov says.

………………………..Masterful deception

Iran’s hypersonic Fattah missiles and Haj Qassems guided ballistics hit critical Israeli targets, including the Defense Ministry HQ and a major airbase housing F-35 and F-16 fighters. Despite Israel’s marketing of its advanced defense systems, the Arrow and Patriot systems failed to stop them.

Iran also deployed decoys so effectively that Israeli strikes repeatedly hit fake targets. The Iron Dome, which covers only 144 sq km and is good for single rockets, but seemingly couldn’t handle mass attacks or the hypersonic gap — Fattah missiles reach Israel in 7 minutes, while the Iron Dome needs 11 minutes to reload.

Iran has learned from past Israeli strikes and improved tactics, establishing backup command centers and more efficient maneuvering to increase its chances of success. https://sputnikglobe.com/20250616/how-iran-turned-israels-iron-dome-against-itself-using-clever-jamming-1122265685.html

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why I can’t trust carbon capture or nuclear power to save us.

Tommy Shepherd (Former SNP MP) Sometimes I wonder if it’s the lack of a
scientific background among the country’s lawmakers which allows them to
be so easily bamboozled by technical experts. Could this be why energy
policy so blatantly disregards the obvious solution in pursuit of more
elaborate, costly and difficult answers?

Look no further than last week’s
announcements by the UK Government on nuclear and carbon capture to see
what I mean. Let’s start with carbon capture and storage. This has a ring
of plausibility and common sense to it. If you want to reduce CO₂ levels
in the atmosphere, why not find a way to remove it, compress it, pump it
underground and wait for time to literally turn it to stone? The thing is,
though, we already have things for taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

They’re very good at it. We call them trees. Photosynthesis is what has
always kept carbon in balance, ensuring not only that levels are reduced
but that oxygen, that vital component of life, is produced. You could build
very expensive industrial plants to augment the capacity of trees. Or you
could just plant more trees!

As the bill for Sizewell C grows towards £20
billion, remember that we will be paying for that too – even though
Scotland is self-sufficient in renewables. That is why control of our
energy is the greatest argument we can deploy to illustrate the benefits of
becoming an independent country.

The National 16th June 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/comment/25240560.cant-trust-carbon-capture-nuclear-power-save-us/

June 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

A golden nuclear age

‘the last thing variable renewables need is inflexible nuclear plants: they are incompatible.’

June 14, 2025, Renew Extra Weekly

Nuclear power will help take us into a ‘golden age of clean energy abundance’. So said UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, in the run up to the public spending review. He announced an extra £14.2 billion in state support for EdFs proposed 3.2GW Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) and also £2.5bn for small modular reactor support, with Rolls Royce having won the UK Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition. There would also be £2.5bn to support fusion.

Whereas there has been a lot a concern about the cost of Sizewell, given the delays and over-runs with its sister EPR plant at Hinkley, it was argued that the second plant would benefit from the lessons learnt, and certainly Miliband was very single-minded about it: ‘all of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.’

Not everyone agreed with that, and, in any case, as the Stop Sizewell C campaign said, ‘there still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C’, with agreements on the remaining substantial private funding still being negotiated. And it noted that ‘every pound sunk into risky, expensive Sizewell C is a pound lost to alternative energy sources and critical social funding that the voting public cares deeply about. It’s not too late to redirect money to offshore wind, or warm homes – creating thousands of jobs – or to restoring the most unpopular and unjust cuts. Sizewell C, given the terrible track record of Hinkley Point C, would be £40 billion badly spent.’

However, Labour seems totally committed to it, although there was some wry media commentary that this might be what sinks Millband’s career- and also about the dubiousness of the nuclear investments and associated fiscal rule changes. There certainly is plenty of potential for things to go awry, and, despite what Milliband claimed, plenty of experts who have warned about the risks and uncertainties of new nuclear, including SMRs. And on costs, the Royal Society had earlier concluded that, even with storage back up, renewables were likely to be cheaper than nuclear. Interestingly, Scotland is still sticking to its no nuclear approach. And there was plenty of opposition from the rest of the UK.

The large-scale new reactor funding (nearly £20bn in all) was the only significant energy-related allocation in the Spending Review, unless you include the £15bn for trams and local transport outside London. The £15bn allocated specifically to nuclear weapons upgrading, for the delightfully named sovereign warhead programme, was unrelated, but, as CND noted, there are some links between civil and military nuclear technology development, including reactors for submarines. There had been hopes from devotees that Carbon Capture would get a lot more funding. It already had £22bn, and so ought to be more than content with the £9.4 bn extra allocation. It did seem to go down well.

As for renewables, there’s just £300m (actually already announced), for Great British Energy to upgrade Offshore wind supply chains. Although to be fair, there will also be support for some renewable projects from the Research Councils and from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), which of course also supports the private sector CfD based renewable auction market system. The Spending Review also says the government is supporting ‘the development of home-grown clean power’, including ‘by confirming up to £80 million over the SR period for port investment to support floating offshore wind deployment in Port Talbot, subject to final due diligence’, while ‘Great British Energy and Great British Energy – Nuclear will invest more than £8.3 billion over this Parliament in homegrown clean power’. Make that what you will- it’s been suggested that it means more for SMRs, less for renewables! But Carbon Brief notes that, overall, there’s a 16% rise (to £12.6bn) in DESNZ spending- not including the nuclear investment.

The spending review isn’t about policy formulation, but of course it does reflect policy, so what we are seeing is the triumphant renewal of nuclear, although renewables are still seen as all import, very little new public money in being allocated to them. Even AI got £2bn! But perhaps you can’t read too much into that. Milliband is clearly still keen on net zero with renewables being central (aiming for around 60GW by 2030), with CCUS, and now nuclear, playing smaller bit parts, along with some residual fossil gas.

So renewables will continue to lead. They are now supplying over 50% of UK power and are still expanding fast. Nuclear has fallen to 15% and will fall further as the old AGR plants are closed, before picking up again when Hinkley finally gets going and then some more if Sizewell really does get built, along possibly with some SMRs, in the 2030s. So maybe 25% of power by then?

There will no doubt continue to be objections to each of the energy options. Certainly to nuclear, but also to CCUS and to fossil gas. And inevitably also to renewables – as well as to the whole ‘net zero’ idea. For example, predictably, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has produced a new report which claims that ‘net zero will bankrupt Britain.’ For example, it says ‘the Government’s plans ensure that bills are likely to go up, rather than fall as claimed’, with new subsidies for variable renewable energy locking in further price rises for consumers. It also warns about the increasing cost of grid balancing.

Instead of this, the GWPF report seems to favour a return to fossil fuel. It says ‘the potential of the UK’s shale gas resources has also gone unexplored. A new discovery in Lincolnshire, known as the Gainsborough Trough, could add £112 billion to UK GDP, according to a study by Deloitte’. Farage seems to be saying the same sort of thing – even calling for a return to coal mining in Wales. So, they both seem to be saying let’s not worry too much about emissions – let’s go backwards. Labour is not doing that, although some might think its conversion from an anti-nuclear party in the 1980s to a militantly pro-nuclear one now, has involved a bit of backtracking, and a lack of consistent vision.

Personally, as I said in response to the Labour Party’s invitation to submit comments to its National Policy Forum consultation on energy policy, I do not think we need renewables and nuclear, not least since ‘the last thing variable renewables need is inflexible nuclear plants: they are incompatible.’ Quite apart from the costs and the safety and security risks, which I have looked at elsewhere, I think it’s foolish to build large expensive plants that are only used occasionally for backup. The same is true for an isolated fleet of SMRs- trying to make them flexible enough to provide grid balancing is likely to make them even more costly. Instead, I pointed out that ‘there are UK scenarios in which renewables expand to supply almost all energy needs by 2050 led by wind and solar’, with full short and long term storage and flexible system balancing, at reasonable costs, although I did warn that ‘ dealing with interannual cycles may require import/grid trading options to be explored. But having inflexible nuclear plants doesn’t help at all- they just get in the way’.

It’s fascinating stuff trying to ensure zero carbon green energy system flexibility and sustainability at low cost, as I have reported in Renew over the years, but Labour now seems to see nuclear as a key option. As a result, although there are some good things (e.g. on warm housing) in the new spending review, I’m not sure, given also their stance on some other key issues, how much longer I can stay being a member.

June 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Labour’s £14bn ‘fixation’ with new nuclear power ‘won’t cut bills or help climate’

It’s almost like a mass psychosis because if they really investigated properly what the best use of public funds would be, nuclear wouldn’t get a look-in.”

“It’s almost like a mass psychosis because if they really investigated properly what the best use of public funds would be, nuclear wouldn’t get a look-in.”

The UK Government last week announced a new ‘golden age’ of nuclear but academics and campaigners warn it will be a costly energy fail.

Dan Vevers Sunday Mail Chief Reporter, Daily Record, 15 Jun 2025

Labour’s £14billion “fixation” with new nuclear power will be a costly flop and do nothing to lower Scots’ bills or hit climate targets, experts have warned.

It comes after Keir Starmer’s goverment last week announced a “golden age” of nuclear energy with a £14.2billion investment to finally build the delayed Sizewell C plant in Suffolk which it claimed will create 10,000 jobs.

Ministers say the move is vital to prevent future blackouts and to help the shift to a low carbon economy.

Now campaigners and academics warned nuclear energy is too expensive and plants take too long to build to make any dent in net zero efforts or prevent future blackouts.

And they said the result of “inevitable” cost overruns on nuclear projects would lead to a “nuclear tax” on consumer bills.

It follows pressure on the SNP to end its block on nuclear projects, with Labour saying it could open Scotland up to small modular reactors (SMR) if it wins at Holyrood next year.

But Pete Roche, an Edinburgh energy consultant and anti-nuclear campaigner, said: “It’s too late for nuclear. It takes too long to build.

“We’re trying to tackle a climate crisis here, we need to be fast – the faster, the better.

“You can insulate people’s homes and put up wind farms quite quickly in comparison to how long it takes to build a nuclear power station.

“And the worry is when you’re putting all your eggs in the nuclear basket, the money is getting diverted, civil servants’ attention is getting diverted.

“We’re not focused enough on getting the energy transition based on renewables off the ground.

“It’s a fixation and the UK is not on its own. There’s all sorts of talk in other countries of building nuclear power stations again.

“It’s almost like a mass psychosis because if they really investigated properly what the best use of public funds would be, nuclear wouldn’t get a look-in.”

Dr Paul Dorfman, of the Bennett Institute at the University of Sussex, said more than £20billion had now been committed to Sizewell C but the final bill could easily be double that and likely more.

He told the Sunday Mail: “The vast majority of that money comes from public subsidy – in other words, the public will have to pay for all the inevitable over-costs and overruns, which is basically a nuclear tax.”

Dr Dorfman continued: “In Scotland, given the country’s vast renewable power capacity, one wonders what would be the reason to burden Scotland with new nuclear.

“New nuclear builds, wherever they’re built, are always vastly over cost and over time.

“Hinkley Point C [in Somerset] is already 90 per cent over budget and seven years late, with at least seven years of construction remaining.

“And the form of reactor that is doomed to be constructed at Sizewell C is the same reactor being built at Hinkley C.”

He added: “It is possible to sustain a reliable power system by expanding renewables on all levels, whether that’s solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, storage and all the rest of it…

“But nuclear risks eating all of the cake.

“The time lost may prove catastrophic, because according to the UK Government, it takes up to 17 years to build just one nuclear power plant.

“Meanwhile all SMRs are in the design phase.

“In terms of the climate, we are running out of time now.” And because of the time it takes to build a nuclear station, he declared: “Nuclear cannot keep the lights on.”

Tor Justad, chair of Highlands Against Nuclear Power (HANP), highlighted the continuing issues related to the old Dounreay plant which shut down in 1985 around radioactive waste.

He said: “For me, investing in nuclear makes no sense, whether economically or in terms of safety or benefit to the wider community.

“We don’t need these massive white elephants which always end up costing twice what they started with and take twice the length of time to build than they predicted.

“And this argument about base load doesn’t take into account the storage possibilities for renewables that we’re developing at a rapid pace, including here in the Highlands.

“We can store electricity now in ways that we never could do ten years ago, and that will continue to improve.”

He added Labour’s pro-nuclear stance is “a real danger” in Scotland…………………………. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labours-14bn-fixation-new-nuclear-35393729

June 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Trump Threatens to Bomb Iran to Smithereens for “Playing By the Rules”

there is no provision in international law or under the UN Charter that allows one country to attack another country based on its own subjective perception of what ‘may or may not’ constitute a threat.

Did we mention that the Trump campaign was given over $100 million by wealthy Zionist donors whose driving ambition is to topple the government in Tehran and absorb territorial Iran into Greater Israel?

Mike Whitney • June 9, 2025, https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/trump-threatens-to-bomb-iran-to-smithereens-for-playing-by-the-rules/

President Donald Trump is threatening to launch air strikes on Iran for activities that are approved under the terms of Iran’s treaty obligations. This is not a matter on which there should be any debate. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) explicitly grants all parties, including Iran, the “inalienable right” to develop, research, produce, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This “inalienable right” includes the enriching of uranium.

Trump either doesn’t understand what a “treaty” is or thinks its terms should not apply to Iran. For the sake of clarity, a treaty is a formal, legally binding agreement between sovereign states that is governed by international law. It establishes mutual obligations, rights, or rules on matters such as trade, security, nuclear non-proliferation, or environmental protection. A treaty is not optional and cannot be repealed by executive fiat. States that ratify treaties are legally obligated to comply with their terms in good faith. Political leaders, as representatives of the state, are expected to uphold these obligations.

This is all very straightforward which is why we find so it hard to understand why Trump is threatening a country that is clearly “in compliance” with its obligations under the NPT. Here’s what Trump said on Friday on Air Force One:

“They won’t be enriching. If they enrich, then we’re going to have to do it the other way… (air strikes) And I don’t really want to do it the other way but we’re going to have no choice. There’s not going to be enrichment.”

Trump has no legal authority to determine whether Iran can enrich uranium or not. It’s simply not his decision to make. Even Grok — with its obvious pro-Israel bias — understands this. Check it out:

Donald Trump, whether as a private citizen or as U.S. president, has no legal authority under international law to demand that Iran stop enriching uranium. Iran, as a sovereign state and signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has the right under Article IV to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, including uranium enrichment, provided it complies with its safeguards obligations under Article III and its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). No individual state, including the United States, has the unilateral legal authority under international law to prohibit Iran from exercising this right. Any demand from Trump would be a political or diplomatic action, not a legally binding directive, unless backed by a UN Security Council resolution, which would require agreement from other permanent members (e.g., Russia, China). Grok

Trita Parsi explains how Trump has adopted John Bolton’s Iran policy.[0n original]

Also, there is no provision in international law or under the UN Charter that allows one country to attack another country based on its own subjective perception of what ‘may or may not’ constitute a threat. That’s insanity, and it flies in the face of the UN’s efforts to ensure peace and security through collective action and multilateralism. Besides, there is no credible legal case against Iran, because Iran is not violating the rules. What the MSM stubbornly refuses to tell the public is that Iran has no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons program. And—according to the IAEA—Iran has been “in compliance” since 2003 and has never diverted nuclear material to a weapons program. In other words, there’s no legal case against Iran at all. Zilch.

So, what is the point of Trump’s fulminations? Why is he threatening a peaceful country that is clearly “playing by the rules”?

Did we mention that the Trump campaign was given over $100 million by wealthy Zionist donors whose driving ambition is to topple the government in Tehran and absorb territorial Iran into Greater Israel?

Could that be a factor? Could that explain why Trump convened 5 separate meetings with Iranian negotiators without once mentioning the issue of “nuclear enrichment”, but then—Surprise, Surprise—did a swift 180 after which he made “zero enrichment” the foundational demand for which he has declared unflinching support?

How do you explain that sudden about-face? Is Trump pursuing an Israeli agenda or putting “America First”?

And why would Trump stake-out such a flimsy, untenable position when he knows that enrichment is the one provision in the NPT on which Iran will never budge?

The obvious answer is that Trump doesn’t want an agreement; he does not want to resolve the issue peacefully. That’s why he focused on the one issue on which there is no flexibility, figuring (quite rightly) that enrichment can be used as a pretext for war. And that’s the goal, war with Iran.

(Readers who have been following developments with Iran closely may recall that Trump’s original demand was that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon”. (Iran has agreed to that demand.) But now, he has sneakily changed the wording to “no enrichment” as if the two things are the same. Naturally, the pro-Israel media has not drawn attention to the president’s sleight-of-hand fearing that it would reveal the deceptive game he is playing. But, the fact remains, Trump used the negotiations to look like he genuinely wanted peace, and then quickly moved the goalposts as the “talks” progressed. Bottom line: A peaceful settlement was never Trump’s objective.

This is from an article at The Times of Israel (June 8, 2025)

This is how desperate the Trump team (and their Israeli allies) are to cast suspicion on Iran’s perfectly legal activities. They’ve actually dug up the details of research that was conducted in 2003. (a period during which Iran has admitted to “aspects of a nuclear weapons program.”) Notice that the IAEA report does not suggest that anything illegal is going on today, or that there is any indication that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, or even that they are diverting nuclear material to some other location. No. What they’re referring to happened more than two decades ago. It’s a joke.

And the same rule applies to the uranium that has been enriched to 60% which the Iranians have admitted to many times in the past. They’re not hiding anything; they’re looking for sanction’s relief, that’s all. Turns out, they don’t like economic strangulation. Are you surprised?

By the way, under the terms of the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium to 60% as the treaty does not explicitly set a maximum enrichment level for non-nuclear-weapon states. This is a fact, but it is a fact that is omitted in 100% of the MSM coverage of the issue. Why would that be?:-

Iran Needs Nuclear Energy

Many people believe that a country with vast oil resources like Iran has no need for nuclear energy, but that’s simply not true. Much of Iran’s electricity generation takes place at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Iran’s primary nuclear power facility, that uses low-enriched uranium to generate significant electrical power and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Iran also uses nuclear technology to produce radioisotopes for medical diagnostics and treatment,… widely used in cancer diagnosis and imaging. Iran claims its nuclear program supports healthcare by providing isotopes for over 1 million patients annually.

Iran also uses nuclear energy in industrial applications, agriculture, water resource management, scientific research, cancer treatment, technology and radioisotope production. The fact is, no country would join the NPT if they were denied the “peaceful use” of nuclear power. Why would they?

Finally….

Americans should realize that nothing one reads about Iran in the western media can be trusted; it is all poisoned with the same, vile anti-Iran hatred and bias. Since the 1979 Revolution to today, US policy towards Iran has been an unbroken chain of relentless hectoring, belligerence and demonization. Washington has never treated Iran with the respect it deserves nor will it in the future. That’s because—on a fundamental level—the entire US political class despises Iran for asserting sovereign control over their-own vast resources and for failing to kowtow to their mucky-muck overlords in Washington. That’s the real issue; Iran has refused to cave in to Uncle Sam’s diktats which is why it must be punished with economic strangulation, “maximum pressure” and, inevitably, war. That is how America treats the peasants in the provinces, with an iron fist.

Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi summed up Iran’s approach at a recent ceremony for the late Ayatollah Khomeini. He said:

“The main foundation of Iran’s foreign policy is based on the principle of renouncing foreign domination. Trump’s ban on enrichment is itself domination, and this is unacceptable to the Iranian people.”

To its credit, Iran has never ‘given an inch’ to Washington’s endless badgering and saber-rattling. They have stuck by their principles and defended their right as a free country to choose their own development model, their own political system and their own collective future without bullying or coercion.

Iran should be applauded for shrugging off Washington’s threats and intimidation, and for its unflinching commitment to the principle of sovereign independence. They have preserved their dignity through 45 years of nonstop hostility and antagonism.

Bravo, Iran.

June 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump Praises ‘Excellent’ Israeli Strikes on Iran.

A source said Washington provided Tel Aviv with “exquisite” intel for the assault

by Kyle Anzalone | Jun 13, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/06/13/trump-praises-excellent-israeli-strikes-on-iran/

President Donald Trump endorsed the massive Israeli strike on Iran early on Friday morning, calling the attack “excellent.” A source explained that the US provided Israel with intelligence for the operation.

Speaking with ABC News on the phone following the Israeli strikes across the Islamic Republic, Trump said, “I think it’s been excellent.” He continued, “We gave them a chance and they didn’t take it. They got hit hard, very hard. They got hit about as hard as you’re going to get hit. And there’s more to come. A lot more.”

Trump refused to provide details about the US role in the attack, saying, “I don’t want to comment on that.”

However, elements of Washington’s support for Tel Aviv are becoming public. Israeli officials told the Jerusalem Post and Axios that the White House helped to create the illusion that the US was still seeking a diplomatic settlement with Iran.

Just hours before the attack, President Trump declared that he was committed to a “Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!” But it appears he had already greenlit the Jewish state’s attack on the Islamic Republic.

A source provided further details of the US support, telling ABC News that Washington provided Tel Aviv with “exquisite” intelligence. Additionally, the source said the US will help Israel defend against any Iranian response.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it holds the US responsible for the attack. “The Zionist regime’s aggressive actions against Iran cannot have been carried out without the coordination and authorization of the United States. Accordingly, the United States government, as the main supporter of this regime, will also be responsible for the dangerous effects and consequences of the Zionist regime’s adventure,” the ministry said.

Since starting the assault early Friday morning, Israeli forces have delivered multiple rounds of strikes targeting Iranian military sites, nuclear facilities, and residential buildings. Top Iranian nuclear scientists and generals have been confirmed killed.

Tel Aviv said the operation, dubbed “Nation of Lions,” will last several days.

Israel is seeking more support from the US. The Jerusalem Post reports that Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz will hold a call with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth later on Friday to lobby Washington for more military assistance. Additionally, Trump is expected to speak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone.

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute. He hosts The Kyle Anzalone Show and is co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Connor Freeman.

June 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

nuclear-news

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

Jeffrey D. Sachs: Stop Netanyahu Before He Gets Us All Killed

Rosatom: A company at war

Nuclear state entity is on the ground in Ukraine and smoothing the way for new atomic tests, writes Charles Digges

Rosatom at war

What the corporation is ignoring

Rosatom helps Moscow divide the world

Major radiation warning as Israel says it’s ‘on verge of destroying 10 nuclear sites’

Government holds no record of taxpayer funding arrangements for UK’s historic nuclear stations

Government holds no record of taxpayer funding arrangements for UK’s historic nuclear stations

Government holds no record of taxpayer funding arrangements for UK’s historic nuclear stations

Related questions you can explore with Ask NCE, our new AI search engine.

Labour’s nuclear dream has destroyed my home: inside the Sizewell C planning row.

UK’s Bakers’ union rejects new nuclear reactors, calls for socialist Green New Deal

The Office of Value for Money did NOT assess Sizewell C nuclear project

Israel publicly confirms its military involvement in Ukraine

US assisted Israeli war on Iran just another US regime change operation

How Iran Turned Israel’s Iron Dome Against Itself Using Clever Jamming

Why I can’t trust carbon capture or nuclear power to save us.

A golden nuclear age

Labour’s £14bn ‘fixation’ with new nuclear power ‘won’t cut bills or help climate’

The UK Government last week announced a new ‘golden age’ of nuclear but academics and campaigners warn it will be a costly energy fail.

Trump Threatens to Bomb Iran to Smithereens for “Playing By the Rules”

Trump Praises ‘Excellent’ Israeli Strikes on Iran.

1 This Month

Categories

Pages

Archives

Categories

RSS

Site info