nuclear-news

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

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 | 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 | 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?

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 | 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 | Israel, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel claims it damaged Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility “significantly.” But questions remain

By François Diaz-Maurin Bulletin, June 13, 2025

Early Friday, Israel conducted air strikes on the Natanz nuclear facility, Iran’s main enrichment site. The strikes were part of a larger operation by the Israeli military that targeted nuclear sites, long-range missile facilities, military leaders, and nuclear scientists across Iran.

It was not clear how much damage the Natanz nuclear site—which hosts both a commercial fuel enrichment plant for use in things such as powering civilian nuclear reactors, and the more technologically advanced and opaque so-called pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP)—had sustained from the strike. Israel’s military published its own assessment of the attack, claiming that they have damaged the underground area of the site. This area reportedly contains a multi-story enrichment hall with centrifuges, electrical rooms, and additional supporting infrastructure, which can be used to enrich uranium to military-grade levels. During a briefing, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson Efi Defrin said the Natanz nuclear site was “significantly damaged.

“It’s difficult to assess the consequences of the strikes on the nuclear program itself and the facilities, as we are still waiting for independent analyses of the satellite imagery,” Héloïse Fayet, a research fellow at the French Institute of International Relations and an expert of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, told the Bulletin.

Unverified footage shared on social media from near the Natanz facility seemed to show repeated explosions at four locations. This seems to be consistent with the description of the facility, believed to consist of three underground buildings and six above-ground buildings.

As the operation was reportedly still ongoing, many questions about the attack remain unanswered. Here are some of the unknowns about the attack.

When will the attack be over? During a live briefing on Friday morning, Defrin said that “more than 100 targets have been struck across Iran.” And in his address, Netanyahu said that the operation “will continue for as many days as it takes to remove that threat.”

Defrin added that pilots were “still striking military targets and targets from the nuclear program across different areas in Iran,” which the Israeli military said involved about 200 fighter jets.

It is not clear how long the attack will last.

What are the other nuclear facilities targeted? On early Friday, the IAEA confirmed with Iranian authorities that the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, located near Qom in central Iran, had not been targeted during Israel’s attack. But new reports later suggested that Israel was actively attacking the plant, with residents reportedly having heard large explosions coming from the plant’s underground complex and smoke seen rising from several locations in the vicinity of the site.

The IAEA also said the Isfahan nuclear complex had not been targeted, contradicting reports of explosions near the site. The Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, located 340 kilometers south of Tehran, hosts nuclear research reactors, a uranium conversion plant, and a fuel production plant, among other facilities. On Friday evening, the IDF confirmed that it also targeted the Isfahan complex, but offered no evidence.

Was the United States involved in the attack? According to The Washington Post, Trump officials have said that there was no US military support in the attack. But it is still unknown whether the United States provided indirect intelligence or logistical support for the attack.

Some news reports claim Israeli officials as saying that the United States may be opposing the attack only publicly, adding that the Trump administration did not express opposition in private. “We had a clear US green light,” one official reportedly told Axios.

Was the attack necessary? Israel’s military called its operation “preemptive” due to the imminent nuclear threat from Iran. During his address moments after launching the attack, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the operation was necessary because “Iran has produced enough highly enriched uranium for nine atom bombs,” adding that “Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.” For its part, Israel’s military said “[Iran’s] program has accelerated significantly in recent months, bringing the regime significantly closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Reports that Israel was preparing to conduct such attacks have been made for over a year, and right-wing columnists have, for years, openly called on Israel to do so.

But several agencies and analysts dispute the claim that the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. A May 22 report to the House Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that “the US intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking nuclear weapons-related activities,” although adding that “Iran could enrich enough uranium for more than a dozen nuclear weapons within weeks if it chose to do so.”……………………………………………………….

Did the attack successfully roll back Iran’s nuclear program? Despite several Iranian nuclear facilities reported as being targeted by heavy military strikes, it is difficult at this stage to assess how successful Israel’s operation has been, especially as it was still ongoing as of Friday evening.

But Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear expert and director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, is skeptical that the attack may have significantly altered Iran’s nuclear program. “Iran has likely been planning for this day for months or years. We have to assume they have stored a lot of capabilities to rebuild and even to build a weapon in short order.”

According to Wolfsthal, Israel’s attack may be counterproductive.

“You cannot bomb away a nuclear program.” https://thebulletin.org/2025/06/israel-claims-it-damaged-irans-natanz-nuclear-facility-significantly-but-questions-remain/

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

We Are, Of Course, Being Lied To About Iran

The western political/media class have been dutifully promoting this line and uncritically parroting Israel’s claim that its unprovoked attack on Iran was “preemptive”, but there is absolutely no evidence that any of this is true.

Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 15, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/we-are-of-course-being-lied-to-about?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=165951075&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Iran and Israel are at war, with the US already intimately involved and likely to become more so. Which of course means we’ll be spending the foreseeable future getting bashed in the face with lies from the most powerful people in the world.

The most immediately obvious of these is the Netanyahu-promoted narrative that Israel initiated this conflict because Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. With absolutely no self-consciousness or sense of irony, the Israeli prime minister followed the attacks with a statement accusing Iran of “genocidal rhetoric” which it has backed up “with a program to develop nuclear weapons.” Israel, as we all know, has an unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, and its leaders are presently committing genocide in Gaza while spouting genocidal rhetoric.

“And if not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time,” Netanyahu claimed. “It could be a year. It could be within a few months — less than a year. This is a clear and present danger to Israel’s very survival.”

The western political/media class have been dutifully promoting this line and uncritically parroting Israel’s claim that its unprovoked attack on Iran was “preemptive”, but there is absolutely no evidence that any of this is true.

Benjamin Netanyahu has spent literally decades falsely claiming that Iran was a year or two away from developing a nuke, only to have the calendar prove him wrong with the passage of time over and over again.

US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard testified just weeks ago that “The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

As journalist Séamus Malekafzali recently noted on Twitter, one of the strongest arguments that Iran had not reversed its decision to refrain from obtaining nuclear weapons is that Iranian nuclear scientists have been publicly expressing frustration about the fact that their government won’t allow them to construct a nuke. They want to do it, but Tehran won’t let them.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth helped pave the way for Netanyahu’s claims this past Wednesday when he told the Senate that “there have been plenty of indications” Iran has been “moving their way toward something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon.”

This claim by Hegseth was swiftly scooped up and promoted by warmongers like Tom Cotton who said that Hegseth had “confirmed that Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon.”

Cotton’s claim was then picked up by war pundit Mark Levin, who has been personally lobbying Trump to green light an attack on Iran, sarcastically quipping on Twitter, “So, SecDef Hegseth must by lying, too. Everyone’s lying except the isolationists, Koch-heads, Islamists, Chatsworth Qatarlson and their media propagandists.”

But let’s back up and look at what Hegseth actually said. He did not say “Iran is building a nuclear weapon.” He said “there have been plenty of indications” Iran has been “moving their way toward something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon.”

If the US had intelligence that Iran was building a nuke, Hegseth would have just said so. But instead he performed this freakish verbal gymnastics stunt muttering about indications of something that might kinda sorta look like a nuclear weapon, which his fellow Iran hawks then falsely took and ran with as a positive assertion that Iran was building a nuke.

There are other lies being circulated to help market this war as well. As Moon of Alabama notes, the Washington Post’s odious war propagandist David Ignatius is pushing the narrative that Iran has been cultivating a relationship with de-facto al-Qaeda leader Saif al-Adel. The lie that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaeda was used two decades ago to sell the invasion of Iraq.

At the same time, Trumpian pundits are currently circulating the narrative that the United States is full of Iranian “sleeper cells” who could activate at any moment and begin attacking Americans. The most egregious of these is Laura Loomer’s repeated claims that there are “millions” of such cells awaiting Iran’s orders to strike — possibly the single most bat shit insane claim I have ever seen anyone with any major platform make, since it would mean a very sizable percentage of the US population is actually a secret Iranian proxy army.

The fountain of lies is just getting started. There will be more. Believe nothing unless it is substantiated by mountains of evidence. These freaks have been caught lying to sell wars to the public far too many times for any of their claims to be taken on faith.

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Iran, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Ghoulish US Congresspersons applaud dastardly Israeli attack on Iran

17 June 2025 By Walt Zlotow  ,https://theaimn.net/ghoulish-us-congresspersons-applaud-dastardly-israeli-attack-on-iran/

No surprise upon hearing the news, supreme US warmonger Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) immediately chortled “Game on. Pray for Israel.” That would be like a US Senator saying “Game on, pray for Germany” after their September 1, 1939 attack on Poland. Just like Germany, Israel cited ‘self-defense’ for their criminal, senseless bombardment that could provoke a regional if not nuclear war.

Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez (R-FL) was a tad less ecstatic but bloodthirsty nonetheless charging: “The threat from Iran will only stop when the regime is destroyed. Anything less is just a temporary respite from the existential threat Iran poses to our allies and the free world.”

Even relatively moderate Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins offered up this huge whopper before hoping for an Israeli victory. “Our country too is at risk as Iran continues its development not only of fissile material but also of ballistic missiles.” The only risk this conflict has to America is destroying every decent, peaceful, humane value our country should be embracing.

The majority of congresspersons commenting, fully support the Israeli regime change attack on Iran just as they’ve been supporting the Israeli genocide in Gaza for the past 20 months. Most are Republicans but one Democratic Senator, John Fetterman, offered this bit of heartless cruelty to the bombarded Iranians: “Our commitment to Israel must be absolute and I fully support this attack. Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel We must provide whatever is necessary – military, intelligence, weaponry – to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”

We can only surmise why these unhinged congresspersons support the most heinous conduct any governmental leader can inflict on a people posing no threat to America. But in so doing they disgrace their office, they disgrace America, they disgrace themselves.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

Was Iran months away from producing a nuclear bomb?

 The Israeli military said it had accumulated intelligence showing that
“concrete progress” had been made “in the Iranian regime’s efforts to
produce weapons components adapted for a nuclear bomb”, including a uranium
metal core and a neutron source initiator for triggering the nuclear
explosion. Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy at the
US-based Arms Control Association, said Israel’s prime minister “did not
present any clear or compelling evidence that Iran was on the brink of
weaponizing”. “Iran has been at a near-zero breakout for months,” she told
the BBC, referring to the time it would take Iran to acquire enough fissile
material for one bomb if it chose to do so.

“Similarly, the assessment that
Iran could develop a crude nuclear weapon within a few months is not new.”
She said some of Iran’s nuclear activities would be applicable to
developing a bomb, but US intelligence agencies had assessed that Iran was
not engaged in key weaponization work.

 BBC 14th June 2025, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn840275p5yo

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

Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites ‘risk radioactive releases’

Nuclear chiefs warn that Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites mark a dangerous violation of international protocol.

Kieron Monks, June 14, 2025 
Nuclear chiefs warn that Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites mark a
dangerous violation of international protocol. Israeli attacks on Iranian
nuclear sites are a ‘deeply concerning’ development, the IAEA says.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said his agency was in contact with
Iranian authorities to assess the impact of Israeli strikes on “nuclear
security and safety.” Grossi reported that there were no “elevated
radiation levels” at the Natanz complex after it came under fire. Another
key nuclear site, Fordow, was reportedly also targeted.

“This development is deeply concerning,” said Grossi. “I have repeatedly stated that
nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or
circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment.” He
further noted “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in
radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the
boundaries of the State which has been attacked” and called for
“maximum restraint to avoid further escalation.” US intelligence
currently assesses that Iran has not moved to weaponise its nuclear
programme, although it has enriched uranium beyond the level required for
civilian use.

 iNews 14th June 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/world/israeli-strikes-on-iran-nuclear-sites-risk-radioactive-releases-3749016

June 18, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Israel, safety | Leave a comment

Trump’s Nuclear Plan Faces Major Hurdles

By Felicity Bradstock – Jun 14, 2025

  • Trump aims to boost U.S. nuclear energy capacity from 100GW to 400GW by 2050, mandating quicker licensing and new reactor construction.
  • Nearly all U.S. uranium is imported—especially from Russia—posing a major obstacle given recent bans and tariffs.
  • With minimal enrichment capacity and mining, companies like Centrus stress the need for urgent public-private investment to meet demand.

 The U.S. President recently announced plans to quadruple the U.S. nuclear
capacity by 2050. However, several challenges must be overcome to meet this
target. Firstly, building a new nuclear plant can take a decade or more,
meaning that operators would have to apply for permits for new projects now
to get them up and running in the coming decades.

In addition, the U.S.
continues to rely heavily on Russia for its Uranium, despite having
introduced heavy sanctions on the country’s energy sector in response to
its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. would need to seek an alternative
supply of enriched uranium, or significantly increase its domestic
production, to fuel its power plants.

 Oil Price 14th June 2025, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Trumps-Nuclear-Plan-Faces-Major-Hurdles.html

 

June 18, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Sizewell C and Britain’s nuclear renaissance

Is ‘the most announced nuclear power station in history’ finally about to get off the ground?

14 June 25, https://theweek.com/politics/sizewell-c-and-britains-nuclear-renaissance

After years of setbacks, Britain has finally ended the uncertainty “over the future of its nuclear industry”, said the FT. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has pledged a game-changing £11.5 billion of new state funding for the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk – in addition to a £2.7 billion commitment previously made in the autumn Budget.

Although Reeves has had to make tough decisions on day-to-day departmental budgets in the Spending Review, she was able “to find the extra billions for Sizewell C through a change to her fiscal rules”, which has made £113 billion available for extra capital spending across government, funded by borrowing. In two further nuclear-boosting moves, Rolls-Royce has been chosen as preferred bidder to build Britain’s first “small modular nuclear reactors”; and more than £2.5 billion is being invested in “the nascent technology of nuclear fusion“.

“Sizewell C must be the most announced nuclear power station in history,” said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. “It feels as if every energy secretary in the last half-decade, facing up to the reality that most of the existing nuclear fleet will be going offline by the early 2030s, has endorsed the Suffolk plant.” The difference this time is that Ed Miliband‘s promise of “a golden age for clean energy abundance” is being backed by “serious government money”.

The move is a recognition that we cannot rely on the private sector alone to finance and build nuclear projects, as the last project attempted – at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which is heavily delayed and over budget – has shown. Sizewell C is effectively “a replica of Hinkley”, and both projects are being built jointly by the UK government and EDF, the French government-owned energy company. But the hope is that lessons have been learnt and that it can be built a lot more cheaply. “The game now is about rounding up private-sector investors to play a supporting financing role.”

“Rinse and repeat” is one way of looking at things, said Eleanor Steafel in The Daily Telegraph. But it rather overlooks the fact that Hinkley Point has been “beset with problems” from the moment that EDF broke ground there in 2017 – and is currently £28 billion over budget, and counting. Indeed, the biggest hole in this week’s announcement is the government’s reluctance to spell out how much Sizewell C is expected to cost, let alone how much consumers will be paying for the electricity it eventually generates, said Alistair Osborne in The Times. The promise of Sizewell is that it may one day bring us “baseload power”, complementing wind and solar. But taxpayers have a right to know “if the costs of delivering it will be radioactive”.

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

EU Commission says member states will need to invest €241 billion until 2050 in nuclear energy

dtt-net Ekrem Krasniqi, 14/06/2025

Brussels, 14 June 2025, dtt-net.com – The executive body of the European Union, said Friday member states will need to invest the amount for both lifetime extensions for lifetime extensions of existing reactors and the construction of new large-scale reactors, as well as for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs) and microreactors and in fusion for the longer-term future, in view of decarbonisation and competitiveness goals of the European bloc.

“Nuclear installed capacity across the EU is projected to grow from 98 GWe in 2025 to 109 around GWe by 2050.

According to the EC estimates, over 90% of electricity in the European bloc in 2040 will be produced mainly by renewables and nuclear energy………….https://dtt-net.com/eu-commission-says-member-states-will-need-to-invest-e241-billion-until-2050-in-nuclear-energy/

June 18, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

The ‘unsustainable’ reason behind who can have nuclear weapons, and who can’t

there was no evidence of active weaponisation, or that Israel’s strike was “pre-emptive in the sense that Iran was clearly planning an attack on Israel that was imminent”.

“the most flagrant example of double standards that you could possibly imagine”.

Israel has said its attack on Iran on Friday was partially aimed at destroying its nuclear infrastructure. But it’s far from the only country to have developed its capacity in recent years.

By Alex Gallagher, 16 June 2025, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-unsustainable-decision-on-who-gets-to-have-nuclear-weapons-and-who-doesnt/dpk5breh3

On Friday, Israel launched its largest attack on Iran in decades, with a wave of airstrikes that hit nuclear facilities, military sites and residential buildings in the capital, Tehran.

Iran responded with retaliatory strikes on Israel, and the two countries have continued trading missile fire for days.

Iran’s health ministry said 224 people have been killed by Israel’s attacks, while Israel said 13 have been killed by Iranian strikes. Hundreds of people have been wounded in both countries.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the goal of Friday’s strikes was partially to wipe out Iran’s nuclear program, calling the strikes “pre-emptive”.

The strikes caused significant damage to linked sites such as the Natanz nuclear facility and a uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan, and killed multiple nuclear scientists in addition to military officials and civilians.

Israel has long claimed Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, with Netanyahu calling it an “existential threat to Israel”.

Iran has consistently denied it is developing nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment program is exclusively for peaceful purposes such as energy, and international assessments have found no evidence that Iran, over the past 20 years, has had an active nuclear weaponisation program.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly said there is an Islamic fatwa — a legal ruling — against the development of nuclear weapons, and that such development is prohibited under Islamic law.

Shortly before Israel’s strikes on Iran, the United Nations’ global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), declared Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.

The IAEA cited “many failures” since 2019 to uphold its obligations to provide the agency with “full and timely co-operation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities”.

Earlier this month, the IAEA said Iran had enough uranium enriched to near-weapons grade to potentially make nine nuclear bombs.

In recent days, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Opposition leader Sussan Ley have all described Iran’s nuclear program as a significant “threat” to international peace and security.

Tilman Ruff is an honorary principal fellow at The University of Melbourne and the co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and was a founding chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

He told SBS News while it’s “pretty clear that Iran was flirting with nuclear weapons” and had an early nuclear weapons program around 20 years ago, there was no evidence of active weaponisation, or that Israel’s strike was “pre-emptive in the sense that Iran was clearly planning an attack on Israel that was imminent”.

Israel has never formally confirmed or denied if it has nuclear weapons itself, long maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity.

It’s also never signed two key international agreements aimed at the non-proliferation and prohibition of nuclear weapons. These factors have contributed to the widely held perception that Israel owns nuclear weapons.

Ruff described Israel’s “extremely dangerous” attack on Friday as “the most flagrant example of double standards that you could possibly imagine”.

When it comes to countries developing nuclear capacities, Ruff said the “inherent ambiguity” of nuclear programs made it a far bigger issue than just Iran.

“Any country that’s determined to do so, that’s got either an enrichment plant or a nuclear reactor, can build a nuclear weapon,” he said.

“If you can produce uranium to run in reactors, then you’ve got everything you need to enrich it to weapons grade. And there are other countries with vast stocks much larger than Iran’s of weapons-usable material.

“There are many other countries who have been flirting with having nuclear facilities and the capacity to produce fissile material quickly to shorten the path to a weapon, should they choose to do so.”

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

Eight countries have declared they have nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Russia and the US control the vast majority of these weapons, together possessing around 90 per cent of the 12,241 estimated warheads that exist globally, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

While Israel is also strongly believed to have nuclear weapons, including by SIPRI, it has long maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity.

Ruff said there had been “very clear threats” of nuclear weapon use from Israeli government members.

Most recently, in November 2023, Israeli minister Amihai Eliyahu said a nuclear strike on Gaza would be “one way” of responding to Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel.

Some viewed Eliyahu’s comments as an implicit admission that Israel had nuclear capabilities.

The comments were disavowed by Israeli politicians, including a rebuke by Netanyahu.

SIPRI, in its annual assessment of armaments, disarmament and international security on Monday, warned the world’s nuclear arsenals were being enlarged.

SIPRI stated that the nine nuclear-armed states continued to modernise and upgrade their nuclear capabilities throughout 2024.

SIPRI’s Hans M Kristensen said: “The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the Cold War, is coming to an end.”

“Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements.”

What steps have been taken to limit nuclear weapons?

Multiple international agreements have aimed at curbing the spread of nuclear weapons with a view towards disarmament.

The United Nations-backed Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons (NPT) came into effect in 1970, and included agreements from Russia, the US, the UK, China and France.

Those states agreed to pursue disarmament in exchange for the rest of the treaty’s signatories agreeing never to acquire nuclear weapons.

The treaty has overwhelming support, with 191 states being party to it, including Iran.

Israel is one of the few countries — along with India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Sudan — to not have signed on, due to its policy of deliberate ambiguity.

Ruff said a shortcoming of the treaty was that, while it contained a detailed regime regarding non-proliferation by states that didn’t already have nuclear weapons, there were no clear details or timeframe for other countries to implement disarmament.

June 17, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Israel, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

  UK Nuclear power is not a done deal. 

Sophie Bolt, CND General Secretary,  CND 13th June 2025 https://cnduk.org/nuclear-power-is-not-a-done-deal/

This week has seen the Government’s latest attempt to foist a nuclear future on Britain. But despite its increased promised financial support, the nuclear issue is clearly not a done deal, writes Vice President Dr Ian Fairlie.

The media’s response to the Government’s nuclear push has been decidedly unenthusiastic as can be seen from the selection below of UK newspaper comments.  Most are cool or unenthusiastic: some are downright critical.

 “Sizewell C nuclear cost doubled to £40bn – UK govt to shoulder half upfront cost, will ultimately be paid for by households and businesses via electricity bills.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/11/cost-of-milibands-nuclear-plant-doubles-to-more-than-40bn/

 “£14bn investment in a new mega nuclear power station, Sizewell C, is not being classified as a financial asset. So all £14bn of the finance will be added to the value of national debt, rather than the zero net figure. This is what would have happened under the old fiscal definitions, so what on earth was the point of Reeves’s controversial fiscal-rule change? In serious practical terms, it means there is £14bn less to invest in other projects – which is the opposite of what the fiscal rule change was supposed to achieve. In other words Reeves’s changes to the fiscal rules now seem totally pointless – because if investing in a cutting-edge power plant does not create a valuable and sellable financial asset, then goodness alone knows what would.”
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-10/peston-why-arent-treasury-and-reeves-investing-more

  “The government has commissioned just three SMR reactors, none expected before 2035. Rolls Royce said in 2015 that to make building a modular factory worthwhile, you would need an order book of 50 to 70.”
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/spending-review-miliband-nuclear-reeves-grpp5l8d5

  “GB Energy handed £2.5bn bill for funding small modular reactors. Financing nuclear projects will leave state-owned company less cash for backing wind and solar technology.”
https://www.ft.com/content/a8e3a775-33c9-4ad6-b01a-bfb212dfdcbe

 “Imagine this – one morning you’ll be strolling down to the park to give the dog some exercise, and ka-boom! The roof’s blown off the local baby nuke, and glowing hot radioactive ash is showering the surrounding streets. A small armageddon, but an armageddon all the same. Widespread use of nuclear power is the kind of thing that, among other things, such as leaving a toxic legacy for thousands of years and an upsurge in deformities and cancers, could end political careers.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ed-miliband-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-energy-b2767052.html


 “The Scottish Government has a long-standing objection to nuclear power mainly on environmental grounds. Those objections are not daft – to this day, governments around the world are vexed by the question of how to dispose safely of highly dangerous radioactive waste. Accidents at nuclear power plants can be catastrophic. More immediately, building new nuclear capacity is also infamously expensive and costs are prone to rise, often astronomically.”https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/25232597.scotland-blindly-follow-england-nuclear-power-path/

Will the Government really push ahead with its new nuclear proposals given this chorus of doubts?  It’s a moot point.  It would surprise no-one if we were to see quiet retrenchments or delays….much like we are seeing with another Government mega-project – HS2.  

More to the point, we need to address the whopping elephant in the room here which is …why is the Government pressing ahead with these unpopular  ill-advised proposals?  In fact, the previous Sunak government admitted the real reasons for supporting nuclear….the military ones. That is, the MOD’s perceived needs to maintain nuclear technology and know-how for its nuclear weapons programme – both for the warheads and the submarine reactors.

We think this Government should own up to these reasons and stop pretending that its civil nuclear proposals are about satisfying our energy needs. They, most decidedly, are not.  If the Government were to retire its ageing nuclear weapons, it would also free up its way to intelligent energy policies as well.  A two-fold bonus for Britain.

June 17, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Condemning the Right to Self Defence: Iran’s Retaliation and Israel’s Privilege

16 June 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark , https://theaimn.net/condemning-the-right-to-self-defence-irans-retaliation-and-israels-privilege/

There is a throbbing complaint among Western powers, including those in the European Union and the United States. Iran is not playing by the rules. Instead of accepting with dutiful meekness the slaughter of its military leadership and scientific personnel, Tehran decided, promptly, to respond to Israel’s pre-emptive strikes launched on June 13. Instead of considering the dubious legal implications of such strikes, an act of undeclared war, the focus in the European Union and various other backers of Israel has been to focus on the retaliation itself.

To the Israeli attacks conducted as part of Operation Rising Lion, there was studied silence. It was not a silence observed when it came to the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 by Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Then, the law books were swiftly procured, and obligations of the United Nations Charter cited under Article 2(4): “All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.” Russia was condemned for adopting a preventive stance on Ukraine as a threat to its security: that, in Kyiv joining NATO, a formidable threat would manifest at the border.

In his statement on the unfolding conflict between Israel and Iran, France’s President Emmanuel Macron made sure to condemn “Iran’s ongoing nuclear program,” having taken “all appropriate diplomatic measures in response.” Israel also had the “right to defend itself and ensure its security,” leaving open the suggestion that it might have been justified resorting to Article 51 of the UN Charter. All he could offer was a call on “all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to de-escalate.”

In a most piquant response, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories stated that, “On the day Israel, unprovoked, has attacked Iran, killing 80 people, the president of a major European power, finally admits that in the Middle East, Israel, and only Israel, has the right to defend itself.”

The German Foreign Office was even bolder in accusing Iran of having engaged in its own selfish measures of self-defence (such unwarranted bravado!), something it has always been happy to afford Israel. “We strongly condemn the indiscriminate Iranian attack on Israeli territory.” In contrast, the foreign office also felt it appropriate to reference the illegal attack on Iran as involving “targeted strikes” against its nuclear facilities. Despite Israel having an undeclared nuclear weapons stockpile that permanently endangers security in the region, the office went on to chastise Iran for having a nuclear program that violated “the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” threatening in its nature “to the entire region – especially Israel.” Those at fault had been found out.

The President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, could hardly improve on that apologia. She revealed that she had been conversing with Israeli President Isaac Herzog about the “escalating situation in the Middle East.” She also knew her priorities: reiterating Israel’s right to self-defence and refusing to mention Iran’s, while tagging on the statement a broader concern for preserving regional stability. The rest involved a reference to diplomacy and de-escalation, toward which Israel has shown a resolute contempt with regards Iran and its nuclear program.

The assessment offered by Mohamed ElBaradei, former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was forensically impressive, as well as being icily dismissive. Not only did he reproach the German response for ignoring the importance of Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibiting the use of force subject to the right to self-defence, he brought up a reminder: targeted strikes against the nuclear facilities of any party “are prohibited under Article 56 of the additional protocol of the Geneva Conventions to which Germany is a party.”

ElBaradei also referred anyone exercised by such matters to the United Nations Security Council 487 (1981), which did not have a single demur in its adoption. It unreservedly condemned the attack by Israel on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear research reactor in June that year as a violation of the UN Charter, recognised that Iraq was a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and had permitted the IAEA inspections of the facility, stated that Iraq had a right to establish and develop civilian nuclear programs and called on Israel to place its own nuclear facilities under the jurisdictional safeguards of the IAEA.

The calculus regarding the use of force by Israel vis-à-vis its adversaries has long been a sneaky one. It is jigged and rigged in favour of the Jewish state. As Trita Parsi put it with unblemished accuracy, Western pundits had, for a year and a half, stated that Hamas, having started the Gaza War on October 7, 2023 bore responsibility for civilian carnage. “Western pundits for the past 1.5 days: Israel started the war with Iran, and if Iran retaliates, they bear responsibility for civilian deaths.” The perceived barbarian, when attacked by a force seen as superior and civilised, will always be condemned for having reacted most naturally, and most violently of all.

June 17, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »