If you’re already afraid, just wait until you hear about Manhattan Project 2.0.
The nuclear startups receiving special dispensation from the DOE are part of a pilot program established under Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy.” The DOE selected Oklo Inc. (Energy Secretary Chris Wright formerly served on its board of directors), Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Natura Resources LLC, Radiant Industries Inc., Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Valar Atomics Inc. as the companies whose experimental reactor designs will be tested at locations in Texas, Kansas, Utah and Tennessee (Oak Ridge). In another attempt to dodge NRC oversight, these companies are considered DOE contractors whose reactors are subject to DOE rules no matter their location
Analysis, Kristen Thomason | August 10, 2026, https://baptistnews.com/article/if-youre-already-afraid-just-wait-until-you-hear-about-manhattan-project-2-0/
Summers spent at my grandparents’ house in Tennessee were hot and humid. With enough cousins piled into the porch swing, you could stir up a bit of a breeze. But when that was no longer effective, we would retreat to the air-conditioned splendor of the American Museum of Science and Energy in Oak Ridge and stroll through exhibits like “Wildcatting for Oil” and “Atoms for Autos.”
Among these varied installations, however, pride of place was given to documenting Oak Ridge’s role as the secret headquarters for the Manhattan Project and source of the Hiroshima bomb’s enriched uranium. Most of the 30,000 covert workers on that project only discovered the truth of what they had been helping to build on Aug. 6, 1945, when they awoke to the headline “Oak Ridge Attacks Japan.”
Eighty years later, on May 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders to further the Department of Energy’s “Manhattan Project 2.0.” And just like the original, the second iteration of the Manhattan Project has plenty of secrets of its own.
The executive orders came at the behest of tech giants like Amazon, Meta, Google and Microsoft, who want cheap, abundant nuclear power to run their AI data centers. And according to the United Nations, these data centers will have doubled their voracious consumption of electricity and water by 2030.
Benefiting from a second Atomic Age
Nuclear industry executives who stand to benefit from a second atomic age had advance access and offered edits to the executive orders, which maximize risk-taking and profit-making over the safety of nuclear employees and the public. They stood behind Trump as he signed Executive Order 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” which paves the way for private companies to construct commercially owned and operated experimental nuclear reactors on Department of Defense properties and at the DOE’s national laboratories.
The original Manhattan Project granted the military sweeping authority to bypass regulations and red tape when developing the atom bomb. Likewise, situating these new reactors on federal land allows companies to skip environmental requirements and skirt the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent bipartisan body charged with granting licenses and regulating the safety of commercial nuclear reactors.
However, to achieve their goal of mass-producing portable nuclear reactors they can deploy via semi-truck to datacenters, hospitals and industrial facilities, they’ll eventually need to pass the NRC’s stringent public safety and environmental standards. That is why Trump next signed Executive Order 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” to overhaul the “structure, personnel, regulations and basic operations” of the NRC.
In 1974, Congress, weary of the Atomic Energy Commission’s reckless experimentation with atomic power at the expense of public safety, divided it into the DOE, which promotes nuclear power, and the NRC, which regulates it. Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory were thus forced to abandon a plan to carve a second canal through Panama using 250 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. Executive Order 14300 is a return to the wild pre-1974 days.
The order first directs the NRC to rubber stamp approval for those reactors developed under the auspices of the DOE and DOD without any additional testing. It then reduces the responsibilities and size of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent group that once provided technical guidance about reactor safety to the NRC but now can only voice concerns when specifically asked. The president also replaced Democrat and NRC Chair Christopher Hanson and installed a steering board staffed by DOE officials to oversee the NRC reforms.
Next, Executive Order 14300 loosens radiation exposure restrictions for nuclear workers and the general public. To implement this order, on July 1, the NRC proposed a series of changes including limiting use of the linear no-threshold model, which affirms there is no threshold below which radiation is safe. The public has 45 days to comment on the changes.
Raising doubts about the dangers
The linear no-threshold model is the industry gold standard and guiding principle for radiation safety around the world. However, in a move akin to its approach to vaccines, the administration raises doubts about the science behind the model despite the myriad studies and decades’ worth of radiation data on nuclear workers that undergird it.
The 2023 International Nuclear Workers Study examined the dosimeters worn by 309,932 nuclear workers in France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. and tracked their incidents of cancer for an average of 35 years. Scientists confirmed that the greater the exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear fission, even at low occupational levels, the greater the likelihood of death from a cancerous tumor, which often only appeared decades after exposure.
UNC Chapel Hill conducted a similar study focusing on the 22,000 workers hired at the ORNL from the early days of the Manhattan Project through the mid-1980s and found results similar to INWORKS for salaried workers and even higher rates of cancer for hourly workers. These men worked construction, laundered radioactive uniforms or, like my grandfather, laid railroad track to allow for the removal of “legacy waste” from the Manhattan Project without any protection or knowledge that they were being exposed.
Therefore, when it comes to ionizing radiation, which is invisible and difficult to measure accurately, the ethical approach is to keep the exposure level “as low as reasonably achievable,” or what is known as the ALARA standard. This might mean minimizing the time employees spend with radioactive materials, requiring protective gear or, in the case of the public, keeping radioactive emissions below legal limits.
However, protecting people doesn’t fit with the “move fast and break things” methods of tech moguls who want nuclear energy ASAP to power their AI databases. So, in its new proposed rules, the NRC is acknowledging linear no-threshold but dispensing with the ALARA standard in favor of a graded approach where safety is determined by situation with little accountability. Nuclear investors and Trump donors Peter Thiel and Mark Andreessen have been lobbying for the abolition of ALARA from the NRC, also a recommendation of Project 2025.
More DOE changes
The DOE began secretly eliminating ALARA from its own radiation protection framework in August 2025 without officially informing employees or the public until January 2026, although it did notify nuclear executives. To justify the end of ALARA, the DOE cited a report they themselves commissioned from the Idaho National Laboratory. That report said that to reduce “unnecessary economic burdens,” companies could now expose workers to five REM a year.
Roentgen Equivalent Man measures the biological effect and risk of radiation exposure to human tissue. According to the National Academies of Sciences, an exposure of five REM a year could cause cancer in one out of five career nuclear employees. The INL report proposes a future increase to 10 REM a year, which would raise the cancer rate to four out of five.
New DOE rules also double the radiation exposure level that would trigger an official investigation from two times to four times the legal limit. When Seth Cohen, the DOGE employee tasked with removing government “barriers” for nuclear companies, was asked if they should establish a fund for such workplace accidents, he said, “When SpaceX started building rockets, they sort of expected the first ones to blow up.” Andreessen called Cohen “An American hero” on X.
In addition, nuclear contractors for the DOE, including the start-up companies, now can ignore what’s known as Appendix A to Part 851 on Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas. As a result, precautions such as informing employees of possible hazards, procedures regarding possible carcinogens, requiring respiratory protection equipment or providing “comprehensive occupational medicine services” are no longer mandatory. This rule change does not apply to contractors working with other forms of energy.
Without occupational medical services to track and document radiation exposure and any subsequent disease, it will be difficult for employees to later obtain the care and compensation they’re owed in the event of an accident or overexposure. Such was the case for victims of the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island, who had no way to prove in a court of law that they had received excessive doses of radiation.
The nuclear startups receiving special dispensation from the DOE are part of a pilot program established under Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy.” The DOE selected Oklo Inc. (Energy Secretary Chris Wright formerly served on its board of directors), Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Natura Resources LLC, Radiant Industries Inc., Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Valar Atomics Inc. as the companies whose experimental reactor designs will be tested at locations in Texas, Kansas, Utah and Tennessee (Oak Ridge). In another attempt to dodge NRC oversight, these companies are considered DOE contractors whose reactors are subject to DOE rules no matter their location.
Participants in the Reactor Pilot Program will be testing Small Modular Reactor prototypes and experimenting with new sources of fuel which, without the necessary regulations, have the potential to jeopardize public safety. The most expensive element to build in a nuclear power plant is the lead-and-concrete containment shield designed to keep radioactive vapors from escaping in the event of a nuclear meltdown. Shielding is what failed 40 years ago during the 1986 Chernobyl Unit 4 power plant disaster in Ukraine and what held when Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island suffered a partial meltdown in 1979.
Supporters of SMR say their new high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel called TRISO is so safe that physical containment isn’t necessary. But X-energy, a nuclear reactor and fuel company funded by Amazon, released an accident analysis that said TRISO could exceed safe temperatures by several hundred degrees Celsius.
“The problem is that, with new reactors, they introduce new safety concerns and new technical issues,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Every design I have looked at has potential safety and security vulnerabilities, which are not being addressed to the extent that they need to be.” The DOE also has jettisoned the requirement to have a cognizant system engineer monitoring each of the reactor’s safety systems, calling it an “unnecessary burden.”
Yet, new types of fuel produce new types of nuclear waste. Every few years, a traditional nuclear power plant removes the highly radioactive spent fuel rods, which are now a mixture of uranium and plutonium, and leaves them to cool in pools of water before they’re sealed in concrete casks for what is supposed to be interim storage. Today, 100,000 metric tons of spent fuel are sitting in limbo because the federal government has failed to find a permanent storage solution for high-level nuclear waste.
Unbeknownst to most, fully one third of all Americans live within 50 miles of nuclear waste storage.
The waste problem
SMRs face the same long-term waste disposal conundrum, only they produce a more chemically and physically reactive waste and two to 30 times more of it than traditional reactors. This waste is not compatible with current nuclear waste disposal technologies, so engineers are experimenting with ways to manage the output and radiation. In response, the DOE replaced its former 59-page waste removal manual with 25 pages of bullet points.
Entirely missing from the abridged version are the sections on waste packaging and monitoring. Last July, Trump dismissed all but one member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent federal agency charged with reviewing the science behind the DOE actions regarding spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste.
Executive Order 14301 also orders the DOE to “reform its rules” regarding the National Environmental Policy Act by excluding SMRs from a full environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Previously, nuclear reactors had to address their potential impact on water, air and ecosystems at specific locations.
Now, in a possible violation of the Clean Water Act, the DOE says the release of radioactive water and steam into the environment should be “avoided” but is not strictly prohibited. Companies no longer “must” protect groundwater from radioactive contamination. “Avoiding” or “minimizing” is sufficient. Monitoring for contamination is optional.
But because cleaning up radioactive spills is expensive, the INL report also recommends abandoning the ALARA standard for the public. Both the NRC and the DOE are following this directive. However, the NRC has decided not to change the .1 REM public exposure limit, while the DOE is raising the limit from .1 REM to .5 REM.
This is in addition to the average .62 REM of “background radiation” Americans receive from sources like the sun and air travel. The DOE increase will be the equivalent of 50 X-rays a year per person, which will result in one in 57 people who live near a DOE nuclear facility developing a fatal cancer. Women and children, especially girls, will feel the effects even more severely.
When exposed to radiation within the current legal limit, women are 50% more likely to die of radiation-induced cancer than men, and girls are seven times as likely as men and twice as likely as boys of the same age to develop cancer. The DOE also has cut the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, the agency’s internal team of health experts who study radiation safety, so it’s unclear who would monitor for this potential danger.
And yet another danger
Executive Order 14302, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base”, further endangers the safety of nuclear workers and the wider public by providing the nuclear industry with Cold War-era plutonium-239 harvested from dismantled nuclear warheads. Because the U.S. doesn’t currently have enough uranium for Manhattan Project 2.0, Oklo, Standard Nuclear, Exodys Energy, SHINE Technologies and Flibe Energy plan to convert plutonium into SMR fuel.
Plutonium is highly toxic if inhaled and requires special ventilation to handle. Other countries that have attempted to use plutonium have found converting it not worth the expense. It’s also highly sought after for bomb-making and requires heightened security measures. With a half-life of more than 24,000 years, managing plutonium is not a short-term commitment. And yet, because companies complained about the cost of security, the DOE jettisoned hundreds of pages of security regulations for reactors, including specifications for storage and requirements for firearms training and emergency drills.
Instead, Executive Order14302 encourages the reprocessing of nuclear waste, a practice discontinued during the Carter administration because it produces excess plutonium. In February, the Trump administration awarded $19 million to five companies that will experiment with nuclear fuel “recycling,” which is a misleading moniker. The reprocessing of spent fuel creates its own high-level radioactive waste, albeit with a half-life of a thousand years rather than tens of thousands of years.
Enabling these changes to the country’s nuclear regulations is Executive Order 14303 “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” which is less about rigorous science than it is about “doubt science,” the strategy utilized by the tobacco industry to raise doubts about the dangers of smoking and dodge regulation. MAGA officials and DOGE staffers are cherry-picking data that supports their agenda and discarding evidence that does not.
They are quite fond of citing fringe scientist Edward Calabrese, who, from his work with fruit flies, thinks a little radiation might be beneficial for people. My great, great, great grandfather said something similar while hawking “Dr. Kister’s Radium Charged Water” in the 1900s, until the government ordered him to cease and desist.
Who should we trust?
Industry executives promise their new SMR technology is safe, but Trump has disbanded the independent boards that might hold them accountable. Furthermore, given the disregard Amazon has shown to warehouse worker safety in the name of profit, why would anyone believe that Amazon-owned X-energy would be any more considerate to its nuclear employees or the general public?
The DOE also has a horrific history when it comes to protecting people and the environment from nuclear waste and ionizing radiation. In 2005, radioactive contaminants from deteriorating waste disposal facilities at the Oak Ridge nuclear plant infiltrated the Clinch River, a source of drinking water in East Tennessee.
Summer in Tennessee is demonstrably hotter than it was 40 years ago. Even folks who deny the reality of climate change can’t ignore that tomato planting time is earlier than ever. Some experts say nuclear energy must be a part of America’s renewable energy portfolio if we are to cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming. China, our stated AI nemesis in the Manhattan Project 2.0, also has developed SMR but is relying heavily on solar and wind farms to power its data centers.
The Biden administration also had a plan in place to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which called for adding staff to the NRC to speed up licensing, rather than repealing safety regulations. Following the lead of Canada and Finland, they sought to build trust with local communities through a multi-year consent-based process.
In contrast, Trump vows to quadruple the country’s nuclear capacity, enticing states to volunteer sites as “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.” Selected cities will enrich uranium, create fuel, generate nuclear power, reprocess spent fuel and store nuclear waste all in one location, although without the local buy-in, trust building or necessary geological prescreening present in the Biden plan.
Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee applied to make Oak Ridge one of these nuclear campuses, although with 230 nuclear lifecycle companies operating between Oak Ridge and Knoxville, plus ORNL and the secretive Y-12 National Security Complex, it’s practically one already.
One of the joys of those summer visits to Tennessee as a child was seeing my uncle who worked at Y-12 as a chemist. When asked about his latest classified projects, he would sigh, fold his hands across the bib of his overalls and say, “Well, if I told ya, I’d have to kill ya,” and we kids would laugh. But the serious, sobering truth is the total impact of the radiation from these facilities is itself a secret. It’s been called the “perfect crime” because low doses of ionizing radiation can inflict cell damage and cause cancer decades after exposure.
Remnants of the original Manhattan Project are still around in Oak Ridge, whispering about its secret past. The impact of ionizing radiation lingers like the abandoned guard towers at the edge of town. Residents of Oak Ridge and the surrounding rural towns have more incidents of cancer than the national average due to exposure from this radiation.
On July 4, four of the pilot program SMRs had achieved nuclear criticality. No doubt the relaxation of safety and environmental regulations helped make this possible. This achievement marks a significant milestone in the Manhattan Project 2.0’s quest for cheap electricity to power Silicon Valley’s data centers.
However, just like the original Manhattan Project, America won’t know the full cost for at least another generation. Thanks to Trump’s deregulation spree, that cost to the health and well-being of Americans could be high indeed.
Kristen Thomason is a freelance writer and journalist living outside Edinburgh in the United Kingdom. She has produced educational and promotional media for national and international religious organizations and public television. Kristen also worked with local churches in Metro D.C. and Toronto, Canada. With a master’s degree in communication and undergraduate degrees in media studies and classics, she is interested in the intersection of politics, religion, history and the arts.
No “Gold Standard,” No Israel Clause: What the Saudi Nuclear Deal Actually Says (MBN)
August 7, 2026 , https://npolicy.org/no-gold-standard-no-israel-clause-what-the-saudi-nuclear-deal-actually-says-mbn/
Two weeks ago, President Trump was about to send the Hill a U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperative agreement. After a torrent of criticism from Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, though, he changed his mind and insisted that the United States would not help Saudi Arabia make nuclear fuel and that the deal would not come into force until Saudi Arabia recognized Israel.
The question now is what’s next. Below is an interview I granted to the U.S. government’s Middle East Broadcasting Network that takes a stab at where we’re headed.
First, if the deal proceeds as the U.S. Energy Department and the press have described it will provide the Saudis with a pathway to make nuclear fuel—the most difficult and essential step to making nuclear weapons. The problem here is that Israel and the United States have been bombing a variety of nuclear sites to throttle this very same activity in Iran.
In an attempt to avoid this contradiction, the Energy Department insists there will be no enrichment unless a two-year study concludes that Saudi nuclear fuel-making is economically sound and can be rendered safe. Yet, as I note below, the premise of conducting such a study—that the answer could be yes—is disingenuous. We already know the honest answer is no.
The second problem with the agreement is that it does not require Riyadh to adopt international nuclear inspections (known as Protocol I visits) that would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to go anywhere, anytime outside declared nuclear sites. One hundred and forty four nations have already granted authority to the IAEA to conduct such inspections on their soil. Saudi Arabia has refused.
This suggests that Riyadh has something it wants to hide, possibly including a covert nuclear weapons program. Saudi officials are already on record that the Kingdom must get nuclear weapons if it believes Iran is acquiring them. Saudi Arabia also has tight connections to Pakistan, which has mastered both enrichment and nuclear weapons design.
Finally, by creating a pathway to dangerous nuclear weapons-related activities, it will set a precedent for Riyadh’s neighbors, including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt—nations pursuing large nuclear power programs.
The Energy Department’s rejoinder is that if the United States doesn’t help Saudi Arabia make nuclear fuel, Russia and China will with fewer controls. That gets things backwards. In fact, no country—not the United States, not China or Russia—during the last half-century has offered to transfer nuclear fuel-making technology to states lacking nuclear weapons. The last country to do that was the United States in the 1960s with India, which used the assistance to set off a “peaceful” nuclear explosion.
If, as proposed, the United States violates this sound standard by helping Saudi Arabia enrich uranium, the very thing our Energy Department says it is worried China and Russia might do, is what our violation of this standard will ensure.
The President has yet to send the Saudi nuclear agreement to Hill for review. As I argue in the attached interview, it would be best if it never left his inbox or, at least, our government renegotiated to include the very things President Trump now insists are necessary—no enrichment and Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel.
August 4, 2026
Henry Sokolski Interview with Middle East Broadcasting Networks
No “Gold Standard,” No Israel Clause: What the Saudi Nuclear Deal Actually Says
The Trump administration has yet to formally send to Congress the nuclear cooperation agreement it signed with Saudi Arabia last month.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman signed a Section 123 agreement – the legal step that allows American companies to share nuclear technology with another country – in Riyadh on July 22. The Department of Energy said at the time that the agreement would “now be transmitted to Congress for review.”
Until it is, the review clock cannot start. Once transmitted, the agreement takes effect “after 90 consecutive legislative days of sitting before Congress” – days Congress is actually in session, not calendar days – “which could be sometime before the end of this year,” said Henry Sokolski, who runs the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and served as the Pentagon’s deputy for nonproliferation policy in the George H.W. Bush administration.
The administration has also complicated its own deal. A day after the signing, President Trump posted on Truth Social that Saudi Arabia would not be allowed to enrich uranium, and that the entire arrangement depended on Riyadh joining the Abraham Accords and establishing relations with Israel.
Those conditions do not appear in what the two governments actually signed, Sokolski told MBN.
“I’m with the Saudis on this. I think they’ve got it right, which is: you’ve got to be kidding. We signed documents. They didn’t have anything in it about these other conditions,” Sokolski said. “It is not part of the deal.”
Saudi Arabia has said repeatedly that it will not normalize relations with Israel unless Israel agrees to Palestinian statehood — a condition Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused.
Sokolski noted that the president retains one lever regardless: even after the agreement takes effect, he can decline to approve nuclear exports to Saudi Arabia. “He has that power. But it’s not something that he’s legally bound to do. It’s something that’s executive discretion,” he said.
What the deal actually allows
A full assessment is still impossible. The text of the agreement has not been published, nor have two side letters that accompany it. “We haven’t seen them,” Sokolski said. “Of course, we haven’t even seen the 123 agreement yet.” Most of what is known comes from briefings the Energy Department has given reporters.
What is known is this: once in force, the deal defers the central question to a study. “There’ll be a two-year study on, well, is the making of nuclear fuel by enriching uranium really all that economical for Saudi Arabia,” Sokolski said.
If the study says yes, American firms would build an enrichment plant on Saudi soil, operating under U.S. oversight.
“If the conclusion of that is yes, then the United States would actually build a plant, an enrichment plant, that would bring the most sensitive technologies that we’re now currently bombing in Iran to Saudi Arabian soil,” Sokolski said, referring to the U.S. military campaign aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
If the study says no, “the agreement somehow will bind the Saudis to not get enrichment from anyone else for 10 years,” Sokolski said, citing reporting on two side letters that have not been made public. A separate side agreement, he added, would limit Saudi reactor purchases to Westinghouse — a company headquartered in Pennsylvania but owned by two Canadian firms.
A departure from the “gold standard”
The agreement breaks with the terms Washington set for the United Arab Emirates in 2009 – an arrangement so strict it became known as the “gold standard.” Abu Dhabi made a legal commitment to forgo both uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of spent fuel, the two most direct pathways to a nuclear weapon. It also accepted the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, an inspection regime that lets IAEA monitors examine nuclear-related sites a country has not formally declared.
Saudi Arabia has agreed to neither.
“In the case of Saudi Arabia, the forswearing did not occur at all,” Sokolski said. “Worse, they did not agree to the Additional Protocol — which raises the question: do they have something to hide, or do they think they will?”
“144 countries – almost all the countries in the world – have agreed to the Additional Protocol,” he added. “Not Saudi Arabia.”
Supporters of the deal argue that American oversight of a Saudi facility is better than pushing Riyadh toward Russia or China, which might offer looser terms. Sokolski is skeptical that American control would survive contact with reality.
“We have this expression in the United States: possession is 90 percent of the law. If you have something on your soil, you can always tell the Americans to leave. And there you go – you have it,” he said.
A declared facility, he added, does nothing to rule out a covert program – especially without the Additional Protocol, which exists precisely to let inspectors chase undeclared activity.
A history of finding out too late
Sokolski pointed to Saudi Arabia’s record of acquiring missile capabilities without Washington managing to stop it in advance. “The track record there is 100 percent consistent. Every time they’ve gotten a missile, it was too late for us to do anything to block it,” he said. The Washington Post has reported that Riyadh secretly bought Chinese ballistic missiles in the 1980s, and that Washington learned of the deal only after the missiles had arrived and construction of their bases had begun inside the kingdom.
The stakes are raised by the Saudi crown prince’s own words. In 2018, Mohammed bin Salman told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would “follow suit as soon as possible.”
“In the case of Saudi Arabia, they’ve been pretty clear that if they think Iran’s getting a bomb, they have to get one too,” Sokolski said.
The fight in Congress
The deal “hasn’t sat well with a lot of people on the Hill,” Sokolski said, including some staunch Trump supporters – among them Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, who has been “quite emphatic saying there’s no way he’s going to support this.”
Blocking it is hard, but not impossible. “You don’t need many Republican senators to join a whole lot of Democrats to pass a piece of legislation,” Sokolski said, especially if Democrats take the House next year. The president could veto such a bill – but, he added, “you do not, as a president, want to see that coming to your desk.”
He suggested two narrower options for Congress: bar the use of American funds to implement any part of the agreement that permits nuclear fuel production inside Saudi Arabia, or write in an explicit condition that cooperation cannot lead to an enrichment facility.
The regional echo
The consequences do not stop at Saudi Arabia’s borders. The U.S.-UAE agreement contains a consultation clause triggered if Washington gives another country in the region more generous terms – and granting Riyadh a future path to enrichment, Sokolski said, could prompt Abu Dhabi to demand a renegotiation of its own deal. Egypt and Turkey could invoke the Saudi precedent to press their own claims to a full nuclear fuel cycle on their territory.
“Folks assume the worst when someone says they’re going to do something and they have the means to do it,” he said.
Sokolski worries the agreement could unravel a policy Washington has held since India’s nuclear test in the 1970s: refusing to help non-nuclear-weapon states produce nuclear fuel. Russia and China have largely taken the same public position, he said — but an American exception for Saudi Arabia could invite others to make their own.
The argument that the United States must cooperate because someone else will anyway is, he said, “a self-fulfilling fallacy.”
“People say, well, if you’re going to do that, then we got to do that,” he said.
Not settled yet
For all his criticism, Sokolski stressed that nothing is final. The economic study has not begun, Congress has not reviewed the agreement, and the administration could still tighten its terms or attach conditions to implementation. The deal, he said, looked like “a trial balloon” whose drafters “may have been a little too clever by half, not knowing exactly what they were locking into.”
“I just don’t know how the story ends,” he said, “and it could end very badly.”
To read the full piece, click here.
Israeli PM Netanyahu Rejects “Gaza Roadmap”
August 10, 2026, International Middle East Media Center, https://www.juancole.com/2026/08/israeli-netanyahu-rejects.html
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected a proposed 15‑point roadmap intended to stabilize Gaza and advance a phased ceasefire, a move that Al‑Jazeera reports has placed ongoing diplomatic efforts at a critical crossroads.
The framework, negotiated through months of mediation and endorsed by the UN Security Council, was designed to create a structured path toward de‑escalation and humanitarian relief.
Netanyahu’s refusal has raised fears among Palestinian factions and regional observers that the conflict could return to a cycle of confrontation.
According to Al‑Jazeera, Netanyahu insisted that Israel would not withdraw its forces from Gaza unless Hamas is fully disarmed — a condition that contradicts the phased approach outlined in the roadmap.
Hamas, meanwhile, has stated that it remains committed to the agreement and expects international mediators to ensure Israel adheres to the negotiated terms.
Analysts cited by Al‑Jazeera say Netanyahu’s position reverses months of indirect negotiations in which Palestinian factions demonstrated flexibility to advance a political settlement.
The rejection has revived concerns that Israel may resume targeted killings, intensified bombardment, or expanded operations near displacement zones, potentially undermining the fragile stability achieved in recent weeks.
Al‑Jazeera’s reporting also highlights growing unease within Palestinian political circles that Netanyahu’s stance could derail the second phase of the agreement, which was expected to include humanitarian improvements and steps toward stabilizing civilian life in Gaza. Without Israeli compliance, mediators may be forced to reconsider the viability of the roadmap altogether.
Israeli political commentators suggest that Netanyahu’s decision may be driven partly by domestic political considerations. Facing pressure from right‑wing factions and declining public support, the prime minister is seen as adopting a hardline posture to maintain his coalition’s backing.
Some analysts argue that Netanyahu may also be leveraging the Gaza file to influence U.S. regional policy, particularly regarding Iran.
The report warns that Netanyahu’s rejection could trigger broader escalation across multiple fronts, including the occupied West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Gaza itself. Palestinian factions fear that Israel may gradually intensify military operations to impose new conditions on the ground and avoid concessions required by the roadmap.
Al‑Jazeera notes that Hamas continues to call on mediators — especially the United States — to pressure Israel to honor the commitments already negotiated. Without such guarantees, Palestinian officials worry that the roadmap could collapse, returning the conflict to an open‑ended and unpredictable phase.
Netanyahu’s refusal, analysts say, leaves the situation at a decisive moment: either renewed diplomatic pressure to salvage the agreement or a slide back toward escalation that could reshape Gaza’s political and humanitarian landscape.
Walt Zlotow – After 164 years it’s America facing ‘Unconditional Surrender’
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 10 Aug 26, https://theaimn.net/after-164-years-its-america-facing-unconditional-surrender/
America is famous for declaring its foes capitulate to unconditional surrender. It was first uttered in 1862 by Ulysses S. Grant who demanded the “unconditional and immediate surrender” of Confederate forces at Fort Donelson, Tennessee. U.S. Grant forever became known as Unconditional Surrender Grant.
US war presidents loved unconditional surrender. FDR employed it on Germany before he died and it worked well. Didn’t go so easily for Truman on Japan. Burning down Toyko on March 10 with Napalm, killing a hundred thousand innocents didn’t. A bombing Hiroshima.
August 6 didn’t. Even the second A bomb on Nagasaki did not definitively make Japan bow to the US demand. Most likely it was the million man Russian invasion the day before the Nagasaki bomb that convinced Japan to surrender unconditionally.
Unconditional surrender lay dormant for the next 81 years. It was AWOL thru Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan as the US failed to achieve anything close to an unconditional surrender from opponents that stymied, even defeated the vaunted world’s strongest military.
But on March 6, President Trump, unaware he’d already lost his delusional war to bring down the Iranian regime at the behest of Israel, declared Iran must submit to Unconditional Surrender.
Trump posted on Truth Social a week into his lost war demanding “unconditional surrender” from Tehran. Then he trotted out his clueless Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt to describe what would constitute unconditional surrender.
“What the president means is that when he, as commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, determines that Iran no longer poses a threat to the United States of America and the goals of Operation Epic Fury has been fully realized, then Iran will essentially be in a place of unconditional surrender.”
One hundred sixty-three days into his lost war, President Trump finds America facing unconditional surrender. Unless he capitulates on all of Iran’s reasonable and non-negotiable terms, Iran will not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, placing the world’s economy in jeopardy of collapse.
What are those reasonable terms of surrender?
1. End all military action against Iran including bombing and blockade
2. Promise never again to attack Iran
3. End all economic sanctions on Iran
4. Return all frozen Iranian assets
6. Provide reparations for damage inflicted in Trump’s illegal criminal war launched February 28
Of course, facing unconditional surrender does not mean Trump will surrender unconditionally to Iran’s reasonable demands. He may simply adhere to the counsel of his former evil mentor Roy Cohn… ‘Never give up, never give in’ and mutter “After me, the deluge.”ww
One in three North Korean refugees from nuclear test area have mutations
By PERKIN AMALARAJ, FOREIGN NEWS REPORTER, 7 August 2026, https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16036297/One-three-North-Korean-refugees-nuclear-test-area-mutations.html
One in three North Korean refugees hailing from a nuclear test area have chromosomal mutations, a new study has found.
According to research conducted by South Korea‘s unification ministry, the genes of 64 out of 214 North Korean defectors tested showed genetic changes potentially tied to radiation.
An official at the National Radiation Emergency Medical Centre, which conducted the five-year study, said it was scientifically reasonable to suspect the tests at the Punggye-ri site in the North Hamgyong province were the cause of these mutations.
The latest series of the medical tests were conducted last year, and showed that 26 out of 59 North Koreans who lived in eight cities and counties near Punggye-ri had chromosomal abnormalities – roughly 40%.
The ministry shared the new report with South Korea’s National Assembly – the country’s parliament – but cautioned that there may be environmental factors at play.
Researchers called for more tests to be run to establish a clearer link with the nuclear tests.
They are aiming to recruit 50 new participants, as well as 10 returning subjects for follow-ups, in this year’s tests.
So far, around 800 North Koreans from the eight cities and counties around Punggye-ri have resettled in South Korea.
Punggye-ri was reportedly closed down in 2018 by the North Korean government, in what it said was a measure to ‘ensure the transparency of discontinuance of nuclear tests.’
It was there that North Korea performed its first nuclear test in 2006. Researchers still aren’t sure whether a successful test on a particularly small nuclear device, or a ‘fizzle’ of an ordinary one, was carried out.
Several more were carried out over the years, with two tests taking place in 2016.
In 2017, there was a collapse at the site that was estimated to have left 200 workers dead.
South Korean officials warned after the collapse that further nuclear tests at Punggye-ri could cause a nearby mountain to crumple, releasing radioactive material into the environment.
And Chinese officials warned that the nuclear fallout could spread across ‘an entire hemisphere’ if the mountain caved in.
The dismantling of the nuclear test ground ‘completely closed the tunnel entrances’, the government’s mouthpiece KCNA reported, adding that two tunnels there had been ready for use in ‘powerful underground nuclear tests.’
And analysts observed in 2022 that the site was being rehabilitated for potential nuclear cruise missile warhead tests.
The US, South Korea and Japan said at the time that North Korea would receive an ‘overwhelming, decisive… and unparalleled’ response if testing was resumed.
Hungary faces nuclear plant crisis as Danube river levels remain dangerously low
Hungary’s main nuclear plant has been operating at approximately 10 per cent of its full capacity since late last week
Krisztina Than, Friday 07 August 2026, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/danube-hungary-river-water-levels-paks-nuclear-b3029407.html
Hungary’s Paks nuclear plant continues to face a “difficult” situation, despite expectations of a temporary rise in Danube river levels following rains in Austria. Prime Minister Peter Magyar conveyed this update via a Facebook video on Friday.
The plant has been operating at approximately 10 per cent of its full capacity since late last week.
This drastic reduction is a direct result of a prolonged heatwave and record-low water levels in the Danube, which have severely strained the country’s power supply capabilities.
Government working on solving Paks Plant issues
However, Magyar said the situation at the Paks nuclear plant remains “difficult”, and that the government was working on solutions at Paks if low water levels in the Danube, which the plant uses as a coolant, become permanent.
Europe, the world’s fastest-warming continent, has been ravaged by record-breaking heat and destructive wildfires this summer, with France and Spain particularly hard hit in recent weeks.
Last week Magyar asked companies and citizens to cut back electricity use in the evening hours and dimmed decorative lighting on Budapest’s historic buildings to save energy.
Hungary has switched off decorative and non-essential lighting at all state institutions – including its parliament, most of the Buda Castle and Chain Bridge – at night to save energy.
Magyar said on Friday that temperatures were expected to drop and the country’s energy and water supply were stable, which means there was no longer need for cutbacks in energy consumption and decorative lighting would be switched on on Friday night.
“We have never seen such national cooperation. According to the first surveys released, nearly all Hungarian families took part in savings and changed their energy and water use,” Magyar said.
“We expect the water level to rise a good 20 cm in the next few days, however, as there is no rain expected again from tomorrow, this rise is expected to be temporary,” Magyar said. Magyar also said the government will examine what investments were needed to make Hungary’s energy and water supply more resilient.”
Climate changes is already here, and we need to build a country that can adapt to this,” the prime minister said. Magyar said last week that Hungary will develop 4 gigawatts of wind energy capacity by 2030 to diversify its energy sources.
Climate changes is already here, and we need to build a country that can adapt to this,” the prime minister said. Magyar said last week that Hungary will develop 4 gigawatts of wind energy capacity by 2030 to diversify its energy sources.
What Does It Take to Reopen a Nuclear Power Plant?
By Felicity Bradstock – Oil Price 9th Aug 2026
- The Trump administration wants to expand U.S. nuclear capacity through new reactors, power uprates, and the return of previously shuttered plants.
- Holtec’s Palisades restart has encountered corrosion, equipment repairs, supply-chain problems, and other unexpected challenges that illustrate the difficulty of reviving an aging reactor.
- Other projects, particularly Constellation’s Crane Clean Energy Center, could prove easier to restart and demonstrate that the viability of reactor recommissioning varies significantly by plant.
In the United States, President Trump aims to expand the country’s nuclear power capacity by developing new projects and restoring old reactors. However, restarting disused reactors is not as simple as just turning them back on, as rigorous safety standards must be considered.
In May 2025, President Trump published an executive order entitled “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base”, in which he outlined plans to start construction of 10 new large reactors and add 5 GW of power to existing nuclear reactors by 2030.
Several U.S. reactors were shut down in previous decades as confidence in nuclear power fell to an all-time low following three prominent nuclear disasters – Chornobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. However, the public perception of nuclear power has significantly improved in recent years.
Last year, Trump announced plans to recommence operations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan, a 789-MWe plant owned by Holtec International that shut down in 2022; the Constellation Energy 835-MWe Crane Clean Energy Centre on the Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania; and NextEra’s 615-MWe Duane Arnold in Iowa. This supports Trump’s aim for a U.S. nuclear renaissance…………………………………………………………………………………………………
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/What-Does-It-Take-to-Reopen-a-Nuclear-Power-Plant.html
America places huge order for 14 more nuclear submarines
The United States Navy has placed contract modifications worth around $76.6 billion with the two yards that build its
nuclear submarines, covering nine further Virginia-class boats, five more Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines and funding for shipyard infrastructure, HII stated.
ukdj , UK Defence Journal 9th Aug 2026
The award covers Block VI of the Virginia programme and Build II of the Columbia programme, and is split between HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding division in Virginia and General Dynamics Electric Boat in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Newport News will act as delivery yard for six of the nine Virginias, and on the Columbia programme will construct and deliver six module sections for each boat. The two yards have handed over 26 Virginia-class submarines to date.
Kari Wilkinson, president of Newport News Shipbuilding, said in the release that the company is “committed to building the nuclear-powered submarines that protect our nation”, adding that the contracts give the American shipbuilding industrial base an opportunity to demonstrate that commitment.
The two programmes represent the largest naval construction effort under way anywhere. The Columbia class will replace the fourteen Ohio-class boats that carry the sea-based leg of the US nuclear deterrent, with twelve planned in total. Each displaces around 20,800 tonnes submerged, making them the largest submarines the United States has built, and each carries sixteen Trident II D5 missiles in a common missile compartment developed jointly with the United Kingdom, which uses the same section in its Dreadnought class. The lead boat, USS District of Columbia, has been under construction since 2020 and has run behind schedule, with the Navy and the Government Accountability Office both reporting delays measured in years.
The Virginia class is the U.S. Navy’s attack submarine, displacing roughly 7,800 tonnes and built in successive blocks with incremental changes. Block V introduced the Virginia Payload Module, an additional hull section carrying four large vertical tubes that raises the boat’s Tomahawk capacity substantially, and later blocks continue that configuration. Delivery rates have been the persistent problem: the U.S. Navy has sought two boats a year for some time, while the yards have been running closer to one and a third, a shortfall attributed to supply chain fragility, workforce attrition and the competing demand of the Columbia programme, which holds priority.
Newport News Shipbuilding is the only yard in the United States capable of building aircraft carriers and one of only two able to build nuclear submarines. The company marked 140 years of operation at the Virginia site earlier this month, and has been expanding automation across its facilities, including agreements with robotics firms announced in early August covering welding and surface finishing work
Ukraine Critically Short Of Air Defenses As Questions Swirl Over US Patriot Stockpiles
With US supplies under pressure, Ukraine is increasingly looking to European allies.
Radio Free Europe, By Zoriana Stepanenko and Alex Raufo, 8 Aug 26
BRUSSELS/WASHINGTON — Ukraine’s failure to intercept a single Russian missile during a large-scale overnight attack this week has raised fresh concerns over Kyiv’s dwindling supply of air-defense interceptors as Moscow escalates its ballistic missile strikes on the nearly defenseless capital and other regions.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that deliveries of anti-ballistic interceptor missiles from partner countries have fallen sharply, leaving Ukrainian vulnerable to deadly attacks that are being launched by Russia with increasing frequency.
Following a meeting with Ukraine’s military leadership on protecting critical infrastructure on August 2, Zelenskyy said Ukraine had received only a third as many air-defense interceptors this year compared to the same period in 2025.
“Our partners have the missiles. What is needed are the necessary political decisions on deliveries and on accelerating production, including localization in Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said……………………………………………………………………………….
US Stockpile Questions
Patriot interceptor missiles remain Ukraine’s most effective defense against Russian ballistic missiles, but questions are growing over how many additional interceptors Washington can realistically provide.
Last week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated that the United States has used more than half of its Patriot PAC-3 MSE and THAAD interceptor inventories during its military operations against Iran this year.
The report estimated that US stocks of Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptors have fallen from more than 2,300 before the conflict, which began in February, to roughly 800, while THAAD interceptor inventories have been nearly halved.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with CSIS and co-author of the report, told RFE/RL that the shortages leave Washington with little flexibility to supply Ukraine.
“Ukraine will not be able to expect many interceptors — or any interceptors — from the United States for quite a while,” Cancian said. “The US has used extensively its own inventories…. We’re down to about 800 or 900 [Patriot interceptors]. The war planners don’t want to go below that, so it would be very difficult to provide any of those or any new production to Ukraine.”
Cancian said Ukraine may instead have to seek Soviet-designed S-300 missiles from countries that still operate the system and intensify efforts to destroy Russian missile launchers before they can fire.
His assessment contrasts with public assurances from the Trump administration.
CNN, citing unnamed officials, reported on August 4 that Patriot inventories had fallen to “dangerously low” levels. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rejected that report, calling it “fake news.”
Just days earlier, the Pentagon announced agreements with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to expand production of Patriot PAC-3 and THAAD interceptors.
US President Donald Trump insisted early on August 6 that the United States has “massive” amounts of munitions.
Trump also had pledged to allow Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missile interceptors, only to appear to backtrack on that promise days later……………………………………………………………………
Risks For Ukraine
The prospect of fewer US interceptors raises immediate questions for Ukraine as Russia steps up missile attacks ahead of another winter.
Adding to the urgency, several media reports, including from Reuters, quoted Ukrainian military intelligence sources as saying a North Korean missile unit had begun deploying to western Russia and could be equipped with up to 120 ballistic missiles and six launchers for attacks on Ukraine.
Kervin Aucoin, a US Army veteran and former military intelligence analyst, said reduced US inventories will inevitably affect Kyiv.
“It’s not going to be none, but it will be far less than what Ukraine was expecting,” Aucoin told RFE/RL…………………………………………………………………..
Ukraine Looks To Europe
With US supplies under pressure, Ukraine is increasingly looking to European allies.
US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker recently said Washington is exploring joint production of Patriot interceptors with Ukraine and European partners.
He stressed, though, that the immediate priority is to provide Ukraine with the air defense capabilities it needs to survive another winter, either from allies with excess interceptors or through increased production at US factories.
Kyiv has already begun that effort………………………………………………………………………………………..https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-patriots-russia-shortage-us-stockpile/33823317.html
The U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal Is a Test Case for South Korean Uranium Enrichment
U.S. and South Korean policymakers should develop diplomatic and institutional measures to address potential concerns and opposition surrounding nuclear-powered submarine and fuel cooperation.
By Ellen Kim, August 3, 2026,
https://keia.org/analysis/the-u-s-saudi-nuclear-deal-is-a-test-case-for-south-korean-uranium-enrichment/
On July 22, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement. However, the future of the agreement became uncertain the following day when President Donald Trump made Saudi Arabia’s normalization of relations with Israel, via accession to the Abraham Accords, a final requirement for its implementation.
The U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement has drawn considerable attention in South Korea because the U.S. administration has opened the possibility of allowing uranium enrichment on Saudi territory, contingent upon the results of a two-year joint feasibility study. During bilateral negotiations to revise the 2015 U.S.-South Korea civil nuclear cooperation agreement, South Korea sought but could not obtain U.S. advance consent to enrich or reprocess U.S. spent nuclear fuel. That situation began to change after President Trump approved a nuclear-powered submarine program for South Korea during his summit with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung last October. The two governments subsequently agreed to cooperate on options for procuring nuclear submarine fuel, and bilateral discussions on civil nuclear cooperation, including on uranium enrichment, resumed with working-level talks held in June of this year.
Against this backdrop, the future of the U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement will serve as an important test case for future U.S.-South Korea talks. The decision to conditionally permit uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia, even as the United States remains engaged in a conflict with Iran aimed at preventing the country from acquiring nuclear weapons, has already prompted concerns in Congress that the agreement could fuel an arms race and spur nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
The security environment on the Korean Peninsula is not so different. While the United States and South Korea continue to pursue the denuclearization of North Korea, South Korea’s pursuit of a low-enriched uranium program to support its nuclear-powered submarine program is also likely to face criticism from those concerned about nuclear proliferation in Northeast Asia. Consequently, even if the U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement ultimately clears congressional approval, growing concerns over nuclear proliferation in the United States and the broader international community could pose significant obstacles to advancing future U.S.-South Korea cooperation on these issues.
For this reason, U.S. and South Korean policymakers should closely examine the U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement and develop diplomatic and institutional measures to address potential concerns and opposition surrounding nuclear-powered submarine and fuel cooperation.
First, South Korea should clearly differentiate its case from that of Saudi Arabia. Unlike Saudi Arabia, South Korea ratified and brought into force the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement in 2004. Since then, it has accepted expanded IAEA access and short-notice inspections, strengthened the transparency of its civilian nuclear activities, and faithfully fulfilled its obligations under the international nonproliferation regime. South Korea should emphasize this strong nonproliferation record and make clear that any future uranium enrichment program for nuclear-powered submarine development would operate under the IAEA’s stringent safeguards and verification regime. In addition, Seoul should proactively propose additional enhanced safeguards and verification mechanisms to ensure that nuclear materials cannot be diverted for purposes beyond those agreed upon by Washington and Seoul.
Second, the United States and South Korea should develop a win-win strategy for civil nuclear industry cooperation. South Korea currently operates twenty-six nuclear power reactors and has emerged as a major exporter of nuclear power plants. To compete more effectively with China and Russia, whose influence in the global nuclear market continues to expand, the United States and South Korea should leverage their respective strengths to build a more competitive partnership. Given South Korea’s recent indication of energy as a priority sector for its investment projects in the United States, there is an opportunity to align these investments with expanded bilateral cooperation in the nuclear industry.
Finally, the most important prerequisite for U.S.-South Korea cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines and fuel is mutual trust. Such cooperation cannot be advanced solely through decisions by the executive branch in the United States; it will ultimately require the support and approval of Congress. However, the current U.S.-South Korea relationship faces multiple challenges spanning security, trade, and other areas. Rather than addressing nuclear cooperation in isolation, both governments should manage the alliance comprehensively and approach these issues with a long-term perspective, resolving them gradually while preserving the broader strength and credibility of the alliance.
Ukraine’s “Turning the Tide” Narrative has Already Sunk
The result is an information environment in which the possibility of mutual coexistence with Russia is treated as almost unthinkable, even as the costs continue to mount for Ukrainians, Russians, and Europeans alike.
How the mainstream media spins each new failure as success – with Leonid Ragozin
Ian Proud, Aug 10, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/ukraines-turning-the-tide-narrative?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=210596621&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
One of the most striking features of the Ukraine war has been the speed with which Western and Ukrainian narratives appear in the mainstream, dominate the discussion for a while, and then quietly collapse with absolutely no reflection on how they were wrong.
The latest example was the campaign launched this summer that ‘Ukraine is turning the tide’ against Russia in the war.
In conversation with independent journalist Leonid Ragozin, we examined what that campaign actually delivered. Back in June, long-range strikes deep into Russian territory and occupied areas — particularly Crimea — were presented as the pressure that would force Putin to the table on terms closer to Ukraine’s.
Defence Minister Mikhail Fedorov was the public face of the effort. Forty days later the results are clear: Russia’s position has not softened by an inch. In fact, it has hardened.
The possibility of land swaps that once featured in negotiations after Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has now been taken off the table. Fedorov has been removed, triggering a political crisis in Kyiv and the replacement of the Army’s Soviet-style commander-in-chief.
As Leonid pointed out, this follows a familiar pattern. The 2023 summer offensive was sold as the moment Ukraine would roll Russian forces back. The Kursk operation briefly revived the idea of territorial leverage. Each time the goalposts have shifted — and each time they have shifted in Russia’s favour.
What began in late April 2022 (thanks to Liz Truss) as talk of liberating Crimea has now contracted to trying to hold the remaining parts of Donetsk. The human and material cost of the progressive contraction of the narrative has been enormous.
What makes the current moment particularly revealing is the gap between elite rhetoric and public sentiment. Gallup polling over the past three years shows a clear shift among Ukrainians: where two-thirds once insisted the only acceptable end was total Russian defeat, the same proportion now favour a negotiated settlement.
Yet the war continues.
Leonid’s explanation is straightforward and uncomfortable. This is not primarily a war of nations. It is a war of interlocking elites — securocratic structures in all participating countries and defence-industry and bureaucratic interests in the West — whose incentives diverge sharply from those of ordinary people.
The same dynamic helps explain the hermetic quality of Western media coverage.
Having worked for the BBC for twelve years, Leonid notes how far British (and wider Western) journalism has travelled from its willingness to scrutinise government claims over Iraq, to providing a blank cheque for foreign policy idiocy in Ukraine.
Nuance has been replaced by a single vantage point that treats any deviation from the Overton window as suspect.
The result is an information environment in which the possibility of mutual coexistence with Russia is treated as almost unthinkable, even as the costs continue to mount for Ukrainians, Russians, and Europeans alike.
We also discussed the deeper cultural and political roots of this hostility — the way liberal elites, in competing with the populist right, adopted their own version of enemy-creation, and the neocolonial mindset that still treats the region as a theatre for proxy competition rather than a space for independent states with legitimate interests.
Mainstream journalists are now as complicit in the needless blood-letting that continues in Ukraine with no end in sight. One wonders what they will call the next, vanishingly insignificant turn of the tide?
The full conversation with Leonid is available here.
Energoatom: Zaporizhzhia NPP lost external power twice on Aug 8
Ukrinform 8th Aug 2026
The Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) lost its external power supply twice on Saturday, August 8.
Ukraine’s state nuclear power operator Energoatom reported this on Telegram, according to Ukrinform.
At 10:59, the 330 kV overhead power line L-243 Ferosplavna – ZTPP No. 1, which supplies power for the plant’s own needs, was briefly disconnected.
The line was automatically reconnected at the Ferosplavna substation and remained energized. While the necessary procedures were being carried out, the plant’s own needs were supplied by diesel generators.
At 11:52, power to the ZNPP was restored.
However, at 14:26, the plant again lost its external power supply. Its own needs were once again switched to diesel generator power.
At 15:35, the plant’s own needs were supplied via the 330 kV Ferosplavna-1 overhead line, restoring the ZNPP’s external power supply.
“The situation once again demonstrates the vulnerability of the Zaporizhzhia NPP under Russian occupation. Any disruption to the normal power supply systems of a nuclear facility creates additional risks to nuclear and radiation safety,” the company said………………………….. https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/4152446-energoatom-zaporizhzhia-npp-lost-external-power-twice-on-aug-8.html
The Ukraine Delusion
Israel is a part of the Ukraine-Russia war story in other very important ways, some of which now look decidedly self-defeating for Ukraine and Zelensky.
Nate Bear, Aug 07, 2026, https://www.donotpanic.news/p/the-ukraine-delusion
I’ve held back on writing about the Russia-Ukraine war, and this article probably won’t win me many fans. But for better or worse, I always try to tell it how I, at least, see it. And I’m tired. Tired of the liberal delusion, the hypocrisy, the childish analysis, and outright bloodthirstiness over Ukraine.
I’m tired of the pretence that a proxy war which has now lasted longer that the first world war is a righteous battle against evil for the soul of the world.
I’m tired of the fact that wanting an end to a war which has killed hundreds of thousands of young men, and thousands of civilians, is seen by some as an outrageous, morally deplorable position.
I’m tired of the fact that rational analysis and context is so often labelled as pro-Putin apologia, and how it is almost impossible to get good information on the war that isn’t polluted by an anti-Russia agenda. And even good information and analysis which recognises that Russia isn’t losing, that Ukraine is suffering, still too often suggests that the west must wage this war for many more years. This otherwise rational analysis, while detailing all the ways in which Ukraine is definitely not winning the war, nevertheless concludes that it must be fought for many more years to avoid “a bad peace.”
Time and again we see the same conclusion. That to give Russia what it wants, namely Crimea, the four annexed oblasts and a neutral Ukraine, would be a “bad peace” that rewards aggression. But few politicians or journalists when selling this story ever spell out explicitly what a “good peace” is and what it would require. But we don’t have to guess. Zelensky has on many occasions. And he has maintained the only way the war can end is if Russia returns to Ukraine not just the four oblasts annexed in 2022, but also Crimea, and he also wants security guarantees which would amount to the effective integration of Ukraine into NATO.
This is a delusional position that guarantees never peace and a forever war. And forever war isn’t an abstract. It means forever death. Forever destruction. It means European societies becoming securitised and militarised, with the Russian foe a ready-made excuse for a Palantir-powered surveillance state. And this position rests atop a childish assertion repeated ad nauseum that grants the war its legitimacy: that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked.”
Nothing is ever unprovoked. You can agree or disagree with whether the provocation warranted the reaction. But unprovoked is not an analysis, it is an emotional appeal, and in the case of Russia-Ukraine, it is propaganda designed to obscure the long history which led to Russia’s invasion.
It is, in many ways, not dissimilar to the propaganda that October 7th was an unprovoked attack on Israel. Or that Pearl Harbour was an unprovoked attack on the United States.
Narratives which strip out cause and effect and proclaim that a bad thing just happened without any preceding events, that good people were then drawn reluctantly into war to defend themselves against bad people, is the oldest trick in the war propaganda book designed to shut down critical intellectual inquiry.
So, briefly (for more detail read this by John Mearsheimer), the events preceding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine include a 1990 promise made by the US Secretary of State James Baker that if post-Soviet Russia allowed a unified Germany to remained in NATO, “NATO would not shift one inch eastward.” It was a promise made with an understanding that Russia was a legitimate country with legitimate security interests. That promise of course was repeatedly broken until NATO stretched to Russia’s borders. The preceding events also include the NATO-backed remilitarisation of Ukraine following the ousting of Victor Yanukovych in 2014, the Russian annexation of Crimea in response and Ukraine’s bombing of the Donbass which killed hundreds of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. It includes an acute understanding among the Russian leadership that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed Ukraine to invade Russia itself.
You don’t have to think that Russia was right to invade Ukraine to try and understand why it invaded Ukraine, a consideration we are never prompted to investigate in a discourse dominated by normative moral judgements viewed exclusively through the lens of western imperialism. The shape of post-2014 Ukraine made Russia fearful that the country could once again be the launchpad for an invasion. And it wasn’t as if Putin hid this fact. He repeatedly warned, into late 2021 and early 2022, that the further militarisation of Ukraine was a red line and if Ukraine and the west refused diplomacy, Russia would act. He hadn’t been that bothered about Ukraine before 2014, there was no war talk, because it wasn’t the threat then that he perceived it became.
Again, this is not a defence of Putin, it is a question of cause and effect, and of the western arrogance and hubris that believes only its red lines on geostrategic issues are valid. Would the US have allowed a military alliance led by China to be built up through South America, reaching Mexico without a response? Would western media have dismissed American concerns about Chinese militarism as paranoid nonsense if Chinese military bases were dotted throughout South America? Of course not! The media would have demanded war and sold us war. But when the roles are reversed, American militarism becomes mere Russian paranoia.
And now the war that NATO expansionism threatened is not just here but is in danger of become a permanent fixture of our lives, with European economies embracing the bloodshed and building war economies. And to build these war economies, the liberal class is demanding more cuts to a welfare state already decimated, in many places, by two decades of austerity. This week the Financial Times ran this article, demonstrating the brazenness with which anti-working class, hyper-capitalist, hyper-imperialist prescriptions are now presented as sensible opinion.
A “warfare state” all to fight a mythical Russia that, as Mearsheimer laid out in this video, didn’t invade Ukraine with anything like a force sufficient to conquer the country, but as a final gambit to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. Of course it failed. The liberal media and political class, however, continue to insist that Russia’s goal is full conquest, with more to follow, in order to legitimise the creation of war economies. That the liberal class would build a warfare state that decimates the welfare state to confront Russia, rather than seek diplomacy and partnership with a country which is home to huge volumes of minerals needed to build, for example, a cleaner energy system, is a demonstration of utter failure.
And who would these “warfare state” economies be powered by? In part, Israel, which has agreed a $4 billion deal with Greece to supply an air defence system, supplied a similar system to Germany for the same price last year, and handed over a half billion dollar missile system to Slovakia.
Israel is a part of the Ukraine-Russia war story in other very important ways, some of which now look decidedly self-defeating for Ukraine and Zelensky.
When the Iran war started, Zelensky enthusiastically embraced it and regurgitated all the classics, saying that the US-Israeli assault was a good thing because it would “rid the Iranian people of a terrorist regime.” In March, with the war on Iran raging, he urged Netanyahu to work with him, saying “he has what I need and I have what he needs.” But now Ukraine is out of interceptor missiles because they’ve all been used in the war on Iran, with Kiev defenceless against Russian missile attacks. Yesterday, every missile launched at Kiev hit its target, with zero interceptors launched. And now, after embracing the war on Iran, Zelensky is complaining about the lack of interceptors, a direct consequence of the war he supported. He hitched himself to empire, yet because of the over-stretching imperial adventurism he himself relies on, that empire has found itself unable to defend his country. It reveals a man who has no plan, beyond hoping that the weapons keep flowing.
Liberals appear reluctant to make the connection between the two imperial wars, preferring the dissonance that comes with an empire state of mind.
This dissonance has also been on display elsewhere, with pro-Ukraine war influencers demanding the west sends more weapons to Ukraine and incredulous at North Korea sending weapons to Russia, seemingly unable to follow their own logic on third-party countries sending weapons to principal conflict belligerents. Empire brains blinded to their own raging hypocrisy.
But as I’m writing, I can hear a criticism, and can even form one against myself. Why, Nate, when you are so morally strident on Israel and Palestine, are you decrying “normative moral judgements” on Ukraine and Russia?
Because the two situations could not be more different.
Ukraine is a state with a standing army supported by empire fighting another state with a standing army. Palestine has been denied statehood despite the 1947 UN two-state partition agreement (putting aside whatever one thinks about the legitimacy of that agreement), has no standing army to defend itself and Palestinians are fighting a colonial occupation armed by empire. If anything, Ukraine is far more similar to Israel than it is to Palestine. Indeed, in 2024 Zelensky proclaimed Israel as the ideal model for Ukraine, saying he wanted Ukraine to be a “big Israel.”
Both Ukraine and Israel are proxies at the tip of the imperial spear, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. You don’t have to be the invader to be a tool of imperialism. Sometimes being the invaded is more useful as it imparts a moral surety that helps shield your imperial role from critical analysis. I would argue this is exactly what has happened in the case of Ukraine.
None of this is to say I don’t have sympathy with ordinary Ukrainians. I do. I think they’ve been sold down the river, by both Europe and their own leaders, and have been coerced into fighting a war a majority now want to end with negotiations. The average Ukrainian is quite different to the average genocide-supporting Israeli who upholds apartheid.
Yet despite the wishes of a majority of Ukrainians, Europe and Zelensky refuse diplomacy and continue to fight, incurring enormous costs on Ukraine and ordinary Ukrainians. Of course, enormous costs are being inflicted on Russia too, but these costs have not been, and will not be sufficient for a “good peace.” And any costs that would really bite risk an uncontrolled, catastrophic escalation.
The final irony is that despite the war being marketed to westerners as totalitarianism versus democracy, Ukrainians can’t even elect a leader who would enact their wish to see a negotiated end to the war since Zelensky, whose term officially expired in 2024, introduced martial law and cancelled elections.
So, as I said, for better or worse, this is my perspective on Russia-Ukraine.
A war which advances only imperialist interests, interests which run counter to European security and prosperity. A war which threatens, at worst, to go nuclear. A war which wasn’t unprovoked. A war which, with their minds empty and hearts lacking true solidarity, consciousness or justice, has become a necessary intellectual organising principle for the liberal media and political class.
I’ve probably not made many fans, but I’d be delighted if I have.
Trump’s nuclear deal: a disaster for the Middle East?
No, the real reason is to gain atomic weapons to protect itself against its main foe: Iran. MbS has made no secret of his desire to build a bomb, and the deal would be a concrete step in that direction. Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, it appears to permit nuclear enrichment on Saudi soil, thus enabling Riyadh to follow the likes of India, Israel and Pakistan in covertly enriching uranium to weapons-grade level
The hard truth is that the “era of non-proliferation is coming to an end”
Well, is it on or is it off? No one’s quite sure, said Al Jazeera (Doha). Two weeks ago, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a multibillion-dollar deal allowing US companies to build and operate nuclear power plants on Saudi soil over the next 30 years.
But a day later, President Trump added a new condition, via social media: Saudi Arabia must fall in line with the UAE and other Arab nations that have signed the Abraham Accords, and recognise the state of Israel.
‘Reckless’ agreement
And that may prove a deal breaker, said David Frum in The Atlantic. Riyadh had been working towards this landmark pact for almost two decades. Thanks to the savvy of its de facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), who ensured the private equity firm of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would get its share of the billion-dollar nuclear licensing deals at stake, he almost got it over the line.
But now it must surely be in doubt, said Mohamad Elmasry on Middle East Eye. Riyadh has vowed it won’t normalise relations until Israel guarantees Palestinian statehood. And MbS has reportedly told US officials that hostility towards Israel is so great among Saudis in the wake of Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, that to sign a normalisation treaty would probably get him assassinated.
It’s obvious why the Saudis still badly want this nuclear deal, said Joseph Cirincione on MS Now (New York). It’s not, as they claim, to diversify their energy profile: that makes no sense for a nation sitting on an ocean of oil and blessed with the ideal wind and solar conditions for generating renewable energy – a far cheaper option.
No, the real reason is to gain atomic weapons to protect itself against its main foe: Iran. MbS has made no secret of his desire to build a bomb, and the deal would be a concrete step in that direction. Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, it appears to permit nuclear enrichment on Saudi soil, thus enabling Riyadh to follow the likes of India, Israel and Pakistan in covertly enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.
‘Guiding hand’
Who knows what’ll happen if this “reckless” deal goes ahead, said Mitchell Plitnick on Mondoweiss (New York). The “gold standard” nuclear-power pact that the US signed with the United Arab Emirates in 2009 required the UAE to forego the ability to enrich uranium, and obliged it to submit to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections: this Saudi deal has no such restrictions.
Which is why it would inevitably trigger a Middle East arms race, said Azriel Bermant in Foreign Policy. If the deal proceeds, Iran would openly seek its own nuclear deterrent, something it has so far officially forsworn. “It beggars belief that the US went to war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon yet now acts in a way that is an open invitation for Tehran to weaponise.” And in a way that would also pour “proliferation kerosene” on Turkey and Egypt’s “smouldering nuclear ambitions”, said Matthew Kroenig and Henry Sokolski in The Wall Street Journal. Trump’s deal invites disaster.
Actually, the US is doing the right thing, said the Washington Examiner. The hard truth is that the “era of non-proliferation is coming to an end”: Pakistan and North Korea are both testing nuclear weapons. Given that sobering reality, better the US offer “a guiding hand” to the Saudis and oversee their nuclear agenda than let China or Russia fill the void.
Good or bad, the deal matters a lot to the US president, said Sharon Squassoni in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Chicago), so rumours of its death “are premature”. After all, it’s not some “spur-of-the-moment fantasy” cooked up by Trump. The same deal was also being considered under Joe Biden, and then too enrichment was a quid pro quo for recognising Israel.
The Saudis won’t do so, of course, given recent history, but they won’t have to. Although Congress can disapprove the deal once it’s submitted, the present Congress – due to adjourn on 18 December – is much less likely to do so than any freshly elected one. So the Saudis can “call Trump’s bluff by simply sitting back” and waiting for him to succumb to the pressure of the December deadline.
Nagasaki warns of risk of nuclear war on 81st A-bomb anniversary
Nikkei Asian Review 9th Aug 2026
Mayor calls nuclear weapons an ‘absolute evil’ that cannot coexist with humanityMayor calls nuclear weapons an ‘absolute evil’ that cannot coexist with humanity
NAGASAKI, Japan (Kyodo) — Nagasaki on Sunday warned nuclear powers and deterrence-reliant nations of the increased risk of a war using nuclear weapons, as the Japanese city marked the 81st anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing with a resolve to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.
“Nuclear weapons are not a ‘necessary evil’ but an ‘absolute evil,’ and can never coexist with humanity,” Mayor Shiro Suzuki said in the Peace Declaration read during the annual memorial ceremony for the attack on the southwestern city, which followed the atomic bombing of Hiroshima three days earlier.
Adding cadence and vocal inflection, Suzuki’s powerful voice pierced through the Peace Park as he called the concept of nuclear deterrence “extremely dangerous and fragile.”
This year’s commemoration comes amid geopolitical tensions in the wake of the Middle East conflict and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
A moment of silence was held at 11:02 a.m., when the plutonium device codenamed “Fat Man” was dropped by a U.S. bomber and exploded over Nagasaki. It remains the last place to have suffered a nuclear attack.
Still, more than 12,000 nuclear warheads exist, Suzuki pointed out. He expressed concern over unpredictability in the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, where nuclear states are involved, referring to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S.-led war on Iran.
The commemoration event at the Nagasaki park, located near the hypocenter, was attended by some 3,700 people, including representatives from 98 countries and regions, as well as the European Union.
U.S. Ambassador to Japan George Glass was not present at the ceremony, with Japan’s close security ally represented by Deputy Chief of Mission Aaron Snipe.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi delivered a speech following a brief heckle from the crowd, reiterating what she said in the Hiroshima commemoration last Thursday that Japan “is upholding” the three nonnuclear principles……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://asia.nikkei.com/spotlight/society/nagasaki-warns-of-risk-of-nuclear-war-on-81st-a-bomb-anniversary
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (194)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 