Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid ‘Criminal Aggression’ by US, Israel
February 28, 2026 By Jake Johnson for Common Dreams, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/iran-demands-emergency-united-nations-action-amid-criminal-aggression-by-us-israel/
As US and Israeli bombs fell on Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday vowed that the country would defend itself against “criminal aggression” and implored the United Nations Security Council to take emergency action.
The ministry said in a lengthy statement that Saturday’s attacks, which US President Donald Trump characterized as the start of a massive military operation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, represent “a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and a clear armed aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
“The Islamic Republic of Iran notes the grave duty of the United Nations and its Security Council to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security,” reads the ministry’s statement, which noted that the US and Israeli assault began “in the midst of a diplomatic process.”
“The Iranian people are now proud that they did everything they could to prevent war,” the statement continues. “Now is the time to defend the homeland and confront the enemy’s military aggression. Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense. The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to the aggressors with authority.”
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, condemned US-Israeli “aggression against Iran” in a social media post, calling the assault a “violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force.”
“All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order,” Saul added.
Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance relaunched amid concerns over new projects planned for Wales
02 Mar 2026, https://nation.cymru/news/welsh-anti-nuclear-alliance-relaunched-amid-concerns-over-new-projects-planned-for-wales/
A coalition of peace, environmental and social justice organisations has relaunched the Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance (WANA), calling for what it describes as energy sovereignty and a democratic, community-led debate on the future of Welsh energy.
The relaunch took place on March 1, with WANA bringing together groups including CADNO (Cymdeithas Niwclear Oesel), CND Cymru, the Low-Level Radiation Campaign, the Low-Level Radiation and Health Conference, No Nuclear Llynfi, PAWB (People Against Wylfa-B), Stop Hinkley and Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities.
First established in 1980 by a broad coalition that included former MP Paul Flynn, CND Cymru, the Central Wales Energy Group, farmers and environmentalists, WANA served as a vehicle for anti-nuclear campaigning for decades. Its work was later dispersed among individual organisations during a period of relative calm. With nuclear energy and defence projects once again high on the political agenda, campaigners say the time is right to revive the alliance.
ADVERT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
WANA says it will focus on promoting what it calls “true renewable” energy generation while highlighting concerns around nuclear power and its links to military infrastructure.
A number of nuclear-related projects are currently proposed or under development in Wales. In November, the UK Government announced that Wylfa had been selected as a pilot site for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). Texas-based firm Last Energy has also set out plans for SMRs at the former Llynfi Power Station site between Maesteg and Bridgend. Other projects linked to the AUKUS alliance, including radar capability and submarine development, are expected to involve sites in Pembrokeshire and Cardiff. Nuclear development has also been suggested at locations including Aberthaw and Trawsfynydd.
WANA argues that decisions around these projects have often proceeded without sufficient input from Welsh communities. It says Wales has a long history of industrial exploitation, citing the decline of coal mining and heavy industry and more recent job losses in Port Talbot as examples of communities left behind after economic extracti
The alliance has published a manifesto calling for a “nuclear power and weapons free, sustainably powered, and peaceful Wales”. It raises concerns about public spending, the cost-of-living crisis, the climate emergency and what it describes as a lack of energy sovereignty. It also calls for greater debate around the links between civil and military nuclear programmes and for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales.
A WANA spokesperson said the alliance aims to bring campaigners together to challenge what it sees as the risks and costs of nuclear development.
“The cost of nuclear is too high, the build-times too long, and the waste question remains unanswered,” they said. “Wales must engage in a debate about our energy future, including community control and benefits.”
Conservationists challenge effectiveness of £700 million fish safety system.
“EDF’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Its approach falls short of what is needed to protect the Severn’s unique biodiversity and risks irreversible harm to the estuary’s fish populations.”
Anthony Hawkswell March 1, 2026, https://angling-international.com/2026/03/01/conservationists-challenge-effectiveness-of-700-million-fish-safety-system/
The developer of the UK’s largest nuclear power station – close to one of the country’s most popular sea fishing venues – has claimed that it will have more fish protection than any other structure of its kind in the world.
EDF Energy, which is building the £46 billion Hinckley Point C power station on the River Severn Estuary in the Southwest of England, is spending £700m to install three fish protection systems, including a ‘fish disco’, a British developed innovation that is said to deter marine life from the reactor.
It says that a pioneering British-developed Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) system has been successfully installed at Hinkley Point C, marking a major breakthrough in aquatic safety and environmental stewardship.
However, leading conservationists and politicians say that the company is downplaying the environmental risks to the River Severn Estuary. EDF’s claim that the AFD system is both effective and proportionate in cost is fiercely disputed by environmental groups and a coalition of over 60 MPs.
EDF Energy claims that Hinkley Point C leads the globe with three advanced fish protection measures: the AFD, plus state-of-the-art intake heads and a comprehensive fish recovery and return system. Combined, these initiatives represent a £700 million investment in marine conservation and set a new benchmark for the sector.
The ADF, developed by Fishtek Marine, employs ultrasound technology to guide fish away from danger zones near water intakes. Recent sea trials, led by Swansea University, have demonstrated the system’s high effectiveness in reducing fish mortality rates. Dr Emily Carter, Senior Researcher at Swansea University, commented, “Our results show a significant reduction in fish approaching intake areas, confirming the technology’s value for large-scale applications.”
EDF says these findings suggest that further compensation measures, such as additional artificial saltmarsh habitats, may not be necessary. “Local communities stand to benefit from the enhanced marine environment, with reduced disruption to fish stocks supporting both commercial and recreational fisheries,” said EDF.
Regulatory approval for the system was secured following a thorough application process with the Marine Management Organisation………………………………………………..
However, in a strongly worded open letter delivered to government regulators, England’s foremost nature organisations and dozens of Members of Parliament challenged EDF’s portrayal of the AFD’s efficiency and expense. The signatories argue that EDF’s own data misrepresents the true scale of fish losses likely to occur without full-scale deterrent measures, and they point to independent evidence suggesting the company has underestimated both the ecological and economic case for robust fish protection
Matt Browne, of The Wildlife Trusts, said: “EDF’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Its approach falls short of what is needed to protect the Severn’s unique biodiversity and risks irreversible harm to the estuary’s fish populations.”
Browne highlighted that the Wildlife Trust’s recent analysis found the proposed deterrent would leave millions of fish vulnerable each year, including species vital to both commercial and recreational fishing.
A recent publication by the Wildlife Trusts exposes significant shortcomings in the Nuclear Regulatory Review process, revealing that key assumptions about fish behaviour and the resilience of the population were misrepresented or omitted. The report details how EDF’s own studies failed to account for cumulative impacts on migratory species and ignored alternative, more effective mitigation options. These findings have intensified calls for a comprehensive reassessment of the project’s licensing condition.
Natural England, the government’s statutory adviser on the natural environment, has reiterated the Severn Estuary’s status as a legally protected site under international and domestic law. The agency emphasises the estuary’s crucial role as a nursery for diverse fish species and migratory birds, warning that any failure to implement proven fish deterrent technology risks breaching conservation obligations and undermining decades of habitat restoration.
As the debate intensifies, the angling community, conservationists and policymakers are united in demanding greater transparency and government accountability. There are mounting calls for an independent review of EDF’s environmental claims and the immediate adoption of best-available fish protection technology.
“The future health of the Severn Estuary, and the integrity of the UK’s environmental standards, now hangs in the balance,” said Natural England.
UN nuclear watchdog says it’s unable to verify whether Iran has suspended all uranium enrichment
By STEPHANIE LIECHTENSTEIN, AP News, February 28, 2026
VIENNA (AP) — Iran has not allowed the United Nations nuclear agency access to its nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States during a 12-day war in June, according to a confidential report by the watchdog circulated to member states and seen Friday by The Associated Press.
The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency stressed that it “cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities,” or the “size of Iran’s uranium stockpile at the affected nuclear facilities.”
Iran has four declared enrichment facilities, but the report warned that because of the lack of access, the IAEA “cannot provide any information on the current size, composition or whereabouts of the stockpile of enriched uranium in Iran.”
The report stressed that the “loss of continuity of knowledge … needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency.”
Iran has long insisted its program is peaceful, but the IAEA and Western nations say Tehran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003. The U.S. is seeking a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program and ensure it does not develop nuclear weapons.
Highly enriched material should be verified regularly
The IAEA reported that Iran had informed the agency in a letter dated Feb. 2 that normal safeguards were “legally untenable and materially impracticable,” as a result of threats and ”acts of aggression.”
The confidential report also said Friday that Iran did provide access to IAEA inspectors “to each of the unaffected nuclear facilities at least once” since June 2025, with the exception of a power plant at Karun that is under construction.
Iran is legally obliged to cooperate with the IAEA under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but suspended all cooperation after the war with Israel……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
IAEA joined Geneva talks
The IAEA reported on Friday that Grossi attended negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on Feb. 17 and Feb. 26 in Geneva at which he “provided advice” on the verification of Iran’s nuclear program. The report said that those negotiations are “ongoing.”
Thursday’s talks, the third round this year under Omani mediation, ended without a deal, leaving the danger of another Mideast war on the table as the U.S. has gathered a massive fleet of aircraft and warships in the region.
An Omani official said lower-level technical talks would continue next week in Vienna, the home of the IAEA. The agency is likely to be critical in any deal.
Iran says it is not pursuing weapons and has so far resisted demands that it halt uranium enrichment on its soil or hand over its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Similar talks last year between the U.S. and Iran about Iran’s nuclear program broke down after the start of the war in June. Before then, Iran had been enriching uranium up to 60% purity. https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941
Exiled Iranian Denounces War: ‘The People Will Suffer, Not Gain!’
by ScheerPost Staff, 28 Feb 26, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/exiled-iranian-denounces-war-the-people-will-suffer-not-gain/
Behrouz Farahani, a political analyst and opponent of the Islamic Republic living in exile, condemned the US and Israeli military attack on Iran. Speaking to Middle East Eye about how Iranian opposition figures who also oppose the war are responding, he said:
“In this situation, we oppose both sides. This war is between an international imperialist power, the US, and its regional ally, Israel, on one side, and the reactionary regime of Iran on the other. We are against both sides and against this war.”
He added that opponents of the Islamic Republic who reject foreign intervention are mobilizing:
“We are calling for an immediate ceasefire and are organising anti‑war protests. This war will bring nothing but misery to the Iranian people. As we have seen before, its only result will be more pressure on ordinary people. This war will not help the Iranian people in their struggle against the Islamic Republic. Especially when one side is Israel and the other side is Trump.”
“When we have a president like Trump, who has openly said that his main concern is money, it is clear that this attack has nothing to do with improving life in Iran or helping its people,” Farahani said. “One of the main reasons for this war is that the Islamic Republic does not serve America’s economic interests in the region or globally.”
He stressed that this critique does not imply any support for Tehran:
“This does not mean that because the Islamic Republic is in conflict with American interests, it is a progressive or anti‑imperialist force. Not at all. Just as the Taliban in Afghanistan was a deeply reactionary force despite being in conflict with the United States, the Islamic Republic is also a reactionary force that has now been attacked by international imperialism and its regional ally.”
Farahani’s comments underscore what many critics argue is the real motive behind the escalation: a broad, opportunistic effort by the United States and Israel to secure regional dominance, energy access, and geopolitical leverage under the guise of confronting Iran.
Trump Advisers Wanted Israel To ‘Attack Iran First’ For Better Optics: Politico
by Tyler Durden, Friday, Feb 27, 2026 , https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-advisers-want-israel-attack-iran-first-better-optics-politico
Politico is out with a crazy story on Thursday, but which will make sense to those following the trajectory of US foreign policy over the past couple decades plus.
Senior US officials want Israel to strike Iran before Washington launches a renewed assault in order to build domestic backing for war. Advisers to President Donald Trump are “privately arguing that an Israeli attack would trigger Iran to retaliate, helping muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike,” the outlet writes, citing two people familiar with the discussions.
“The calculus is a political one – that more Americans would stomach a war with Iran if the United States or an ally were attacked first,” Politico continues.
The subtext here is that American troops would likely come under retaliation in whatever form such a serious escalation takes. Currently the US is drawing down troops from bases immediately in harm’s way, including reportedly in Qatar and Bahrain.
“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” one person familiar with the discussions said.
The mood in Washington is said to be that nuclear negotiations with Iran appear increasingly unlikely to succeed – despite some ‘positive’ headlines out of Geneva – and that “the primary question is becoming when and how the US attacks.”
The Politico report suggests Tucker Carlson has assessed it exactly right when days ago he complained, “What I really object to, what makes me mad, is when American leaders, whose job it is to represent Americans, are more loyal to a foreign country than they are to their own.”
Indeed the outlet goes so far as to emphasize that “There’s a high likelihood of American casualties. And that comes with lots of political risk” – according to the words of one of the officials interviewed for the story.
Once again the decision-makers are on the brink of throwing American troops under the bus for the sake of another bloody regime change war. They might heed the words of one soldier who over a decade ago expressed that the troops themselves are sick of the pointless ‘forever wars’..
Trump himself of course campaigned on starting no new wars, especially in the Middle East. Ironically he’s been bragging about ending seven conflicts globally, while standing on the brink of provoking and ordering a new large-scale war breaking out across the whole Mideast region.
A War With Iran Would Not Be a One-Off Event But a Disastrous Ongoing Rupture
Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.
The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval.
If Congress cedes its power to stop a war with Iran, it will fully erode any lingering promise of democratic restraint.
By Hanieh Jodat , Truthout, February 24, 2026
As the U.S. slowly continues its brokered negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and ballistic missiles, it is also expanding its military posture across the Middle East — amounting to the biggest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. took place in Geneva on February 17 with little progress and plenty of details left to discuss. According to U.S. officials, the Islamic Republic offered to come back within two weeks with a proposal which addresses some core issues and gaps in the positions by both parties. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s actions play a different tune. On February 19, Trump announced he would give Iran 10 to 15 days to reach a deal, otherwise the U.S. claims to be fully prepared to take military action, the consequences of which could lead to a regional catastrophe. The next talks are set to take place on February 26.
Ahead of those talks, Donald Trump has deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, which is set to join the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. The United States has also significantly increased air power in the Middle East; according to open-source intelligence analysts and flight-tracking data, over 120 U.S. aircraft have deployed to the region. With each warship it repositions, each military personnel it places on alert, and all of the air power it has amassed in the region, the U.S. sends a message that diplomacy may no longer be on the table.
Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.
Meanwhile, in Congress, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna have joined forces again to push a war powers resolution. The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval……………………………………………………………………………………………..
A war with Iran will not stop at its borders and will not remain where it is aimed. Such impulsive and reckless military actions never do. The Middle East is an ecosystem of lives, alliances, and fragile balances that will draw in neighboring countries and global powers.
And while the momentum towards a war with Iran accelerates, we must be reminded of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, which accomplished little outside the brutalization of one of the most economically starved countries on earth. Similarly, we must remember the collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society alongside the imposition of a farcical democracy after the 2003 invasion — a collapse that was fueled in part by years of devastating sanctions that predated the invasion. …………………………………………………………………………………
Rather than a one-off strike or a clean operation, a war with Iran would almost certainly widen conflict in the region and produce consequences far beyond what could be intended or repaired.
This is why the War Powers Resolution exists, not as a symbolic gesture but as a bulwark to slow the rush towards catastrophe. The framers of the Constitution understood what modern politicians seem to ignore: that war is too consequential to be left in the hands of one person, one branch of the government, or an executive order. The power to start a war with another country was placed in the hands of Congress to ensure transparency, force dialogue, and demand accountability…………………………………………………………………………… https://truthout.org/articles/a-war-with-iran-would-not-be-a-one-off-event-but-a-disastrous-ongoing-rupture/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=3e2745821e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_02_24_10_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-3e2745821e-650192793
Zelenskyy says he’d accept nuclear weapons from UK, France ‘with pleasure’
TRT World, 28 Feb 26
Ukraine’s president said no such proposals had been made, but added he would consider the offer, after Moscow accused UK and France of seeking to equip Kiev with a nuclear bomb.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that he has not been offered nuclear weapons by the UK or France, but stressed that he would accept such an offer “with pleasure.”
“With pleasure, but I didn’t have propositions. But with pleasure,” Zelenskyy said in an interview with Sky News, an excerpt of which was shared by Ukrainian media outlets, including the RBC-Ukraine news agency, when asked about Russian claims that Ukraine is “trying to get a nuclear weapon via Britain and France.”
“No, it’s not happening,” Zelenskyy went on to say on Friday, commenting on if such a thing would take place.
Earlier this week, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service accused the UK and France of actively working to provide Kiev with a nuclear bomb.
It claimed that Britain and France believe that, by possessing nuclear weapons, Ukraine would be able to secure more favourable terms for ending the war, which entered its fifth year on Tuesday……………………….https://www.trtworld.com/article/50ba4f9b6505
No to uranium mining in Greenland
February 27, 2026, by IPPNW – International Physicians fot the Prevention of Nuclear War
[Ed. note: Niels Henrik Hooge works with NOAH, the Danish branch of Friends of the Earth. He is also closely associated with Greenland’s No to Uranium Association (URANI? NAAMIK) in Nuuk. Patrick Schukalla, IPPNW Germany’s policy advisor on energy and climate, spoke with Hooge in February about the role of Greenland’s uranium resources and other subsurface wealth, and the potential threats to the territory during this period of geopolitical tension.]
PS: Although Greenland is currently on everyone’s mind, little is being learned about the island itself, its people or the Arctic ecology. Instead, the focus is on the geopolitical desires of others, both imagined and real. You have been working against large-scale mining in Greenland for a long time and have achieved significant political successes in this area. Could you tell us about that?
.NHH:………………………………………………………………….. . Denmark, which for centuries was in full control of Greenland, has made no attempts to integrate Inuit culture into the rest of Kingdom. Another striking fact is that private ownership of land does not exist and land cannot be bought or sold. You can own buildings, but not the ground. The paradox here is that you now have some of the biggest and greediest industrialists in the world trying to control property that so far has been collectively owned. This is really a clash of opposite cultures.
PS: The last time we spoke was in 2021, ahead of the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow. We discussed uranium mining and the false claims made by the industry and some governments under the slogan ‘Nuclear for Climate’. IPPNW is PS: committed to a world without nuclear threats. This includes calling for an end to uranium mining. What role does uranium play in Greenland and in your campaigns today?
NHH: Since 2021, when the Inuit Ataqigiit party came into power, there has been a ban on uranium mining. Inuit Ataqatigiit is mainly an ecological party and I guess to some extent you could compare it to the German Greens, because it is also a mainstream party. Until 2013, the ban had existed for a quarter of a century, but it was lifted on the request of the Australian mining company, Energy Transition Minerals (ETM, formerly known as Greenland Minerals Ltd., GML), which threatened to abandon the big Kvanefjeld uranium and rare earths mining project, if ETM could not exploit the uranium deposit.
Under GML’s ownership, the controversial project has been at the forefront of the public eye for more than a decade, and the mining project and uranium mining in general have been a major factor in the formation of at least five government coalitions since 2013. When the uranium ban was lifted, Greenlandic and Danish NGOs, including NOAH, started to cooperate to have it reinstated. Particularly, I want to emphasize our collaboration with URANI? NAAMIK, Greenland’s anti-uranium network, which played a crucial role in mobilising the public against uranium mining. Although this type of mining now is banned, the anti-uranium campaign cannot stop completely. Mining companies are lobbying the Trump administration and its associates in the private sector to intervene and changes in Greenland’s political community could fundamentally affect the status of uranium mining.
…………………………………………………………………………………….. PS: If European governments are now trying to satisfy the US without Greenland being annexed, are you worried that regulations will be weakened and the protection of the Arctic environment will be compromised?
NHH: Yes, unfortunately this is a real risk and it could start a race to the bottom. On one hand, EU’s Arctic Environment and Sustainability Strategy implies that oil, coal and gas should no longer be extracted in Arctic areas. On the other hand, EU has adopted a policy under the European Critical Raw Materials Act of fast-tracking mining projects even if they do not have support from the local population and show signs of flawed permitting or inadequate environmental impact assessments………………………………………..
PS: What are your next steps, and what would you like your friends and partners in other European countries and beyond to do?
NHH: Currently, URANI? NAAMIK and NOAH are campaigning to have mining companies which have played a role in getting the Trump administration to try to annex Greenland screened and if necessary, banned for security reasons. Furthermore, there is now a majority in the Greenlandic population to rejoin the EU as a member state, and obviously it would make sense, if EU institutions and the European NGO community started to prepare for this eventuality. In NOAH’s opinion, it would imply a conception of a European Arctic policy that includes an offer to support the Greenlandic government in protecting and preserving Greenland’s natural resources.
This could become a lighthouse project for Greenland, the Danish Kingdom and the EU, putting environmental protection on the global agenda. If mineral extraction is completely or partially abolished, the Greenlanders should of course be compensated financially. The European Parliament has supported the idea of an Arctic nature protection area in the past, using the Antarctic Treaty as a model. The idea is backed by 141 environmental organizations, including some of the largest in Europe and the world. https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/02/27/no-to-uranium-mining-in-greenland/
“The Surgery of the World”: Netanyahu Arrives in Washington to Deliver the Final Blow to Diplomacy and Ignite a Major War.
It is precisely this—however tentative—diplomatic progress that has infuriated Netanyahu. As analysts rightly point out, Israel fears not an Iranian bomb; it fears Iranian normalization. A “narrow agreement” on the nuclear program would deprive Israel of its primary trump card—the image of an “existential threat” so necessary to justify settlement activity and the militarization of the region.
The essence of the visit, in fact, boiled down to blackmail. Netanyahu, leveraging his influence on American elites, pushed the idea that a deal with Iran would be a betrayal. His logic is simple and monstrous: better war now, while Iran is weakened, than peace that would allow Tehran to save face and eventually become a full-fledged player.
Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, February 23, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/02/23/the-surgery-of-the-world-netanyahu-arrives-in-washington-to-deliver-the-final-blow-to-diplomacy-and-ignite-a-major-war/
The Israeli Prime Minister’s hasty visit to the White House is not a consultation between allies, but an armed intrusion into the negotiation process.
Under the guise of ensuring security, Netanyahu is demanding terms from Trump that Iran will never accept. The goal is singular: to bury any hope for a deal and drag the United States into yet another Middle Eastern bloodbath. Behind the façade of an “unbreakable friendship” between Washington and Tel Aviv lies a cynical spectacle where partners are ready to stab each other in the back for the sake of hegemony.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, hastily rescheduled for February 2026, is not a matter of diplomatic etiquette but an act of desperation and aggression. The Israeli Prime Minister rushed to the White House with one objective: to destroy the budding dialogue between the US and Iran that had just begun to emerge in Oman.
He brought with him a dossier of intelligence, his well-honed skill of disregarding American diplomacy when it suits him, and the firm conviction that the US is on the verge of a deal that would leave Israel vulnerable. The meeting with Trump, originally scheduled for February 11th, was abruptly moved up a week and took place shortly after the start of US-Iran negotiations. This was no routine consultation between allies; it was an intervention in the affairs of another state.
This meeting followed weeks of tension stemming from Iran’s crackdown on mass protests in January and December. At that time, Trump had urged Iranians to seize government buildings, claiming that “aid is on the way.” But it hasn’t arrived yet—apparently, it’s stuck somewhere.
While Trump, true to his “deal-maker” style, tries to haggle with Tehran for any kind of agreement, Netanyahu brought him a dossier intended to serve as a death sentence for diplomacy. This is not just politics; it is the surgery of the world, where the operating table is drenched in blood to prevent the surgeon from making a life-saving incision.
A One-Sided Game: What Does Israel Really Want?
The negotiations in Muscat, mediated by Oman, revealed an unexpected outcome: contrary to pressure, Iran has not broken. Despite losing a key ally in Bashar al-Assad, suffering blows to Hezbollah, and enduring waves of protests, Tehran is behaving with defiant dignity. Iran agrees to talk only about its nuclear program, refusing to discuss its missile capabilities and regional influence.
Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate solely on its nuclear program, rejecting attempts to limit its ballistic missile arsenal and its support for regional proxy forces. Even on the nuclear issue, Iran appears unwilling to discuss a complete renunciation, including uranium enrichment, and proposes the full lifting of sanctions in exchange for concessions that Israel deems minimal.
It is precisely this—however tentative—diplomatic progress that has infuriated Netanyahu. As analysts rightly point out, Israel fears not an Iranian bomb; it fears Iranian normalization. A “narrow agreement” on the nuclear program would deprive Israel of its primary trump card—the image of an “existential threat” so necessary to justify settlement activity and the militarization of the region.
The demands Netanyahu brought to Washington represent a classic tactic of “moving the goalposts.”
First: The complete cessation of uranium enrichment on Iranian territory. A demand that not only violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognizes the right to peaceful nuclear energy, but also constitutes political suicide for Iran.
Second: Restrictions on the ballistic missile program. For Tehran, this is its only means of deterrence since the US withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018, demonstrating to the world the value of its signature.
Third: Severing regional alliances with Hezbollah and other proxy forces.
This is not a negotiating position. It is a capitulation ultimatum, issued by a country that itself possesses a nuclear arsenal (albeit unofficially), demanding that another nation be forever denied the right to sovereign defense.
Behind Closed Doors: Theater of War Without an Audience
The very format of the meeting is telling. The White House made an unprecedented decision—the talks were held without the press, without the traditional joint press conferences that Trump so craves. The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth explicitly states this was done to conceal “disagreements.”
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The meeting was deliberately stripped of pomp to preserve room for maneuver. Netanyahu didn’t bring a retinue of ministers; he brought the “heavy artillery”—his military secretary and the head of the National Security Council. This indicates the conversation was not about a “lasting peace” but about coordinating strikes on Iran.
The essence of the visit, in fact, boiled down to blackmail. Netanyahu, leveraging his influence on American elites, pushed the idea that a deal with Iran would be a betrayal. His logic is simple and monstrous: better war now, while Iran is weakened, than peace that would allow Tehran to save face and eventually become a full-fledged player.
The outcome of this rush felt like a slap in the face. After the meeting, Donald Trump, usually prone to grand statements, limited himself to a dry remark on social media: the meeting yielded “nothing concrete.” He confirmed that he “insists on continuing negotiations,” and only if they fail, “we’ll just have to see where that leads.”
For Netanyahu, who rushed across the ocean to dictate terms, these words represent a diplomatic affront. Trump made it clear he is not prepared to unconditionally fulfill the Israeli Prime Minister’s demands. However, it would be naive to see this as a victory for common sense.
Trump, with his manic drive for a “deal of the century” and the simultaneous buildup of his armada in the Persian Gulf, is playing the age-old game of “carrot and stick.” But in Netanyahu’s case, this “carrot” is poisoned. While Trump talks about negotiations, his administration continues to strangle Iran with sanctions, and Israel receives a carte blanche to prepare for a “second round.”
Who Benefits from War?
Washington and Tel Aviv are playing a double game. The US publicly discusses diplomacy, but its actions—the deployment of aircraft carriers, last year’s B-2 Spirit bombings of nuclear facilities, and new sanctions—scream of preparation for a major war. Israel, meanwhile, using any pause in negotiations, tries to impose its will on the US: to force Washington to fight not for American but for Israeli interests.
As one Iranian politician aptly noted in an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, “The United States demands that Iran agree to a subordinate role within a US-managed regional order.” Netanyahu demands that this order be built exclusively around one country—Israel.
This is the central tragedy of the moment. Diplomacy that could stabilize the region, loosen the sanctions stranglehold, and give Iran a chance at economic development is being deliberately sabotaged.
Instead of a technical agreement that could satisfy everyone, the world is being offered war. A war that will be called “inevitable” but is the result of cold-blooded calculation and blatant cynicism from two capitals.
Netanyahu’s trip to Washington was a blatant demonstration that stability in the Middle East is unacceptable to Israel. They need chaos. They need an enemy. They need blood. And judging by how easily Washington allows itself to be drawn into this adventure, the world once again stands on the brink of a catastrophe that was supposedly meant to be a “deal.”
Ohio corruption trial traces tactics to prop up nuclear and coal plants
Former FirstEnergy execs Chuck Jones and Mike Dowling face state criminal charges connected to HB 6 bailout maneuvers, for which Ohioans are still paying the price.
By Kathiann M. Kowalski, 27 February 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/utilities/ohio-corruption-trial-traces-tactics-to-prop-up-nuclear-and-coal-plants
Ohio jurors will soon decide whether two former FirstEnergy executives are guilty of state criminal charges related to the House Bill 6 utility bribery scheme.
It’s a landmark moment for what is the largest corruption scandal in state history, in which utility execs allegedly bribed state officials to pass and protect a law to bail out uneconomic coal and nuclear plants and to gut the state’s clean energy standards. Its effects still reverberate today, nearly seven years after HB 6 became law, in the form of higher energy bills, dirtier air, and less solar and wind power across Ohio.
The trial in Akron of FirstEnergy’s former CEO Chuck Jones and former senior vice president for external affairs Mike Dowling is expected to take several more weeks. The state alleges that they engaged in a pattern of corrupt activities including bribing a former public utilities chair, telecommunications fraud, money laundering, and records tampering.
Jones and Dowling also face separate federal charges relating to their alleged roles in a yearslong conspiracy to pass HB 6 in 2019 and to thwart a statewide referendum effort that could have blocked the law.
FirstEnergy admitted in 2021 that it and its subsidiaries had paid approximately $60 million to dark money groups that funneled the funds to an organization controlled by former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, a Republican who presided over the chamber when HB 6 passed.
It also admitted paying $4.3 million to a company owned by Sam Randazzo, a lawyer and former chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, shortly before Republican Gov. Mike DeWine picked him for that position in 2019.
When a federal judge demanded to know who paid the bribes, FirstEnergy fingered two former top execs: Jones and Dowling. Both deny any criminal wrongdoing.
Householder and lobbyist Matt Borges, who once chaired the Ohio Republican Party, were convicted in 2023 on charges under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. Requests for review of their cases are pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Householder also faces state criminal charges, and that trial is scheduled for June 8.
Ohio customers have paid more than $400 million in coal plant subsidies under HB 6. The law has been mostly repealed now, but the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency standards remain decimated
The charges against Jones and Dowling matter not just in Ohio but more broadly, because corruption undermines democracy through government officials serving private people or companies instead of the public.
Cover-ups while blaming the dead guy
The state case, filed in February 2024, focuses heavily on actions by Jones and Dowling related to Randazzo, whose Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio received the $4.3 million payment from FirstEnergy in 2019.
Much of Jones’ and Dowling’s defense in the state case has sought to blame Randazzo for any illegal actions. Randazzo faced federal charges and was a co-defendant with Jones and Dowling in the state case when he died of an apparent suicide in 2024.
Cross-examination by defense lawyers has generally tried to cast Jones’ and Dowling’s actions as normal business for an Ohio utility, suggesting they had no reason to suspect that money paid to Randazzo’s company over the course of roughly a decade would end up in his pocket and not be put toward lawful business uses. They likewise claim they never bribed Randazzo to act on FirstEnergy’s behalf either before or after he became Public Utilities Commission chair.
One of Randazzo’s former legal clients was Industrial Energy Users–Ohio, an association of large industrial energy users in Ohio, now known as the Ohio Energy Leadership Council.
IEU–Ohio was initially opposed to an early bailout plan for FirstEnergy’s nuclear and coal plants. But in 2015, Randazzo agreed to drop IEU–Ohio’s opposition. The company denied at the time that it had struck any side deals to get parties in the case to stop fighting against the bailout plan, which cost Ohio customers more than $450 million.
FirstEnergy paid money to Randazzo’s company until early 2019, just before he became Public Utilities Commission chair and the legislature passed HB 6, cementing the coal and nuclear subsidies that FirstEnergy sought.
Throughout this time, FirstEnergy made payments for “consulting” work — culminating in that $4.3 million payment to the Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio in 2019. FirstEnergy did not disclose that agreement or the 2019 payment before Randazzo took office.
TEPCO removing empty tanks to advance Fukushima plant decommissioning work
February 28, 2026 (Mainichi Japan) https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20260228/p2g/00m/0na/010000c
TOKYO (Kyodo) — The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant continues to demolish tanks emptied by the release of treated radioactive water into the sea, aiming to use the freed-up space to build facilities to advance decommissioning work.
Nearly 15 years after the nuclear accident triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. is still coping with radioactive water generated in the process of cooling melted reactor fuel, although the daily buildup is on track to be the smallest in the current fiscal year.
The discharge of treated water into the Pacific Ocean began in August 2023, as more than 1,000 tanks installed at the site to store the wastewater were deemed to be taking up too much space and hindering progress in decommissioning work.
The first tank dismantling following the water release took place in February 2025 in an area known as J9. After workers finished removing a dozen tanks there by September, they moved on to the adjacent area known as J8, where nine tanks stand.
Each of the nine tanks is 12 meters tall and 9 meters wide, with a capacity of 700 tons. Removing the tanks in the two sections will free up about 2,900 square meters.
The utility plans to use the land to build facilities to store melted fuel debris to be retrieved from the No.3 reactor and to conduct maintenance for debris removal devices.
Some 880 tons of debris are estimated to remain in the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors that suffered core meltdowns in the world’s worst nuclear crisis since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Hydrogen explosions damaged the buildings housing the Nos. 1, 3 and 4 units.
TEPCO and the government plan to start full-fledged removal of debris at the No. 3 reactor no earlier than fiscal 2037, pushing back the early 2030s target due to the time needed for preparation.
Radiation levels inside the empty tanks have been confirmed to be lower than the average air dose level outside, indicating that contamination was relatively low, according to the operator.
Disassembled tank parts will be cut into small pieces using gas cutting torches and stored in cargo containers on the power plant premises.
Trump’s War of Choice: Oman Reveals Iran Agreement Was Imminent
February 28, 2026, by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/trumps-war-of-choice-oman-reveals-iran-agreement-was-imminent/
Hours before U.S. bombs began falling on Iran, a quiet but extraordinary diplomatic revelation aired on American television.
On CBS’s Face the Nation, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi—the chief mediator between Washington and Tehran—stated plainly that a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran was “within our reach.”
It was not vague optimism. It was a detailed outline of concessions.
According to Albusaidi, Iran had agreed to something that went beyond the 2015 nuclear accord negotiated under Barack Obama—a deal later abandoned by Donald Trump. This time, Tehran had committed not merely to limits on enrichment, but to zero stockpiling of enriched nuclear material. No accumulation. No reserve. Full and comprehensive verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“If you cannot stockpile material that is enriched,” Albusaidi explained, “then there is no way you can actually create a bomb.”
In other words: the central justification for war was being diplomatically neutralized.
And yet, within hours, Trump announced military strikes on Iran and signaled a campaign aimed not at containment, but regime change.
The Timing Speaks Volumes
Oman has long served as a discreet intermediary in U.S.–Iran diplomacy. It is known for caution, not grandstanding. For Albusaidi to go public—on a flagship American news program—was highly unusual.
According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the move was unprecedented. Oman’s message was clear: diplomacy had produced real progress. Trump could have declared victory.
Instead, he declared war.
If Albusaidi’s account is accurate, then the administration’s claim that Iran “rejected every opportunity” to curb nuclear ambitions collapses under scrutiny. What was preempted was not an imminent nuclear breakout—it was a diplomatic breakthrough.
War of Choice, Not Necessity
The United States Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. No such declaration has been issued. International law permits force only in response to an armed attack or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Neither condition appears to have been met.
This is not a defensive war. It is a war of choice.
And it is a deeply unpopular one. A recent survey found that only 21% of Americans support initiating an attack on Iran under current circumstances. The public understands something Washington elites often ignore: wars in the Middle East do not remain limited, surgical, or contained. They metastasize.
The echoes of 2003 are unmistakable.
Diplomacy Sabotaged
The tragedy is not only that bombs are falling. It is that negotiations were ongoing. Additional talks were scheduled for next week. The diplomatic channel was open.
By launching strikes at the moment mediation was yielding results, the administration has sent a stark message—not just to Iran, but to the world: agreements reached through dialogue can be nullified by executive fiat.
This damages more than a single negotiation. It undermines the credibility of American diplomacy itself.
If zero stockpiling under full IAEA verification was indeed on the table, then the choice before Washington was clear: accept an enforceable nonproliferation framework—or escalate toward regional war.
The administration chose escalation.
The Broader Implication
Regime-change wars have a long and destructive history in U.S. foreign policy. They rarely produce democracy. They often produce chaos, extremism, and prolonged suffering—for civilians first and foremost.
The question now is not simply whether this war is legal or justified. It is whether it was avoidable.
The Omani foreign minister’s televised appeal suggests that it was.
Peace, he said, was within reach.
And then the bombs began.
Trump Says ‘Heavy and Pinpoint Bombing’ of Iran Will Continue “As Long As Necessary”
February 28, 2026, Scheerpost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/trump-says-heavy-and-pinpoint-bombing-of-iran-will-continue-as-long-as-necessary/
In rapidly escalating developments reported by Al Jazeera English, US President Donald Trump declared that US bombing operations inside Iran will continue “uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary.”
The comments came amid conflicting claims over the fate of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israeli officials and Trump have alleged that Khamenei was killed in the joint US-Israeli assault, while Iranian authorities have strongly denied the claim, with semi-official media insisting he remains “steadfast” and directing operations.
According to Al Jazeera’s live coverage, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Iran had been “very much destroyed and even, obliterated” in a single day of strikes. He further called on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and national police forces to join what he described as “Iranian patriots” seeking regime change, suggesting “that process should soon be starting.”
“The heavy and pinpoint bombing,” Trump added, “will continue… as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!”
Regional Fallout
Al Jazeera reported missile strikes in Tel Aviv following Iranian retaliation, as well as debris falling across Jordan from intercepted projectiles. In the United Arab Emirates, officials confirmed an “incident” at Zayed International Airport resulting in one fatality and multiple injuries, while a drone interception reportedly caused a limited fire at the Burj Al Arab hotel in Dubai.
At the United Nations Security Council, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the strikes by the US and Israel, along with Iran’s response, pose a “grave threat to international peace and security,” cautioning that military escalation risks igniting uncontrollable consequences in an already volatile region.
Iran’s UN ambassador, Amir-Saeid Iravani, said Tehran considers “all bases, facilities and assets” of US and Israeli forces in the region to be legitimate military targets under its right of self-defense. Meanwhile, Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, defended the joint operation as a necessary response to what he described as an existential threat.
Escalation and Uncertainty
Trump also told ABC News he has a “very good idea” of who should lead Iran if the current government falls — reinforcing suggestions that regime change may be an underlying objective of the operation.
The US military’s Central Command said there were no reported US casualties and that naval assets remain fully operational.
As Al Jazeera’s live blog continues to update, the situation remains fluid, with conflicting claims, mounting civilian impacts, and warnings from international officials that the widening conflict could destabilize the broader Middle East.
For live updates from Al Jazeera English here
Hegseth Demands Anthropic Let Military Use AI However It Wants—Even for Autonomous Killer Drones and Spying On Americans
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the company that owns the AI assistant Claude would be punished unless it drops all ethical guidelines.
Stephen Prager, Common Dreams, Feb 25, 2026
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to punish the artificial intelligence company Anthropic if it doesn’t let the Pentagon use its technology however it wants—apparently even to create autonomous killer drones or conduct surveillance of Americans.
Anthropic’s powerful AI model, Claude, is currently the only one permitted to handle classified military data, and the company was awarded a $200 million contract last year to develop AI capabilities for the Department of Defense to use alongside other AI firms.
However, the company’s usage policy prohibits its use for mass surveillance and for the development of autonomous weapons—such as drones that attack targets without a human operator.
These limitations have infuriated the Defense Department leadership. On Tuesday, Hegseth called Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, to a meeting at the Pentagon, where he demanded “unfettered” access to Claude without any guardrails.
This goal was outlined last month in the department’s “AI Strategy” memo, which called for the US to adopt an “AI-first warfighting force” and for companies to allow their technology to be deployed for “any lawful use,” free from ethical safeguards.
According to a senior defense official who spoke to Axios, Hegseth issued an ultimatum to Amodei on Tuesday: If he does not grant the Pentagon unrestricted use of Anthropic’s technology by 5:01 pm on Friday, the department would take measures to coerce the company.
It would either declare Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” effectively blacklisting it for military use and ending its contract, or it would invoke the Defense Production Act, which would force the company to tailor the product to the military’s needs.
While it would not be an unusual step for the Pentagon to cut ties with Anthropic, threats to declare it a supply chain risk have been described as extraordinary…………………………………………………………………
Last month, Amodei published an essay about how “AI-enabled autocracies” could use the technology to surveil and repress their citizens and wage war on less developed countries:
A swarm of millions or billions of fully automated armed drones, locally controlled by powerful AI and strategically coordinated across the world by an even more powerful AI, could be an unbeatable army, capable of both defeating any military in the world and suppressing dissent within a country by following around every citizen…
A powerful AI looking across billions of conversations from millions of people could gauge public sentiment, detect pockets of disloyalty forming, and stamp them out before they grow. This could lead to the imposition of a true panopticon on a scale that we don’t see today.
Amodei reportedly resisted Hegseth’s demands to lift restrictions at Tuesday’s meeting, refusing to budge on the two key issues of mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Following reports of the meeting, the company has said it still wants to work with the government while also ensuring its models are used in line with what they could “reliably and responsibly do.”
A senior Pentagon spokesperson said the military must be free to use the technology how it sees fit. According to the Associated Press, the official argued that “the Pentagon has only issued lawful orders and stressed that using Anthropic’s tools legally would be the military’s responsibility.”……………………………………………………………..
While the Pentagon has not specified which restricted activities it wishes to pursue using Anthropic’s technology, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said that with his demands, Hegseth was essentially telling the company, “Let us use your AI for mass surveillance, or we’ll pull your contract.”
Under President Donald Trump, Gallego added, “corporations are punished for refusing to spy on American citizens.” https://www.commondreams.org/news/hegseth-jawbones-anthropic
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (102)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 