Labour just railroaded a secretive US-UK nuclear treaty renewal deal
by The Canary, 30 October 2024
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) said it condemns the government’s outrageous railroading through parliament of the renewal of the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA), the secretive treaty that underpins the nuclear ‘special relationship’ between London and Washington.
The MDA: under a cloak of secrecy
In force since 1958, the MDA allows for the transfer of key technologies, information, and nuclear materials to and from the US. Since its inception, the treaty has been amendable every ten years, also requiring parliamentary agreement on its extension.
But the government intends to make this treaty permanent by removing the clause that requires the treaty to be extended, and enables debate and amendment, including rejection. CND said:
n an open and democratic society, a major change like this should be given due consideration and debate in parliament. However, the government has disgracefully obstructed this by announcing its planned changes to the MDA just before parliament’s summer recess – guaranteeing six weeks of inaction.
Upon their return, MPs spent much of September and October engaged with party conferences. This shamefully left little time for parliament to debate the proposed changes before the deadline of 23 October.
Labour’s railroading of US nuclear co-operation: CND reacts
CND general secretary Kate Hudson said:
Thousands of CND supporters have contacted their MPs to raise the MDA as an issue for debate in Parliament before the 23 October deadline. Despite this outpouring of public concern, the limited time MPs have spent in Parliament since the election has left very little space for the open discussion this significant but little-known treaty deserves.
The railroading of the MDA by the government is typical of the policy that successive governments have been pursuing when it comes to Britain’s military policies and its possession of nuclear weapons.
This ‘special relationship’ tethers British military and foreign policy to Washington – and makes redundant the claim that Britain has an independent nuclear weapons system. Without US support, Britain would be unable to sustain its nuclear arsenal. Efforts to scrutinise this relationship are regularly deflected by the government under the guise of national security.
SO, CND will protest not only the MDA, but also the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain – ahead of the US presidential election.
CND protesting at Lakenheath on 2 November
The group and its supporters will mobilise at RAF Lakenheath on Saturday 2 November, to oppose plans to station US nuclear weapons in Britain for the first time since 2008.
This will be CND’s fourth national mobilisation at RAF Lakenheath since 2022, after US government budget documents revealed plans for upgrade works at the US-run air base for the storage of the new B61-12 guided nuclear bomb.
With the US presidential election to take place just days later, the protest aims to highlight the significant impact of US foreign and military policy on the British public, and the increased nuclear dangers brought by deploying its nuclear weapons in Britain – by whoever wins the White House.
Attendees will also witness an unofficial declaration of Lakenheath as a nuclear-free zone, and calls for both the UK and other nuclear weapons states to engage with the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
CND will be joined by Melissa Parke ,executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the organisation that won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. Melissa will speak about nuclear dangers in Europe.
No US nuclear weapons on UK soil
Details of the protest are as follows:
- Saturday 2 November.
- 12 noon to 3pm.
- RAF Lakenheath Main Gate, Brandon Road, Lakenheath, Suffolk. More details on parking can be found on the CND website here.
…………………………………………………..
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2024/10/30/cnd-nuclear-weapons-treaty/
Settlers prepare for ’resettlement in Gaza’
Voltaire Network | 25 October 2024, https://www.voltairenet.org/article221426.html
Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir took part in a two-day meeting on Israel’s southern border entitled “Preparing for our resettlement in Gaza” on the occasion of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. He said: “What we have learned this year is that everything depends on us. We are the owners of this land. Yes, we have experienced a terrible catastrophe. But we must understand that a year later, so many Israelis have changed their mentality. They have changed their mindset. They understand that acting as the rightful owners of this land brings results.
Referring to the Palestinian prisoners, he went on: “We took their jelly sandwiches. We took their chocolate. We took their televisions. We took their ping-pong tables and practice time. You should see them crying and weeping in their cells. This is our proof: when we decide we can, we do succeed.”
“We will encourage the voluntary transfer of all citizens of Gaza. We will offer them the opportunity to move to other countries because this land belongs to us,” he concluded.
• Spokesperson for the “Mothers’ Parade” Sima Hasson said “I’m going to say something that not everyone here is ready to say, but I am, and I know many of you are, ready to say it: “Conquer, expel and resettle”. I’m not just talking about an area of Gaza. I’m not just talking about northern Gaza. I mean every area of land. This is the only way to prevent our boys from constantly going to war. To all those in Europe who have an opinion about what is going on here, I say: do not meddle. Your entire continent is invaded by radical Islam!”
Pasionaria of the settler movement Daniella Weiss said: “We came here with a clear objective: to occupy the entire Gaza Strip… Every inch from north to south. We are thousands of people and we are ready to go to Gaza. October 7 changed history. As a result of the brutal massacre, the Arabs of Gaza have lost their rights to be here forever, they will not stay here.
• Minister of the Negev, Galilee and National Resilience Yitzhak Wasserlauf said: “For 2,000 years, we dreamed of returning to our Jewish homeland. I know that those who disagree with us call it messianism. I call it Zionism. We are true Zionists. We love our land, we love our people, and we value life. And we have a responsibility to create a safe, Jewish nation on the land God has given us.
• Minister of Social Equality and the Advancement of Women May Golan said: “We will hit them where it hurts: their land. Whoever uses his plot of land to plan another holocaust will receive from us, with God’s help, another Nakba [catastrophe].
In February 2024, the settler movement had already organized a “Conference for Israel’s victory – settlements bring security: return to the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria” in Jerusalem in which they threatened the United States and the United Kingdom with resurrecting the Stern terrorist group [1].
This is the editorial from our paywalled “Voltaire, international newsletter”, n°105. For more information, do not hesitate to subscribe: 500€ per year.
Translation
Gregor Fröhlich
South Africa Files 750 Pages of ‘Overwhelming’ Evidence in ICJ Genocide Case Against Israel
“The glaring genocide in Gaza is there for all who are not blinded by prejudice to see.”
By Brett Wilkins / Common Dreams, 30 Oct 24
South Africa filed 750 pages of “overwhelming” proof that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands on Monday, the deadline for submitting final evidence in the ongoing trial.
South African Ambassador to the Netherlands Vusi Madonsela delivered the legal document—known as a memorial—to the ICJ headquarters in the Dutch city. Under the court’s rules, the contents of the memorial cannot be made public at this time.
According to a statement from the office of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, the memorial is a “comprehensive presentation of the overwhelming evidence of genocide in Gaza.”
The office said the document “contains evidence which shows how the government of Israel has violated the Genocide Convention by promoting the destruction of Palestinians living in Gaza, physically killing them with an assortment of destructive weapons, depriving them access to humanitarian assistance, causing conditions of life which are aimed at their physical destruction, and ignoring and defying several provisional measures of the International Court of Justice, and using starvation as a weapon of war and to further Israel’s aims to depopulate Gaza through mass death and forced displacement of Palestinians.”
South Africa filed 750 pages of “overwhelming” proof that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands on Monday, the deadline for submitting final evidence in the ongoing trial.
South African Ambassador to the Netherlands Vusi Madonsela delivered the legal document—known as a memorial—to the ICJ headquarters in the Dutch city. Under the court’s rules, the contents of the memorial cannot be made public at this time.
According to a statement from the office of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, the memorial is a “comprehensive presentation of the overwhelming evidence of genocide in Gaza.”
The office said the document “contains evidence which shows how the government of Israel has violated the Genocide Convention by promoting the destruction of Palestinians living in Gaza, physically killing them with an assortment of destructive weapons, depriving them access to humanitarian assistance, causing conditions of life which are aimed at their physical destruction, and ignoring and defying several provisional measures of the International Court of Justice, and using starvation as a weapon of war and to further Israel’s aims to depopulate Gaza through mass death and forced displacement of Palestinians.”
“The evidence will show that undergirding Israel’s genocidal acts is the special intent to commit genocide, a failure by Israel to prevent incitement to genocide, to prevent genocide itself, and its failure to punish those inciting and committing acts of genocide,” Ramaphosa’s office added.
South Africa’s filing comes amid Israel’s ongoing 387-day assault on Gaza, which according to Palestinian and international agencies has killed at least 43,020 people—most of them women and children. At least 101,110 others have been wounded and over 10,000 Gazans are missing and believed dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed homes and other structures. Millions more Palestinians have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened by Israel’s invasion and “complete siege” of Gaza.
The filing also comes one week after senior members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right Cabinet and national lawmakers spoke at a conference advocating the ethnic cleansing and recolonization of Gaza.
Ramaphosa’s office lamented that “Israel has been granted unprecedented impunity to breach international law and norms for as long as the United Nations Charter has been in existence.”………………………………………………………………https://www.commondreams.org/news/south-africa-icj-genocide-israel
Sizewell C nuclear project proceeds by stealth – vast sums of public money spent, with no public disclosure about its true cost
1 The Autumn Budget includes a £14.1bn settlement for DESNZ in 2025/26,
which includes £2.7 bn for Sizewell C. This amounts to half the £5.5bn,
two year subsidy scheme published in August. The Chancellor chose not to
mention Sizewell C or nuclear energy in her speech to the House of Commons.
Stop Sizewell C said: “For a government that criticised the opposition
for playing fast and loose with the nation’s finances, the Chancellor is
surprisingly happy to do the same, allocating another £2.7 billion of
taxpayers’ money on risky, expensive Sizewell C, without making any
guarantee of a Final Investment Decision being taken.
Including £2.5 billion already spent, this means £5.2 billion of our money will be spent
on a project that cannot even help Labour achieve its energy mission, and
is looking increasingly toxic to private investors.”
The Chancellor also announced that David Goldstone has been appointed as the independent Chair of the “Office of Value for Money” within the Treasury. “Stop
Sizewell C urges David Goldstone to call in Sizewell C for immediate
scrutiny, as the project is currently proceeding by stealth. Despite almost
no public disclosure about its true cost or transparency about value for
money, vast sums of public money have already been spent on Sizewell C,
with the potential for billions more to be poured down the drain.”
Stop Sizewell C 30th Oct 2024
Ontario’s huge nuclear debt and other things Dutton doesn’t understand about cost of electricity
Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve.
Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.
ReNewEconomy, Tristan Edis, Oct 30, 2024
All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.
It seems our alternative Prime Minister Peter Dutton’s favourite topic is your electricity bill. Given how much he talks about electricity prices, you’d think he might know a fair bit about what makes up your electricity bill, wouldn’t you?
According to Dutton and his Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien, the problem is all about too much renewable energy in the mix. And their answer to the problem is nuclear power, as well as more gas.
According to Peter Dutton, “We can’t continue a situation that Labor has us on of a renewables only policy because, as we know, your power prices are just going to keep going up under this Prime Minister.”
Instead, according to Dutton, “we could be like Ontario, where they’ve got 60 or 70 per cent nuclear in the mix, and they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.”
O’Brien, elaborated on this point by saying:
“We will have plenty of time in due course to talk about the costings [for their nuclear plan] once we release them here in the Australian context. But I point to Ontario in Canada, there you have up to 60 per cent of their energy mix in the grid, coming from zero emissions, nuclear energy. Their households pay around about 14 cents kilowatt hour. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour from July 1 this year.”
Once you actually delve into these numbers it becomes apparent that O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem know much about electricity costs and pricing.
But even worse, they don’t know how badly Ontario’s taxpayers and electricity consumers were burnt by their utility racking up huge debt building nuclear power plants equal to $70 billion in current day Australian dollars.
Do Dutton and O’Brien understand your electricity bill?
You can actually look up what Ontario households pay for electricity via the Ontario Energy Board’s bill calculator website.
This provides you with a break down on the charges a typical household faces depending on the utility you choose…………………………………………………
But notice there’s also other very significant items in this bill separate to the kilowatt-hour charge? There’s a “delivery” charge which is the cost of paying for the distribution and transmission poles and wires. There’s also regulatory charges and also their sales tax is known as “HST” rather than GST for us.
So the Ontario 14 cents per kilowatt-hour charge that O’Brien and Dutton are referring to covers only the wholesale energy portion of their bill.
In Australia, we pay a majority of the costs of distribution and transmission in our cents per kilowatt-hour charge, in addition to wholesale energy costs, and then we get GST added on top. O’Brien and Dutton don’t seem to have appreciated this important aspect of electricity pricing in this country, which is different to Ontario.
But it actually gets worse.
I went digging on the official government energy retailer comparison sites- www.energymadeeasy.gov.au and www.energycompare.vic.gov.au and I initially couldn’t find a single Australian retailer selling electricity at 56 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This was based on looking at offers based on a single rate tariff. Then I had a brainwave and looked at time-of-use rates. In Queensland and Victoria I still couldn’t find anyone wanting to charge me 56 cents for the peak period.
But eventually I succeeded. Right at the bottom of the EnergyMadeEasy list of retailer offers – which were ordered from best to worst – sat EnergyAustralia as the worst offer, charging 57 cents for the peak period in South Australia (although with a compensating high solar feed-in tariff of 8.5 cents)…………………………………
To help out O’Brien and Dutton, I’ve prepared the table below which provides a proper apples versus apples comparison (as opposed to apples vs peak rate bananas) –[on original ]
…………………………………………….. Ontario’s nuclear debt debacle
Yet this comparison between Ontario and Australia misses a far more important part of the story that O’Brien and Dutton seem to be blissfully ignorant of.
That is the history of the Ontario’s state owned utility – Ontario Hydro – and the unsustainable level of debt that it racked up over the 1980’s and 1990’s as a result of an ambitious nuclear plant construction program that went wrong.
While this cost is no longer apparent in current electricity prices, Ontario businesses and households were stuck with paying back CAD$38.1 billion in debt (over $70 billion in Australian current day dollars) for more than 35 years after their public utility committed its last nuclear reactor to construction in 1981.
So what went wrong?
In anticipation of large growth in electricity demand, over the 1970’s and 1980’s Ontario Hydro committed to construction 12 nuclear reactors with 9,000 MW of generating capacity. To fund the projects the public utility accessed commercial debt markets anticipating that it could comfortably repay this debt from the increased electricity demand it forecast. However, several things went wrong.
The nuclear power stations took far longer to build and were around twice as expensive to build than had been planned
– Interest rates on debt rose to very high levels by historical standards over the 1980’s in order to contain the high levels of inflation that unfolded over the 1970’s and early 1980’s. With the nuclear power stations taking longer than expected to build, interest was accumulating on this debt with far less output from the plants to offset it.
– Lastly, Ontario Hydro’s estimate of large growth in electricity demand didn’t eventuate. A 1977 forecast projected a system peak of 57,000 MW by 1997. Actual peak demand in 1997 was 22,000 MW. This meant that the very large cost and associated debt of the large nuclear expansion had to be recovered from a much smaller volume of electricity sales than it had anticipated, making it much harder to pay off the debt without substantial increases in electricity prices.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… “On April 1, 1999, the Ministry of Finance determined that Ontario Hydro’s total debt and other liabilities stood at $38.1 billion, which greatly exceeded the estimated $17.2-billion market value of the assets being transferred to the new entities. The resulting shortfall of $20.9 billion was determined to be “stranded debt,” representing the total debt and other liabilities of Ontario Hydro that could not be serviced in a competitive environment.”
So the CAD$38.1 billion in debt was transferred out of the electricity companies and into a special purpose government entity called the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC). This debt management corporation was given the following revenues to service the debt:
– Both residential and business consumers were required to pay a special “Debt Retirement Charge”. This charge was introduced in 2002 and lasted until 2016 for residential consumers and 2018 for business customers.
– The Ontario government would forgo any corporate income and other taxes owed by the offshoot electricity companies from Ontario Hydro so they could be diverted to the OEFC to pay down debt.
– If the cumulative profits of two of the new state power companies exceeded the $520m annual interest cost on their debts, then this would go towards paying stranded debt rather than dividends to the Ontario government.
None of this is apparent on current bills, but the burden of repaying the nuclear debt left the Ontario government and its taxpayers far poorer than Dutton and O’Brien seem to appreciate.
More things O’Brien doesn’t want to understand about Ontario’s nuclear power program
Dutton and O’Brien like to claim that nuclear power plants last a very long time and so therefore the large upfront cost of these plants isn’t something we should be too worried about………………………..
It’s not as simple as this. Nuclear power plants involve a range of components which are exposed to severe heat and mechanical stress. These all need to be replaced well before you get to 60 years, and such refurbishment comes at a cost.
Ontario’s experience is that refurbishment comes at a very significant cost. Less than 25 years after the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant construction was completed, it needed to commence refurbishment. The total cost? $12.8 billion in Canadian dollars or $14 billion Australian dollars.
This is partly why, even though the original nuclear construction cost debt had been largely paid down and nuclear operating costs are lower than coal or gas plant, Ontario still pays more for its electricity than we do.
This is because the current owner of the nuclear power plants – Ontario Power Generation – operates under regulated return model where the regulator grants them the right to recover these refurbishment costs from electricity consumers.
Are O’Brien and Dutton about to commit to another Snowy 2.0 budget blow-out, but on steroids?
………………………………The problem here is that when you don’t know very much and you’re spending other people’s money, ego can easily cloud your judgement. Don’t get me wrong, ego will often cloud business leaders’ judgement too. But their ability to spend money to feed their ego can only so far before either competitors or shareholders intervene.
Ontario taxpayers on the other hand realised far too late that their public utility, in cahoots with their politicians, were pursuing a nuclear vanity project built upon a poor understanding of the future, and without any competitor to discipline their ego.
Australian taxpayers have seen a similar mistake unfold with the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant whose cost now stands at five times greater than the original expectation, and double what was meant to be a fixed price construction contract.
Snowy 2.0 is a parable of what goes wrong when:
– Politicians rush things leading to inadequate planning and preparation;
– Politicians fail to objectively and thoroughly evaluate alternatives; and
– Politicians fail to employ open and competitive markets to deliver end consumer outcomes.
All of this has left taxpayers with a massive budget and timeframe blow-out. This is what happens when we leave it to politicians in a hurry to hand pick power projects.
Unfortunately for us, Dutton and O’Brien are also in a hurry. They think they can deliver nuclear power plants far faster than what many experts believe is sensible and what many countries with far more nuclear experience than ourselves have been able to achieve. Dutton and O’Brien also want to do this via a government-owned utility, instead of via a competitive market.
While the budget blowout of Snowy 2.0 is bad enough, it pales into comparison with the kind of cost blow-outs that can unfold with nuclear power projects. As an example, the budget for completion of UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project now stands at $89.7 billion which is three times higher than what was originally budgeted.
We’ve all seen this movie before, including in Ontario, and it doesn’t end well……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/ontarios-huge-nuclear-debt-and-other-things-dutton-doesnt-understand-about-cost-of-electricity/
Israeli Knesset Passes Bill To Ban UN Palestinian Relief Agency
The collapse of UNRWA’s aid efforts in Gaza would ensure the starvation of more Palestinian civilians
by Dave DeCamp October 28, 2024 , https://news.antiwar.com/2024/10/28/israeli-knesset-passes-bill-to-ban-un-palestinian-relief-agency/#gsc.tab=0
The Israeli Knesset on Monday passed a bill banning the UN’s Palestinian relief agency, UNWRA, from operating inside Israel and another that will severely limit its ability to operate in Gaza and the West Bank. The legislation is expected to take effect in 90 days.
The first bill banning UNWRA in Israel passed in a vote of 92-10. The second bill aimed at ending UNWRA’s operations in the Israeli-occupied territories passed in a vote of 97-9.
The second bill prohibits Israeli authorities from having any contact with UNRWA, making it impossible for the relief agency to coordinate with the Israeli military on aid deliveries. The legislation does not outline any plan to replace UNRWA’s relief efforts in Gaza, which millions of Palestinian civilians rely on to survive.
Israel has waged war against UNWRA over the past year, killing over 200 of its staff members in Gaza. Israel has claimed a significant number of UNWRA’s staff are members of Hamas but has offered no evidence for the allegations, which have been strongly rejected by the UN agency.
The US took Israel’s claims at face value and cut off funding to UNWRA at the beginning of the year. Now, the US is warning Israel against implementing the bills banning UNRWA since it would starve Palestinian civilians.
“If UNRWA goes away, you will see civilians — including children, including babies — not be able to get access to food and water and medicine that they need to live. We find that unacceptable,” State Department spokesman Matt Miller said ahead of the Knesset vote.
“We continue to urge the government of Israel to pause the implementation of this legislation. We urge them not to pass it at all, and we will consider next steps based on what happens in the days ahead,” Miller added.
UNWRA was formed in 1949 to provide aid to about 750,000 Palestinians who were displaced when the state of Israel was founded in 1948, an ethnic cleansing known to the Palestinians as the “Nakba.” Today, Israeli ministers are calling for a new Nakba in Gaza to pave the way for Jewish settlements, and the Israeli military is currently imposing a starvation siege on northern Gaza to forcibly displace hundreds of thousands of civilians.
South Bruce Deep Geological Repositary (DGR) opposition promises to keep fighting
Scott Dunn, Oct 29, 2024 Owen Sounds Sun Times
A group opposed to burying high-level nuclear waste in South Bruce says it will keep fighting because having just 78 more votes in favour than against the project in Monday’s referendum isn’t a “compelling” demonstration of community support.
Bill Noll, the co-chair of Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste, said in an interview that that’s part of what will be argued at regulatory hearings if Nuclear Waste Management Organization selects South Bruce as its preferred site.
Council for Ignace Township in Northern Ontario, the other site remaining in the running, has already voted in favour of being a willing host, after residents voted in favour of the proposal. First Nations in both locations must still decide if they’re in favour too.
“People are still concerned, a large group of people in South Bruce who are saying no to this project,” said Noll, a retired electrical engineer who lived in South Bruce for 15 years before moving to near Ottawa to be near family.
There were 51.2 per cent, or 1,604 voters saying yes, and 48.8 per cent, or 1,526, who voted no, according to unofficial results posted by the municipality Monday night. Eight electors declined their ballot.
The vote result “doesn’t really give the council a mandate to say we won this,” Noll said.
But council is expected to ratify the result which Mayor Mark Goetz said is binding on council, even as he acknowledged it was a close vote, at a special council meeting Nov. 12. ………………………….
Now it will be up to Saugeen Ojibway Nation to decide if it would be a willing host, he said.
…………………………………………Both Ignace and South Bruce have signed agreements with NWMO that would see them receive millions of dollars over the lifespan of the project — $418 million over 138 years in South Bruce and $170 million over 80 years in Ignace.
………………………………………………………..Noll credited Protect Our Waterways for obtaining a referendum vote by insisting on a study of the community’s willingness because otherwise, it was going to be done by council vote.
“NWMO said in their early stages that the community needed to have two things: one, they needed to demonstrate a compelling willingness and the other thing was they needed to be informed,” Noll said.
“Well, I don’t think either of those conditions have been met at this stage. So that will be our agenda when we get into the regulatory process.” https://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/news/local-news/south-bruce-dgr-opposition-promises-to-keep-fighting
South Bruce voters narrowly approve being host to nuclear waste
Scott Dunn Oct 29, 2024 , Horeline Beacon
Teeswater is near one of the two proposed sites for an underground storage facility for the country’s highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
By a thin majority, the answer in South Bruce was yes. Bruce declaring South Bruce to be a willing host for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR)? resulted in 51.2 per cent, or 1,604, of voters saying yes, and 48.8 per cent, or 1,526, saying no, according to unofficial results posted by the municipality Monday night. Eight electors declined their ballot.
Voter turnout was 3,138 of 4,525 electors, or 69.3 per cent. Since turnout was above 50 per cent, the results are binding on municipal council…………………
Teeswater’s residents were divided by the prospect of burying spent nuclear fuel in a deep, underground vault, people said in interviews outside the community’s post office earlier Monday.
Nuclear Waste Management Organization has secured land for a possible DGR site northwest of Teeswater, part of South Bruce. If the area is selected, the NWMO would build and manage the bunker to be some 650 metres underground.
But first NWMO needed to confirm if the community was a willing host. A referendum was chosen as the way to do that, and voting is to end at 8 p.m. today. It would take 50 per cent plus one of eligible voters to signal willingness, as long as at least 50 per cent of South Bruce voters cast ballots. Otherwise the decision was council’s to make.
……………………………….. there’s the risk of a leak, and the implicit requirement to trust officials who say the job can be done safely. Still others said they think government has already decided it will build the nuclear storage facility in South Bruce……………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.shorelinebeacon.com/news/local-news/update-south-bruce-voters-narrowly-approve-being-host-to-nuclear-waste
Japan struggles to find nuclear waste disposal site
Japan is facing difficulties selecting a final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste left from spent fuel at nuclear power plants across the nation.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/10/27/japan/nuclear-waste-site-struggles/
First-stage surveys to find locations suited to host an underground storage facility have been conducted in three municipalities — two in Hokkaido and one in Saga Prefecture — despite continuing anxieties among local residents.
With nuclear power plants in Japan gradually going back online, there remains no clear timeline for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, keeping the government’s goal of a nuclear fuel cycle out of reach.
High-level radioactive waste, which is vitrified after uranium and plutonium are extracted from spent fuel for reuse, presents a significant challenge. Japan’s plan for final disposal involves burying the waste more than 300 meters underground for tens of thousands of years, allowing its radioactivity to diminish over time.
Nuclear power plants in Japan, operating without a designated final dump site for waste, are often criticized for being like “a condominium building without a toilet.”
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, or NUMO, responsible for managing final disposal, began inviting municipalities to host surveys for potential dump sites in 2002. To date, however, no location has been selected.
The research process for selecting a final repository site consists of three stages: a literature survey, a drilling survey, and a detailed investigation using an underground facility. Local governments that host such surveys receive subsidies from the central government.
Literature surveys, which involve reviewing geological maps and historical earthquake records, began in the town of Suttsu and the village of Kamoenai in Hokkaido in 2020, and in the town of Genkai, Saga Prefecture, in 2024. No other municipality has agreed to participate in site selection research, however.
The first-stage surveys concluded that all of Suttsu and most of Kamoenai are suitable for moving forward to the drilling survey phase. NUMO plans to release a report as early as this fall and hold briefing sessions for local residents.
Still, Hokkaido Gov. Naomichi Suzuki has expressed opposition to the drilling surveys, and Saga Gov. Yoshinori Yamaguchi has also voiced objections to conducting such a survey in Genkai. The consent of the prefectural governor is required to proceed with second-stage surveys.
The central government has emphasized its responsibility in its basic policies on the final disposal of nuclear waste and aims to conduct surveys in about 10 additional locations, following international precedents.
In the past, the town of Toyo in Kochi Prefecture and the city of Tsushima in Nagasaki Prefecture considered hosting surveys but ultimately declined. Central government representatives now plan to visit over 100 local governments, increasing opportunities to explain the process to residents.
Japan, which has relied on nuclear power for over half a century, currently holds around 19,000 tons of spent fuel at its nuclear power plants and other facilities, using about 80% of its total storage capacity.
As a resource-scarce nation, Japan has been promoting a nuclear fuel cycle, by which spent fuel is reprocessed and recycled for continued use in power generation. The reprocessing plant that is key to this cycle has yet to be completed, however.
Japan Nuclear Fuel started construction of the country’s first commercial reprocessing facility in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, in 1993, but its completion has been delayed 27 times.
In September, an interim storage facility in the city of Mutsu, Aomori Prefecture, took delivery of the first batch of spent fuel from Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings’ Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata Prefecture. This facility, not on the premises of any nuclear power plant site, will store the fuel for up to 50 years before it undergoes reprocessing.
Many local residents see the receipt of spent fuel as premature, given the unfinished reprocessing plant and the lack of a final disposal solution. They worry that storage at the facility may become permanent rather than temporary.
The central government has decided to rebuild nuclear power plants and extend their operational periods. This marks a reversal of the previous policy, which aimed to reduce reliance on nuclear energy following the March 2011 accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima No. 1 plant, caused by severe damage from the earthquake and tsunami the same month.
An official from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said that “as we have used nuclear power plants, we cannot avoid” the issue of final nuclear waste disposal.
Hideki Masui, president of Japan Atomic Industry Forum, emphasized the need for “a national debate” as Japan struggles to conduct surveys in additional areas for potential disposal sites, placing disproportionate burdens on certain regions.
Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs) believe budget is opportunity to lobby Ministers to ditch Sizewell C
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will be unveiling the contents of her red box when making her Autumn Statement on Wednesday and the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities believes this offers an opportunity to lobby Labour to ditch Sizewell C – if opponents act now.
Though intended to be constructed by French owned nuclear operator EDF Energy, the outgoing Conservative Government squandered £2.5 billion of taxpayers money on preparatory work, and in August 2024, Labour compounded the calumny by announcing a new subsidy scheme that could make up to a further £5.5 billion in public money available to support this unwanted white elephant. Consequently, the project is now 76%-owned by the British Government at a time when Ministers and their advisors still desperately chase private sector investors to back this Suffolk turkey.
There are still many unknowns about the eventual overall cost of Sizewell C. In contrast to the amazing reductions achieved in recent years in the cost of generating electricity through renewables, the delivery cost of nuclear continues to rise. Given that Sizewell C’s predecessor, the identical Hinkley Point C, is being delivered hugely over budget with some estimates that the cost in real terms will be up to £46 billion, it is wholly incredible that this project can be delivered for the £20 billion that Ministers claim.
And Sizewell C presents additional costly challenges. As a consequence of climate change, the coastal location will be increasingly threatened by inundation from an encroaching sea, requiring significant expenditure on coastal defences. Further Suffolk is ‘water stressed’ meaning that there will be increasing competition for fresh water from inhabitants or commercial operators, and Sizewell C has still to secure a guaranteed sustainable potable water supply for its planned 60 years of operation.
Given the circumstances it is unsurprising that few players amongst the financial markets have expressed any interest in taking a stake in the Sizewell doonboggle, and there is still considerable uncertainty when, or even if, the Financial Investment Decision will be made.
Sizewell C also represents a double whammy for electricity consumers. As taxpayers, we are expected to front up to £8 billion in funding, incidentally almost the same in total that Labour has dedicated to Great Britain Energy over the entirely of its five year term in office, but as electricity consumers we will also be expected to reimburse the construction costs through the imposition of an additional levy on bills, derisking the project for the profit-focussed operator. Unsurprisingly, the NFLA Secretary has described this Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model as the ROB for it represents daylight robbery.
The Labour Government has announced that they will establish a new ‘Office of Value for Money’ within the Treasury and the appointment of a Chair is expected imminently. Stop Sizewell C has launched a petition calling for that office holder to prioritise an examination of the financial liability that is Sizewell C.
Although initial feedback from the Treasury to campaigners had indicated that Sizewell C would definitely be examined by the new office holder, officials in recent correspondence have been more ambivalent and a recent written answer by Nuclear Minister Lord Hunt to a House of Lords parliamentary question was opaque and non-committal.
Stop Sizewell C are also asking supporters of their campaign to join them in writing to the Chancellor, Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Energy to cancel Sizewell C.
The NFLAs would urge opponents of Sizewell C to sign the petition:
Reeves urged not to cut Sellafield funds amid concern at rise in ‘near misses’
GMB raises safety concerns amid rumours of budget cuts across sites and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Guardian, Alex Lawson and Anna Isaac, 28 Oct 24
Rachel Reeves has been urged not to carry out mooted funding cuts for nuclear sites including Sellafield amid safety concerns, as it emerged that the number of incidents where workers narrowly avoided harm had increased at the Cumbrian site.
The GMB union has written to Reeves, the chancellor, before Wednesday’s budget to raise safety concerns after rumours emerged that the budget for the taxpayer-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) could be reduced, which could result in cuts at nuclear sites including Sellafield and Dounreay in Scotland.
In the letter to Reeves, seen by the Guardian, union leaders warned that a safety incident at Sellafield, Europe’s most hazardous industrial site, would “have devastating consequences far beyond the immediate community”. The NDA had a budget of £4bn in the last financial year.
The warning came as recently released annual accounts for the NDA showed “near misses” at Sellafield had risen in the last financial year, and an “international nuclear event-scale” incident had occurred at the site, which is a vast dump for nuclear waste and also the world’s largest store of plutonium.
The NDA said there was an “inadequate response” during an incident in 2023 as some staff did not follow procedures when an emergency alarm unexpectedly sounded inside the site’s hazardous chemical separation area.
The report also said Sellafield, which employs 12,000 people, had received six enforcement letters from its regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and that in studying its safety record the “rate of significant near misses is higher across 2023-24”.
It found that the impact on employees from work injuries had “often been significant” even if many of the incidents had appeared innocuous.
In the letter, Denise Walker and Roger Denwood, of the GMB, wrote: “While operators and regulators work tirelessly to ensure safety, the inherent risks of the site mean that any lapse in safety standards could result in serious and far-reaching economic and ecological consequences.”
They said radioactive “materials must be safely managed to prevent leaks or accidental releases of radiation. The health risks of radiation exposure, including cancer and other serious illnesses, are well documented.”
They added: “Any reduction in funding would inevitably result in fewer resources for maintenance, monitoring, and emergency preparedness-heightening the risk of a serious incident.”
The Guardian’s Nuclear Leaks investigation in late 2023 revealed a string of cybersecurity problems at Sellafield, as well as issues with its safety and workplace culture. Last week the National Audit Office said the cost of decommissioning the site had risen to £136bn, with major projects running years behind schedule……………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/28/sellafield-work-accidents-reeves-budget
South Bruce Municipality narrowly votes to host underground nuclear waste disposal site
Matthew McClearn, October 28, 2024, Globe and Mail,
Residents in Ontario’s Municipality of South Bruce narrowly voted in favor of hosting a nuclear waste disposal site in a referendum completed on Monday.
Unofficial results published Monday evening by Simply Voting, an online voting platform, reported that of the 3,130 votes case, 51.2% voted in favor, while 48.8% were opposed.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a non-profit organization representing major nuclear power generation utilities, has been hunting since 2010 for a site to store spent fuel from nuclear power reactors. Known as a deep geological repository, or DGR, the facility would be built more than half a kilometer underground, at an estimated cost of $26 billion.
South Bruce, located more than 120 kilometres north of London and home to about 6,200 residents, is a rural, largely agricultural area of less than 500 square kilometers. It includes a few small communities including Mildmay, Formosa, Culross and Teeswater. The NWMO has secured more than 1,500 acres of land north of Teeswater for the project.
From the outset, the NWMO said it would build the facility only “in an area with informed and willing hosts,” which meant one municipality and one Indigenous group. South Bruce is one of two finalists to host the DGR, down from an original list of 22 communities that expressed interest. The NWMO said it will announce its final selection by Dec. 31st.
Under a hosting agreement the municipality signed earlier this year, South Bruce stands to receive $418-million over nearly a century and a half if selected. The municipality agreed not to do anything to oppose or halt the project, and at the NWMO’s request will communicate its support. The NWMO can modify the project in several respects, including changing the sorts of waste it will store there. The facility would be constructed between 2036 and 2042, ns would then receive, process and store nuclear waste for another half-century.
South Bruce’s byelection, which began last week, asked residents to vote by phone or Internet on whether they were in favor of hosting the DGR. Simply Voting reported turnout of 69.3%, substantially above the 50% minimum required to make the outcome binding under Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act.
The other community in the running is Ignace, Ont., a town of 1,200 more than 200 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay. Its council voted to accept the DGR in July, and would receive $170-million under its own hosting agreement. (The move was supported by 77% of registered voters who participated in a non-binding online poll.) That location, known as the Revell site, is about 40 km west of the town.
The NWMO also seeks approval from two Indigenous communities: The Saugeen Ojibway Nation for the South Bruce site, and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation for the Revell site. Neither First Nation has yet signaled consent, but the NWMO spokesperson Craig MacBride said the organization is “in active discussions” with both.
“The NWMO still anticipates selecting a site by the end of this year,” he wrote in an e-mailed response to questions.
As of June 2023, Canada had accumulated 3.3 million spent fuel bundles, each the size of a fire log. They’re currently stored at nuclear power plants in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and roughly 90,000 new ones are added each year. Upon removal from a reactor, they’re highly radioactive and must be stored in pools of water for about a decade; afterward, they’re moved to storage containers made from reinforced concrete and lined with half-inch steel plate.
The South Bruce referendum follows a campaign that lasted a dozen years and produced rifts within the community.
Protect Our Waterways, a local group opposed to the DGR from the outset, had demanded a referendum. Some DGR supporters opposed putting the matter to a public vote, preferring to leave the decision to elected officials. Municipal officials pointed to the area’s declining economy and population, and emphasized the benefits brought by the NWMO’s spending. Supporters and opponents often accused each other of producing misinformation………………………………………………………….. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-south-bruce-municipality-narrowly-votes-to-host-underground-nuclear/#:~:text=Its%20council%20voted%20to%20accept,km%20west%20of%20the%20town.
Oxfam reaction to Knesset decision
October 29, 2024, by: The AIM Network, https://theaimn.com/oxfam-reaction-to-knesset-decision/—
Oxfam Australia
In reaction to the Knesset passing bills banning UNRWA from operating in areas under Israel’s control, Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam Regional Director in the Middle East and North Africa said:
“Israel has bombed Palestinians to death, maimed them, starved them, and is now ridding them of their biggest lifeline of aid. Piece by piece, Israel is systemically dismantling Gaza as a land that is autonomous and liveable for Palestinians. Its banning of UNRWA today is condemnable and another step in this crime.
“The decision will further undermine the ability of the international community to provide sufficient humanitarian aid and to save lives in any safe, independent and impartial way.
“UNRWA was not only the biggest and most established agency that has been delivering aid and sustenance to the people of Gaza for years, it was also a thread that connected them in some hope of solidarity and security to the United Nations.
“We are in no doubt that Israel and its allies are fully aware of the terrible consequences that this decision will have on Palestinians living in Gaza, many of whom are already starving. We join others in warning again that this will result in more death, more suffering, and more forced displacement of people from their besieged homeland. It is impossible not to believe that this is their aim.”
Biden to Bibi: ‘OK to continue Gaza genocide till after election’
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coaliton, Glen Ellyn IL, 27 Oct 24
On October 14, President Biden sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving Israel 30 days to allow more aid of food, water and medicine into Gaza’s 139 square miles being utterly destroyed by Israel for the past year. It’s noteworthy that the 30 day time limit ends 9 days after the US election. Biden’s letter is brilliant politics and grotesque governance. Biden, who has been funding, supporting and enabling the yearlong genocide in Gaza, desperately needs to appear peace loving ahead of the election. He knows a majority of his Democratic voters are horrified by his genocide enabling. They want him to end the so far 50,000 tons of weapons he’s already given Israel to demolish Gaza.
The letter, designed to promote his concern for the devastation he’s enabled, will do nothing to end the genocide in Gaza. Netanyahu has ignored every one of Biden’s pleas for supplying life sustaining aid there. The letter doesn’t even state Biden will cut off aid to Israel. It merely implies that if US demands aren’t met, the US might consider enforcing foreign assistance laws. Those laws forbid the US from sending weapons to any nation committing wholesale destruction of civilian populations. But not one word about actually cutting off those weapons destroying Gaza.
Every day dozens, hundreds, even a thousand or more Palestinians die in Gaza, obliterated by Biden’s 2,000 lb. bombs, or killed more slowly from disease or starvation. Biden does not care. His toothless letter begging for more aid to the 2,300,000 Palestinians will do nothing to alleviate their suffering. But it may mollify his antiwar critics enough to help achieve Democratic victory Election Day.
Win or lose November 5, Biden is unlikely to do anything substantive to end the genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza. It goes against everything he’s believed in and supported about Israeli colonial domination of Palestine for his entire 52 year governmental career. But it will ensure he descends into historical infamy for enabling the worst genocide of the 21st century.
Media Hawks Make Case for War Against Iran
This depiction of Iran as an aggressor that has victimized the United States for 45 years, causing “suffering for thousands of Americans,” is a parody of history. The fact is that the US has imposed suffering on millions of Iranians for 71 years, starting with the overthrow of the country’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. It propped up the brutal Pahlavi dictatorship until 1979, then backed Iraq’s invasion of Iran, helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iranians (Foreign Policy, 8/26/13). It imposes murderous sanctions on Iran to this day (Canadian Dimension, 4/3/23).
What Stephens is deploying here is the tired and baseless propaganda strategy of hinting that World War II redux is impending if America doesn’t crush the Third World bad guy of the moment.
Gregory Shupak, FAIR, 25 Oct 24
The media hawks are flying high, pushing out bellicose rhetoric on the op-ed pages that seems calculated to whip the public into a war-ready frenzy.
Just as they have done with Hezbollah (FAIR.org, 10/10/24), prominent conservative media opinionators misrepresent Iran as the aggressor against an Israel that practices admirable restraint.
Under the headline, “Iran Opens the Door to Retaliation,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board (10/1/24) wrote that Iran’s October 1 operation against Israel “warrants a response targeting Iran’s military and nuclear assets. This is Iran’s second missile barrage since April, and no country can let this become a new normal.”
The editors wrote:
After April’s attack, the Biden administration pressured Israel for a token response, and President Biden said Israel should “take the win” since there was no great harm to Israel. Israel’s restraint has now yielded this escalation, and it is under no obligation to restrain its retaliation this time.
‘We need to escalate’
The New York Times‘ self-described “warmongering neocon” columnist Bret Stephens (10/1/24), in a piece headlined “We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran,” similarly filed Iran’s April and October strikes on Israel under “aggression” that requires a US/Israeli military “response.” And a Boston Globe editorial (10/3/24) wrote that Iran “launched a brazen attack,” arguing that the incident illustrated why US students are wrong to oppose American firms making or investing in Israeli weapons.
All of these pieces conveniently neglected to mention that Iran announced that its October 1 missile barrage was “a response to Israel’s recent assassinations of leaders of [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], Hezbollah and Hamas” (Responsible Statecraft, 10/1/24). One of these assassinations was carried out by a bombing in Tehran, the Iranian capital. But we can only guess as to whether the Globe thinks those killings are “brazen,” Stephens thinks they qualify as “aggression,” or if the Journal believes any country can let such assassinations “become a new normal.”
Likewise, Iran’s April strikes came after Israel’s attack on an Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers (CBS, 4/14/24). At the time, Iran reportedly said that it would refrain from striking back against Israel if the latter agreed to end its mass murder campaign in Gaza (Responsible Statecraft, 4/8/24).
‘Axis of Aggression’
A second Stephens piece (New York Times, 10/8/24) claimed that “the American people had better hope Israel wins” in its war against “the Axis of Aggression led from Tehran.” The latter is his term for the coalition of forces resisting the US and Israel from Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran, which refers to itself as the “axis of resistance.” Stephens’ reasoning is that, since Iran’s 1979 revolution, the country has meant suffering for thousands of Americans: the hostages at the US embassy in Tehran; the diplomatsand Marines in Beirut; the troops around Baghdad and Basra, killed by munitions built in Iran and supplied to proxies in Iraq; the American citizens routinely taken as prisoners in Iran; the Navy SEALs who perished in January trying to stop Iran from supplying Houthis with weapons used against commercial shipping.
The war Israelis are fighting now—the one the news media often mislabels the “Gaza war,” but is really between Israel and Iran—is fundamentally America’s war, too: a war against a shared enemy; an enemy that makes common cause with our totalitarian adversaries in Moscow and Beijing; an enemy that has been attacking us for 45 years. Americans should consider ourselves fortunate that Israel is bearing the brunt of the fighting; the least we can do is root for it.
This depiction of Iran as an aggressor that has victimized the United States for 45 years, causing “suffering for thousands of Americans,” is a parody of history. The fact is that the US has imposed suffering on millions of Iranians for 71 years, starting with the overthrow of the country’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. It propped up the brutal Pahlavi dictatorship until 1979, then backed Iraq’s invasion of Iran, helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iranians (Foreign Policy, 8/26/13). It imposes murderous sanctions on Iran to this day (Canadian Dimension, 4/3/23).
Given this background, suggesting—as the Journal, the Globe and Stephens do—that Iran is the aggressor against the US is not only untenable but laughable. Furthermore, as I’ve previously shown (FAIR.org, 1/21/20), it’s hardly a settled fact that Iran is responsible for Iraqi attacks on US occupation forces in the country. Stephens’ description of the Navy SEALs who died in the Red Sea is vague enough that one might be left with the impression that Iran or Ansar Allah killed them, but the SEALs died when one of them fell overboard and the other jumped into the water to try to save him (BBC, 1/22/24).
Stephens went on:
Those who care about the future of freedom had better hope Israel wins.
We are living in a world that increasingly resembles the 1930s, when cunning and aggressive dictatorships united against debilitated, inward-looking, risk-averse democracies. Today’s dictatorships also know how to smell weakness. We would all be safer if, in the Middle East, they finally learned the taste of defeat.
What Stephens is deploying here is the tired and baseless propaganda strategy of hinting that World War II redux is impending if America doesn’t crush the Third World bad guy of the moment. More realistically, the “future of freedom” is jeopardized by the US/Israeli alliance’s invading the lands of Palestinian and Lebanese people and massacring them. These crimes suggest that, in the Journal’s parlance, it’s the US/Israeli partnership that is the “regional and global menace.” Or, to borrow another phrase from the Journal’s editorial, it’s Israel and the US who are the “dangerous regime[s]” from which “the civilized world” must be defended.
‘A global menace’
Corporate media commentators didn’t stop at Iran’s direct strikes on Israel, casting Iran as, in the Journal‘s words (10/1/24), “a regional and global menace”:…………………………………………………………………
Painting Iran as the mastermind behind unprovoked worldwide aggression helps prop up the hawks’ demands for escalation. But the US State Department said there was “no direct evidence” that Iran was involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel, “either in planning it or carrying it out” (NBC, 10/12/23)…………………………………………………………………………………..
Propaganda goes nuclear
As usual, those who are itching for a war on Iran invoke the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Stephens (New York Times, 10/1/24) wrote:
This year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that Iran was within a week or two of being able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb. Even with the requisite fissile material, it takes time and expertise to fashion a nuclear weapon, particularly one small enough to be delivered by a missile. But a prime goal for Iran’s nuclear ambitions is plainly in sight, especially if it receives technical help from its new best friends in Russia, China and North Korea.
Now’s the time for someone to do something about it.
That someone will probably be Israel.
By “something,” Stephens said he also meant that “Biden should order” military strikes to destroy the “Isfahan missile complex.” “There is a uranium enrichment site near Isfahan, too,” Stephens wrote suggestively.
The LA Times published two guest op-eds in less than two weeks urging attacks on Iran based on its alleged nuclear threat. Yossi Klein Halevi (10/7/24) wrote:…………………………………..
‘Threshold’ is a ways away…………………………………………………….
Recent history shows that Iran has been willing to “stop itself” from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran abided by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal, under which Iran limited its nuclear development in exchange for a partial easing of US sanctions. It stuck to the deal for some time even after the United States unilaterally abandoned it.
Just before President Donald Trump ripped up the agreement in 2018, the IAEA reported that Iran was “implementing its nuclear-related commitments” under the accord. The year after the US abrogated the agreement, Iran was still keeping up its end of the bargain.
‘Provocative actions’ from US/Israel
Iran subsequently stopped adhering to the by then nonexistent deal—often advancing its nuclear program, as Responsible Statecraft (5/7/24) noted, “in response to provocative actions from the US and Israel”:
In early 2020, the Trump administration killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and soon after Tehran announced that it would no longer abide by its enrichment commitments under the deal. But, even so, Tehran said it would return to compliance if the other parties did so and met their commitments on sanctions relief.
In late 2020, Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated near Tehran, reportedly by Israel. Soon after, Iran’s Guardian Council approved a law to speed up the nuclear program by enriching uranium to 20%, increasing the rate of production, installing new centrifuges, suspending implementation of expanded safeguards agreements, and reducing monitoring and verification cooperation with the IAEA. The Agency has been unable to adequately monitor Iran’s nuclear activities under the deal since early 2021.
However, situating Iranian policies in relation to US/Israeli actions like these would get in the way of the Journal’s campaign, which it articulated in another editorial (10/2/24), to convince the public that “If Mr. Biden won’t take this opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, the least he can do is not stop Israel from doing the job for its own self-preservation.”
Of course, the crucial, unstated assumption in the articles by Stephens, Halevi, Heilman and the Journal’s editors is that Iran’s hypothetical nuclear weapons are emergencies that need to be immediately addressed by bombing the country—while Washington and Tel Aviv’s vast, actually existing nuclear arsenals warrant no concern. https://fair.org/home/media-hawks-make-case-for-war-against-iran/
-
Archives
- October 2026 (112)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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
