nuclear-news

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

IDF threatens ‘elimination’ for Russian leaders who ‘wish Israel ill’

Wyatt Reed·March 18, 2026, https://thegrayzone.com/2026/03/18/idf-threatens-elimination-for-russian-leaders-who-wish-israel-ill/

Israel’s veiled threat to Moscow came just after Russian media warned traffic cameras in Moscow were vulnerable to the same exploits that Israel reportedly used to monitor Ayatollah Khamenei’s residence before assassinating him.

Israeli military spokeswoman Anna Ukolova has drawn outrage in Moscow after threatening that Russian authorities who “wish Israel ill” could be subject to “elimination,” while suggesting Israel could hack into Russian closed-circuit television cameras to identify and track targets.

Asked by a journalist with Russian radio broadcaster RBC whether Israel had access to Russian traffic cameras, Ukolova declined to answer directly but warned that “Khamenei’s elimination shows our capabilities are serious” and that “no one who wishes us harm will be left aside.”

She added, ominously, “I hope Moscow does not wish Israel ill right now – I’d like to believe that.”

In response to a post by Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, who wrote that the IDF spokeswoman threatened that “Russian authorities [will] be killed if they take [an] anti-Israel position,” Ukolova claimed Dugin was spreading “fake news.” But she declined to clarify how her remarks had been incorrectly interpreted.

Ukolova’s statements came just days after it was revealed that a large number of Russian CCTVs were potentially using BriefCam – an Israeli video analysis software that closely matches the description of a program the Netanyahu regime reportedly deployed to track Iranian movements outside the home of Iran’s Supreme Leader before they assassinated him during their February 28 sneak attack.

On March 12, Russian outlet Mash revealed that the Israeli software BriefCam “has been used in Russia by private providers since the 2010s.” Founded at Israel’s Hebrew University in 2007, BriefCam uses AI to let users “review hours of video in minutes” and “make [their] video searchable, actionable and quantifiable.” In 2024, BriefCam was absorbed by a Dutch subsidiary of the Canon Group named Milestone Systems, which publicly pledges to “amplify what organizations of any size can see, do and achieve with video.”

“Our patented VIDEO SYNOPSIS® technology condenses hours of surveillance into a short summary by overlaying multiple events—each tagged with its original timestamp—onto a single frame, letting you filter them by object type and attributes,” the company’s BriefCam page crows. An analysis by Al Jazeera revealed those attributes include “gender, age group, clothing, movement patterns and time spent in a given location.”

Originally deployed by Israel’s Ministry of Housing and Construction to safeguard illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, BriefCam has been used by governments all over the world, including those in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Pakistan, Israel, Mexico, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, India, Spain, Taiwan. It’s also been deployed in the US, with police in Hartford, Connecticut adopting the software in 2022. In 2025, a French court found the government’s use of BriefCam was illegal, citing multiple violations of French and European privacy laws.

As of publication, BriefCam appears to be incorporated into dozens of so-called “video monitoring systems,” including Milestone’s own VMS XProtect surveillance system.

According to the Russian outlet Mash, a number of prominent Moscow businesses, institutions, and buildings use VMS XProtect surveillance system, including the Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Biophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a 72-story skyscraper named “Eurasia,” and a huge exhibit space known as the Zotov Center. Though Milestone officially ended operations in Russia in 2022 amid the war in Ukraine, Mash reports that some software distributors in Russia “still offer to install the hacked software and hide this in the documents.”

April 1, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Operation Epic Fury and US Unreadiness for War

25 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/operation-epic-fury-and-us-unreadiness-for-war/

The bellicose may find wars attractive and cleansing, but those responsible for such dry matters as inventory, material and how prepared the armed forces of a country are will stalk them with unpleasant truths. The addiction of the US imperium to waging wars, one that President Donald Trump promised, and failed, to treat, has gotten the wags in the military worried. The depleting nature of Operation Epic Fury has been particularly telling in this regard, revealing the US war machine to be unprepared for conflict.

Rather than referring to preparedness, the preferred choice in US Army circles is “unreadiness” or a lack of readiness. Army Undersecretary Michael Obadal, in his address at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference, was startlingly candid in this regard. “To say we’re satisfied with our readiness rates, I think, would be disingenuous. We have real problems with our major weapons systems, both aircraft and ground, and we have to address those things, and we’re doing so in a number of ways.” (The major weapons systems were left unnamed.)

One of his suggestions involves placing greater focus on “Public-private partnerships in an organic industrial base (OIB) [as] one of the most fundamentally different approaches that we can take.” The organic industrial base takes in some 23 depots, arsenals and ammunition plants responsible for manufacturing and resetting army equipment while fostering readiness and operational capability. “The OIB,” according to the US Army, “must be able to support current unit readiness, maintain the ability to surge, and modernize and retool to sustain the next generation of equipment.” Much has been made in the vanilla propaganda of the army of its “Modernization Implementation Plan” (MIP), which officially commenced in October 2024.

Establishing what readiness means in all of this is a thorny issue. Obadal lets the cat out of the bag in stating that “everyone will have different metrics”, a suitably unsatisfactory state of affairs. His own criteria are threefold: How the Army can respond tonight with what is available; what it can do in the next month to deal with the contingency; and what it can do to sustain the effort for the next year of combat.

Applying his own threefold metrics to the Army, Obadal identified problems with major weapons systems and, critically, problems with magazine depth. While not expressly referring to Operation Epic Fury and the war against Iran, the undersecretary did state that the “current situation” had “absolutely” aggravated matters. To address such problems, notably with weapons systems, manufacturers could work alongside soldiers and engineers in the theatre to fix vehicles and aircraft more expeditiously.

Legislation regarding “right to repair” provisions that would enable soldiers to tend to equipment problems without having to send them back to the manufacturer was also on the cards, though yet to pass. Obadal hoped that these would find their way into the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. “We have to be very narrow on what we’re asking for. So how many repetitions, how many units, how many years before we have IP [intellectual property], and there’s some IP that we don’t want commercial software and other things.” Companies could “keep that because we want them to be responsible for the updates, the security patches and all that, but we want to be able to change things out as the environment demands.”

The Army was also on the lookout for industry partners well advanced in their “TLR” [technology readiness level] when seeking contracts with the Pentagon. In addressing the problem of magazine depth, Obadal referenced the new modernising drive inviting private industry to co-invest in OIB installations. “If we ask industry to change, we have to address the long-term viability of our own organic industrial base. So a new environment requires new approaches.”

Other sources add more troubling details about the problems Obadal was good enough to underline. A Government Accountability Office report finalised just prior to the pre-emptive attack on Iran on February 28 and published on March 4 tut tutted the Pentagon for not fully implementing over 150 recommendations from earlier reviews with the express purpose of improving the availability of equipment, the bulking of personnel resources and supporting better decision-making on readiness. Shortages in trained maintenance personnel have caused problems across all branches of the armed services. This has hampered, for instance, “meeting mission capable rate goals for their aircraft that support combat-related missions.”

In a separate summary of issues afflicting US forces, the GAO notes with cold certainty that almost two decades of war “has degraded US military readiness. To adapt to growing threats posed by major powers (such as China and Russia) and other adversaries, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the individual military services must make some urgent changes.”

The GAO was also reproachful of the failure of both the Air Force and Navy for not completing “sustainment reviews” for their aircraft, an indispensable measure for maintaining readiness for the life cycle of relevant machinery. Both branches of the armed forces, despite the annual expenditure of billions of dollars annually, had “struggled for years to maintain their aircraft due to the age of their fleets, a lack of parts, maintenance delays, and other problems.”

On specific weapons platforms, the Pentagon faces challenges in, for instance, maintaining the staggeringly gluttonous F-35 fleet. These include “delays setting up military service depots – facilities to complete the most complex repairs – and inadequate equipment to keep aircraft operational.” While the department intended to move more maintenance responsibilities from external contractors to the government, no plan to do so had been made.

Repair depots are also taken to task for their shabbiness. “Depot infrastructure generally remains in fair to poor condition, and most depot equipment is past its service life.” The DOD persistently failed to report what was needed to arrest further deterioration.

With such a body of reservations, reproachful critique and recommendations unimplemented, the unreadiness of the US armed forces puts paid to the narrative, all too regularly touted by Trump and his unhinged Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, of boundless resources and peerless invincibility. The Iran War is all but confirming that; the unready have been found wanting.

April 1, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Deafening Abdication of Four Ex-Presidents on Trump.

By Ralph Nader
March 27, 2026
What should the American people, especially the hundreds of millions of their voters, expect Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden to do against the vicious, serial law-violating, violent, corrupt, agency-dismantling Donald Trump and the crony Trumpsters who are wrecking our government and our economy?

These former Presidents should mobilize the citizenry from the grassroots to the Capitol and take on the unpopular Tyrant Trump. Having sworn to uphold the Constitution and “…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” they should strongly uphold their patriotic duty to resist tyranny and save our Republic and our besieged democratic institutions, and stop the assault on our civil liberties and civil rights.

Our former presidents all get along with each other. They have the stature to: (1) get mass media; (2) raise immediately large amounts of funds for strong IMPEACH TRUMP citizen groups in every Congressional district to increase and expand the present majority of Americans wanting to FIRE TRUMP; (3) stay the course as Trump keeps worsening his criminal dictatorship and destruction of our democracy; and (4) highlight the many programs they initiated that Trump has illegally destroyed or is dismantling.
Instead, they are living luxurious lives and are largely AWOL from connecting with the existing but overwhelmed civic opposition to Trump. Bush is painting landscapes as Trump has destroyed his AIDS program in Africa, and the Bush wing of the Republican Party. Obama has campaigned for Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill as governors of Virginia and New Jersey, satirizing Trump in some of his speeches. His present passion, however, is the March Madness basketball championships. Clinton has left it up to Hillary, who wrote a guarded New York Times op-ed back on March 28, 2025, taking Trump to task for jeopardizing our national security and not “preparing for real fights with America’s adversaries.”
Then there is Joe Biden, who received then President-elect Trump and Melania on the morning of January 20, 2025, with the gracious “welcome home.” In return, Biden got that afternoon and every day since hundreds of foul epithets from Trump, scapegoating him for almost everything he could fabricate, including solar energy and wind power projects. Delaware Joe managed a few critical replies at a Democratic Party dinner in Nebraska on November 7, 2025. “Trump has taken a wrecking ball not only to the people’s house but to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to our very democracy.” Unfortunately, Biden has mostly been silent.
Credit these retired Presidents with knowing the historic dangers and existing damages of the TRUMP DUMP in Washington and around the country. They also know their supporters would be very receptive to their organized, persistent leadership from them to send Trump back to Mar-a-Lago. Why are they AWOL?
First, they fear Trump’s retaliation, upsetting their comfortable lives. Trump is now deep in the QUICKSAND of the Middle East. He is being pilloried by a million stickers at gas pumps picturing Trump pointing to the booming price per gallon and saying, “I did that.” He is openly declaring there should be no elections in November and continues to send or keep his stormtroopers in America’s cities. An expanding police state is not exactly a credible perch for effective profanity. Show a modest bit of moxie!
A second excuse is that they have done some of what Trump is doing:
*Bush’s mass murder in the illegal war on Iraq.*Clinton’s distracting raids abroad against innocents and his womanizing.
*Obama’s “signature strikes,” killing over three thousand mostly young men in places like Yemen.
*Biden’s illegal co-belligerence with Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza, which has taken over 600,000 civilian lives.
True enough. But people live in the present and are most worried about what Dangerous Donald is doing NOW to their livelihoods, freedoms, health and safety, and the consequences in casualties and their tax dollars of another endless war.
Our former Presidents have no excuses. They simply lack a modicum of courage. Remember Aristotle declared, “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.”
The current political climate demands the powerful emergence of the four previous presidents of our country. The federal district courts are ruling heavily against Trump’s “Injustice Department,” though Trump retains a slightly weakening claim on six Supreme Court Injustices. People of all backgrounds are marching and demonstrating in huge numbers. This weekend, the “No Kings” rallies (he’s already a dictator) anticipate 10 million people nationwide.

The business community, particularly small businesses, are feeling serious harm from Trump’s tariffs, wars, cancelled contracts, and inflationary policies. The labor unions have never been under such attack (notably the federal employees’ union members whose contracts he has torn up), and they are simmering with anger. The universities are also under His illegal, shakedown attacks.

What explains the mainstream media’s virtual ignoring of this ABDICATION by these ex-presidents? The reporters mostly despise Trump, who has slandered them (calling them “deranged and demented” for starters) and has extortionately sued news organizations and journalists for millions of dollars and coerced settlements.
The media have reported that some ex-agency officials under the former presidents have excoriated Trump, such as Samantha Power, for closing the major lifesaving Agency for International Development. The formidable Rohit Chopra, who directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Biden, is not reticent to verbally defend his nearly closed-down agency, which had saved consumers many billions of dollars.

However, they are not covering the abdication by BIG GUYS – our former Presidents. I have tried in vain to find out why by calling reporters and editors. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Try calling these numbers: The Washington Post: 202-334-6000; The New York Times: 800-698-4637; Associated Press: 212-621-1500; NPR: 202-513-2000; The Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2000.

March 31, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Republican Lawmakers Led By Nancy Mace Begin To Break With Trump On Iran War: ‘We Were Misled’

by Tyler Durden, Mar 27, 2026, https://www.zerohedge.com/political/republican-lawmakers-led-nancy-mace-begin-break-trump-iran-war-we-were-misled

Republican lawmakers are belatedly starting to wake up to the potential for the United States to once again get bogged down in yet another Middle East quagmire, but this time with a country double the size of Iraq (both in geography and population).

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace has led the charge this week, blasting any potential Trump admin move to put American boots on the ground, warning she will vehemently oppose new war funding if American troops are deployed in Iran. “I’ll be voting against the funding if we’re putting troops on the ground,” Mace told a reporter outside the Capitol earlier in the week. “I’m not going to fund that.”

The comments came after the Pentagon days prior unveiled a massive $200 billion supplemental request in order to fund the war, which was at first previewed by White House officials as lasting a mere ‘days’ or a few ‘weeks’ and not months (or years).

Mace soon followed her verbal comments with a Tuesday post on X pushing back against getting sucked into a ground war. “If a single boot of a single American soldier sets foot on Iranian soil, I will vote against this,” Mace wrote. “I will not vote to fund sending South Carolina’s sons and daughters to die in a ground war in Iran.”

War Secretary Pete Hegseth had framed the supplemental request as essential given it “takes money to kill the bad guys” – as he said, echoing a view that President Trump has been supportive of while claiming “we won”.

Axios is newly reporting on Thursday that Mace is not going to back down if another War Powers resolution is pushed before the House:

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) told Axios she will “most likely” vote for House Democrats’ resolution to constrain President Trump from waging war with Iran the next time it comes up for a vote.

Why it matters: The vote is symbolic — even if the measure passed both chambers, Trump could veto it — but Mace’s support puts the House one step closer to a major rebuke of the administration’s Middle East operations.

At the moment there’s some 7,000 US ground forces en route to the Middle East – including from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the Marines, amid speculation Trump could be eyeing some kind of high risk Kharg Island operation, in order to force open the Strait of Hormuz.

This particular ‘final blow’ plan – which would be contingent on putting boots on the ground in a Kharg takeover – has really gotten Republicans’ attention. Daily Mail on Thursday reports that “Furious Republicans stormed out of a classified briefing on Iran on Wednesday amid fears the US is preparing to invade the country as Tehran refuses Donald Trump’s peace overtures.”

According to more details in the report:

Nancy Mace walked out early, venting that ‘we were misled,’ while pro-Trump committee chair Mike Rogers warned ‘we’re not getting answers’ as Pentagon chiefs briefed the House Armed Services Committee, sparking fireworks on Capitol Hill. 

Now, a Daily Mail source inside the room has revealed stark new details, including a new set of objectives which may suggest that America is moving toward boots on the ground as Iran continues to strangle the Strait of Hormuz. 

The lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said members were presented with three military objectives: Kharg Island, Iran’s crucial oil export hub; its nuclear material; and regime change. It marks a stark shift from the four goals the White House has publicly stated: destroying Iran’s missiles, navy, armed proxies, and nuclear capabilities.  

The lawmaker said that the White House must answer for its plans, particularly regarding Kharg Island and troops on the ground. The answers are ‘jaw-dropping’ and ‘will blow your brains out,’ the lawmaker said. 

Quagmire by midterms? Some MAGA influencers have increasingly said they are tired about hearing Israel-centric justifications for Trump’s newest war of choice.

GOP members are getting much more vocal alongside Democrats:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers was uncharacteristically agitated after leaving the briefing, stating that he had few details about the direction the war is heading. 

‘We want to know more about what’s going on,’ Rogers, an Alabama Republican, said. ‘We’re just not getting enough answers.’ Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi felt the same after his own briefing. ‘I can see why he might have said that,’ Wicker told Politico of Rogers’ comments. 

A week ago Responsible Statecraft began documenting fissures among the generally war-supporting GOP, and it’s been more than just the expected Libertarian firebrands Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. For example, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado has told reporters: “I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I’m tired of the Industrial War Complex getting our hard-earned tax dollars. I’ve got folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America First policies right now.”

March 31, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Greenpeace warns Trump’s threat to bomb Iran’s power grid risks humanitarian and nuclear disaster

Greenpeace International, 23 Mar 26, https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/82295/trump-threat-bomb-iran-power-grid-risks-humanitarian-nuclear-disaster/

Amsterdam – Greenpeace International has condemned threats by Donald Trump to target Iran’s electricity infrastructure, warning it could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe, trigger a blackout over a large part of the country and risk nuclear disaster escalating into a wider regional crisis.

Greenpeace warns that attacks on the grid could have a knock-on effect that increases the danger of a nuclear emergency at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, with potential consequences across the region.[1]

“Bombing civilian electricity infrastructure is illegal under international law. The electricity grid is essential for hospitals, clean water, desalination and the operation of nuclear facilities. Cutting it off puts millions of lives at risk,” said Jan Vande Putte, senior nuclear and radiation protection expert with Greenpeace International.[2]

“A blackout could force the Bushehr nuclear facility into depending completely on backup diesel generators, causing a heightened risk of overheating, which can lead to a Fukushima-like disaster.”[3]

Iran’s grid is already under strain due to war, climate change and sanctions leading to underinvestment.[4]

“If Trump carries through with this reckless threat to knock out critical infrastructure, it could lead to cascading failures, from blackouts to nuclear danger far beyond national borders, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional crisis,” says Vande Putte.

The US, Israel and Iran have all targeted energy infrastructure, and several attacks in Iran and Israel already appear to have come close to hitting nuclear facilities. Iran is also threatening to target water and energy infrastructure in neighbouring countries.[5] Greenpeace is urging all parties to step back from escalation and pursue a diplomatic solution now, warning that further escalation will only deepen human suffering and increase global instability.

The Bushehr nuclear plant was built and is operated by Iran’s nuclear enabler, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation.

March 30, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s ‘new’ 15‑point plan is the biggest sign yet that Washington fears it is losing this war

Iran.. does not need military victory. It only needs to endure, impose costs, and outlast its adversaries. This is the logic of asymmetric conflict: the weaker power wins by not losing, while the stronger one loses when the costs of continuing become unsustainable.

March 26, 2026, Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London, Inderjeet Parmar, Professor in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London. https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-new-15-point-plan-is-the-biggest-sign-yet-that-washington-fears-it-is-losing-this-war-279001?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekender%20-%2028%20March%202026&utm_content=The%20Weekender%20-%2028%20March%202026+CID_09f9907cac66b0e5c3e3ca794f0c8c0c&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Donald%20Trumps%20new%2015-point%20plan%20is%20the%20biggest%20sign%20yet%20that%20Washington%20fears%20it%20is%20losing%20this%20war

The language of power often reveals more than it intends. In a rare moment of candour on March 7, the US president, Donald Trump, described the confrontation with Iran as “a big chess game at a very high level … I’m dealing with very smart players … high-level intellect. High, very high-IQ people.”

If Iran is, by Trump’s own admission, a “high-level” opponent, then the sudden revival of a 15-point plan previously rejected by Iran a year ago suggests a disconnect between how the adversary is understood and how it is being approached. It’s a plan already examined in negotiation by Iran and dismissed as unrealistic and coercive. Despite this, the Trump administration is once again framing the “roadmap” as a pathway to de-escalation. Tehran has once again dismissed the gambit as Washington “negotiating with itself” – reinforcing the perception that the US is attempting to impose terms rather than negotiate them.

The US president is right about one thing – Iran is not an opponent that can be easily dismissed or overwhelmed. Trump’s own description is a tacit acknowledgement that this is a far more capable and complex adversary than those the US has faced in past Middle Eastern wars, such as Iraq. And that is why the odds are increasingly stacked against the United States and Israel.

This conflict reflects a familiar but flawed imperial assumption: that overwhelming military force can compensate for strategic misunderstanding. The US and Israel appear to have misjudged not only Iran’s capabilities, but the political, economic and historical terrain on which this war is being fought.

Unlike Iraq, Iran is a deeply embedded and adaptable regional power. It has resilient institutions, networks of influence, and the capacity to impose asymmetric costs across multiple theatres. It knows how to manage maximum pressure.

The most immediate problem is lack of legitimacy. This war has authorisation from neither the United Nations or, in the case of America, the US Congress. Further, US intelligence assessments indicate Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear programme following earlier strikes – contradicting one of Washington’s justifications for war. The resignation of Joe Kent as head of the National Counterterrorism Center on March 17, was even more revealing. In his resignation letter Kent insisted that Iran posed no imminent threat.

This effectively collapses one of the original narratives underpinning the US decision to start the war – a further blow to legitimacy.

A majority of Americans oppose the war, reflecting deep fatigue after Iraq and Afghanistan – hardly ideal conditions for what increasingly looks like another “forever war” in the Middle East. Current polling shows Trump’s Republicans trailing the Democrats ahead of the all-important midterm elections in November.

The war is both militarily uncertain and politically unsustainable. International allied support is also eroding. The United Kingdom — often trumpeted as Washington’s closest partner — has limited itself to defensive coordination, while Germany and France have distanced themselves from offensive operations. European allies also declined a US request to deploy naval forces to secure the strait of Hormuz. This reflects not just disagreement, but a deeper loss of trust in US leadership and strategic judgement.

US influence has long depended on legitimacy as much as force. That reservoir is now rapidly draining. Global confidence is falling, while images of civilian casualties — including over 160 schoolchildren killed in an airstrike on the first day of the war – have shocked international onlookers. Rather than reinforcing leadership, this war is accelerating its erosion.

Israel faces a parallel crisis of legitimacy – one that began in Gaza and has now deepened. The war in Gaza severely damaged its global standing, with sustained civilian casualties and humanitarian devastation drawing unprecedented criticism, even among traditional allies. This confrontation with Iran compounds that decline.

Striking Iran during active negotiations — for the second time — reinforces the perception that escalation is preferred over diplomacy. The issue is no longer just conduct, but credibility.

Strategic failure, narrative defeat

The conduct of the war compounds the problem. The assassinations of Iranian leaders, framed as tactical victories, are strategic failures. They have unified rather than destabilised Iran. Mass pro-regime demonstrations illustrate how external aggression can consolidate internal legitimacy.

The issue is no longer just the conduct of the war, but the credibility of the conflict itself. Regardless of how impressive the US and Israeli military are, it doesn’t compensate for reputational collapse. When building support for a conflict like this – domestically and internationally – legitimacy is a strategic asset. Once eroded across multiple conflicts, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

Rather than stabilising the system, US actions are fragmenting it. Allies are distancing themselves, adversaries are adapting, and neutral states are hedging.

The most decisive factor may be economic. The war is already destabilising global markets – driving up oil prices, inflation, and volatility at levels that combine the effects of 1970s and Ukraine war oil shocks.

This is a war that cannot be contained geographically nor economically. The deployment of 2,500 US marines to the Middle East (and reports that up to another 3,000 paratroopers will also be sent), reportedly with plans to secure Kharg Island – and with it Iran’s most important oil infrastructure – would be a dangerous escalation.

For Gulf states, the assumption that the US can guarantee security is increasingly questioned. Some states are reportedly now looking to diversify their partnerships and turning toward China and Russia, mirroring post-Iraq shifts, when US failure opened space for alternative powers.

Iran holds the cards

Wars are not won by destroying capabilities alone, but by securing sustainable and legitimate political outcomes. On both counts, the US and Israel are falling short.

Iran, by contrast, does not need military victory. It only needs to endure, impose costs, and outlast its adversaries. This is the logic of asymmetric conflict: the weaker power wins by not losing, while the stronger one loses when the costs of continuing become unsustainable.

This dynamic is already visible. Having escalated rapidly, Trump now appears to be searching for an off-ramp — reviving proposals and signalling openness to negotiation. But he is doing so from a position of diminishing leverage. In contrast, Iran’s ability to threaten energy flows, absorb pressure, and shape the tempo of escalation means it increasingly holds key strategic cards. The longer the war continues, the more that balance tilts.

Empires rarely recognise when they begin to lose. They escalate, double down, and insist victory is near. But by the time the costs become undeniable – economic crisis, political fragmentation, global isolation – it is already too late. The US and Israel may win battles. But they may be losing the war that matters: legitimacy, stability and long-term influence.

And, as history suggests, that loss may not only define the limits of their power, but mark a broader shift in how power itself is judged, constrained, and resisted.

March 30, 2026 Posted by | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Fox News’ united front in support of Trump’s Iran war may be breaking down.

Host Laura Ingraham warns escalation could produce “cascading problems for the region,” political turmoil for the GOP

by Matt Gertz, MEDIA MATTERS 03/26/26 

Four weeks after President Donald Trump launched a poorly conceived war of choice against Iran, the lockstep support for the conflict that has characterized coverage from Fox News’ star hosts is beginning to fray. The power struggle is significant — it is not an exaggeration to suggest the course of the war might hinge on which Fox shows the president is watching.

Trump is clearly approaching a decision point over whether to further escalate the war. U.S. and Israeli forces have done a lot of damage to Iranian military targets, but its regime is intact, still controls its stockpiles of enriched uranium, and has closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening the global trade in oil, natural gas, and fertilizer. The Pentagon is sending thousands of troops to the region and reportedly prepping options for a “final blow” — some of which would involve deploying U.S. forces on Iranian soil.

When Trump is considering policy options, he often takes guidance from his loyal propagandists at Fox. This Fox-Trump feedback loop has in recent months played a role in the president’s decisions to send White House border czar Tom Homan to oversee immigration enforcement in Minnesota; prioritize the SAVE Act over all other legislation; order the deployment of ICE agents to airports; and start the war against Iran.

Against that backdrop, Fox News host Laura Ingraham warned on Wednesday’s show that further U.S. action could produce devastating unintended consequences and suggested that Trump should refocus his attention on the domestic economy and political situation. 

“Iran knows it cannot win militarily, so it’s using the leverage it has by prolonging the conflict,” she said during her monologue at the top of the show. “Now, what do they want to do? They want to inflict maximum economic pain on the region, on the U.S., [on] the global economy as much as possible until they think Trump relents. But the White House doesn’t seem to be blinking.”

The host then aired a clip of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warning at her press briefing that day that “President Trump does not bluff, and he is prepared to unleash hell” against Iran. 

Ingraham did not seem impressed by Leavitt’s rhetoric.

“Well, the problem is obviously unleashing hell means destroying infrastructure, which itself causes a series of cascading problems for the region, including maybe outside the region — political problems for the president in a midterm election year,” she said.

Her air of skepticism continued throughout the show. 

While interviewing Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), she noted Pentagon reports of thousands of successful missions but commented, “I mean, this is a devastating blow, yet you know, we’re still there.”

“It’s not even a month old, obviously,” she continued, before asking, “But are you concerned about the public and people? Again, very short attention spans, very impatient for victory, as is President Trump, I might add. But in an election year, it’s easy to say politics don’t matter, but at some point politics do come into play.”

And in a third segment, she highlighted the disastrous polling on the Iran war, commenting, “It looks like people are pretty impatient. The American people are sending a message to President Trump that it’s time to put the focus back on the home front.”

Ingraham is inching toward the type of dissent that has been virtually absent from Fox’s coverage of the war, even as the broader right-wing media has split. Her colleagues have played key roles in convincing Trump to attack in the first place and are pushing for risky escalations. Ingraham herself briefly quibbled with Trump’s handling of an apparent U.S. strike that leveled an Iranian school, killing scores of children, but had supported the war itself, which she declared three weeks ago that Trump had already won. 

But if Ingraham is getting cold feet and trying to convince Trump not to escalate a war the public has soured on, she remains an outlier at the network. Indeed, if the president tuned in for the two hours following Ingraham’s program, he saw her prime-time colleagues Jesse Watters and Sean Hannity argue not only that the war is going well and that Trump will inevitably lead the U.S. to victory, but that anyone who disagrees must want America to lose the war because they hate the president.

Watters began his show with a 10-minute monologue whose thesis was that “the Iranian regime is losing leverage fast as we continue to carry out thousands of sorties over enemy airspace.” After detailing various tactical victories, he touted a potential escalation………………………………………………. https://www.mediamatters.org/us-iran-relations/fox-news-united-front-support-trumps-iran-war-may-be-breaking-down

March 30, 2026 Posted by | media, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear decommissioning in the UK

Corporate report: The NDA group Technical Baseline Review

This report provides a high-level overview of the processes and associated technologies used or planned to be used to deliver our mission.

NDA 26th March 2026 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority NDA group Technology Baseline Review 2026

PDF, 4.76 MB, 67 pages

The UK’s nuclear energy programme, dating from the post-war years, has left a challenging decommissioning legacy to the country: numerous prototype reactors, fuel-manufacturing plants, research centres, reprocessing plants and 11 power stations. The Sellafield site in west Cumbria houses more than 200 nuclear facilities and 1,000 buildings, making it one of the world’s most complex environmental decommissioning challenges. Across the UK many ‘never-done-before’ decommissioning projects will need to be completed. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was established under the Energy Act (2004) to ensure that the UK’s nuclear legacy sites are decommissioned and cleaned up safely, securely, cost-effectively and in ways that protect people and the environment.

This document provides a high-level overview of the current technology landscape across the NDA group. It outlines the NDA group technology baseline, current technologies being deployed, and the technology opportunities requiring development or adoption to underpin the delivery of our decommissioning mission……………
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-decommissioning-authority-rd-technical-baseline

March 30, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Israel launches strikes on nuclear sites as Iran warns of retaliation

Uranium facility, steel plants and heavy water complex among targets hit as IRGC warns of escalation.

By Al Jazeera Staff, AFP, Reuters and The Associated Press, 27 Mar 2026

Israel has struck a uranium processing facility in the central Iranian city of Yazd, the Israeli military confirmed, in an escalatory move that comes as regional diplomats have been attempting to broker an agreement to halt the joint US-Israeli war on Iran.

The Israeli Air Force said it hit a plant used to extract raw materials essential to the uranium enrichment process, describing it as a “unique facility” in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization confirmed the strike, but said there were no casualties or radiation leaks.

A projectile also hit near the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation said. The attack caused “no casualties, financial, or technical damage,” the organisation said.

Friday marked day 28 of the conflict, and the assault by the Israeli army was part of a broad wave of attacks on sites across the country.

Strikes also hit areas in and around Tehran, the city of Kashan and Ahwaz, while 18 people were killed in Qom.

More than 1,900 people have been killed in US-Israeli attacks on Iran since the war began on February 28.

Iranian officials said US-Israeli strikes have damaged at least 120 museums and historical sites across the country since hostilities began.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera that even Iranians who had been critical of their own government increasingly view the war as an assault on the Iranian people rather than its leadership, saying the targeting of water, electricity, gas, cultural heritage, schools and hospitals was “unacceptable.”

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said Israel would “intensify” its campaign and expand the range of sites it targets, accusing Tehran of deliberately directing missiles at Israeli civilians.

IRGC Aerospace Commander Seyed Majid Moosavi warned that the conflict was entering new territory, saying “the equation will no longer be an eye for an eye.” He urged employees of US and Israeli-linked industrial companies across the region to immediately vacate their workplaces.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, noted that the strikes on two major Iranian nuclear facilities could prompt the IRGC to target Dimona again, Israel’s nuclear site, as it did last week.

Prior to Friday’s strikes, US President Donald Trump said Thursday he had pushed back planned attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure by 10 days, to April 6, saying negotiations to end the war were “going very well”.

Iranian officials flatly rejected that characterisation, describing Washington’s proposal to end the war as “one-sided and unfair” and outlining their own list of conditions, which include war reparations and the recognition of Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz.

On Friday, an an Iranian official said the ongoing strikes, while simultaneously discussing talks, were “intolerable”……………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/27/israel-launches-strikes-on-iran-nuclear-sites-as-war-enters-fifth-week

March 29, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US/Israel War against International Law

24 March 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Dr Dan Steinbock, https://theaimn.net/us-israel-war-against-international-law/

As the US/Israeli strikes against Iran violate the foundations of international law, the economic and human costs will soar.

After three weeks of effective war, the hostilities have caused severe regional spillovers, thousands of deaths, displacements of millions and a massive global energy crisis that continues to expand. If the implications are global, what’s the status of the US/Israeli strikes from the standpoint of international law?

The modern legal order is based on United Nations Charter (1945), Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute (1998) and Customary law from the Nuremberg Trials. The key rules include the prohibition of aggressive war, protection of civilians, individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Force is allowed only in the case of self-defense and UN Security Council authorization.

The US/Israeli strikes have already violated most of these rules.

War of aggression

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits UN member states from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or  political independence of any state. It was violated on February 28, when US/Israel launched their joint strikes against Iran.

Typically, the war was launched precisely when and because the peace talks in Oman were advancing toward a successful conclusion.

In the absence of strategic objectives and exit strategy, the U.S. has framed the actions as a campaign to dismantle “the Iranian regime’s security apparatus.”

These efforts go back to the US/Israel 12-Day War against Iran in July 2025, when Masoud Pezeshkian, the new reform-minded Iran president, sought talks to end the conflict with the US and Israel. That was not in line with the “new Middle East” envisioned by PM Netanyahu and his Messianic far-right cabinet.

The UN Charter’s prohibition against force is not absolute, with key exceptions being self-defense (Article 51) and actions approved by the Security Council.

Yet, no such threat existed prior to the US/Israel strikes. And on March 17, 2026, Joe Kent, the Director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, resigned from his position in protest of the ongoing U.S.-led war in Iran. Kent said in no uncertain terms that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

This is an illegal war of aggression, instigated by leaders who have been, like Prime Minister Netanyahu, (or should be) charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Preemptive war doctrine

To legitimize the unjustifiable, Washington has resorted to preemptive justifications. In this regard, the US/Israel war against Iran is just the latest link in the 25-year-long effort to sanctify power  politics with preventive wars.

Since the Bush Jr. 2002 security doctrine, US administrations have stressed preemption as a central strategic instrument. While Democratic leaders (Obama, Biden) have been more moderate in rhetoric, they have coopted the same ideas.

Relying on force to prevent future threats, preventive war doctrines are often cited as violating international law because they bypass the strict legal requirements for the use of force established in the UN Charter.

Unilateral preventive war is a threat to the principle of state sovereignty, as it allows one nation to judge the “intentions” of another, without objective proof of an upcoming attack. Setting a dangerous precedent, it incentivizes other nations to use similar pretexts for their “preventive” attacks, potentially leading to global instability.

International law allows for preemptive strikes in cases of “imminent” danger. But US strategy improperly expands this to include preventive wars against threats that are not yet fully formed or do not exist – as in the cases of the 2003 Iraq War and the 2025 and 2026 Iran Wars.

Targeted assassinations

The targeted assassination of Iranian leaders is a serious violation of international law, especially when conducted outside of an active, declared war zone. Targeted killings violate the prohibition on the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity and political independence.

Outside of active hostilities, international human rights law (IHRL) applies. Under IHRL, arbitrary deprivation of life is prohibited. Targeted killings are extrajudicial killings for which the acting state is responsible.

In the context of conflict, targeted killings can violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, including distinction (targeting civilians) and proportionality. Assassinations of state officials often violate the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Persons Under International Protection.

Precedents feature the killing of the famous Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, the right-hand man of the supreme leader of Iran, the late Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was assassinated in a targeted drone strike in Baghdad in January 2020, ordered by President Trump.

From the standpoint of international law, it was an unlawful attack, as was pointed out by Ben Ferencz, the US prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials and pioneer of international law. After Soleimani’s killing, the New York Times printed Ferencz’s letter denouncing the assassination, unnamed in the letter, as an “immoral action [and] a clear violation of national and international law.”

In their first joint strikes against Iran, US and Israel assassinated the 87-year-old Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. Demonized in the West, Khamenei supported Iran’s nuclear program for civilian use. Already in the mid-1990s, he famously issuing a fatwa against the acquisition, development and use of nuclear weapons.

The assassination of Khamenei was still another blatant violation of international law. It was also part of the Israeli strategy to eliminate moderate leaders, whose absence is then used as an excuse for replacing peaceful diplomacy with brutal obliteration campaigns.

Crimes against humanity, forced displacement

These crimes are defined in Rome Statute Article 7, as widespread or systematic attack on civilians. Allegations are typical when strikes include targeting civilian infrastructure, economic strangulation, mass displacement, and siege conditions.

A continuity argument – “what we first see in Gaza is now spreading to Iran and, due to spillovers, into the region” – exists because similar patterns can be identified via blockade, disproportionate force, and collective punishment.

The stated efforts at regime change to undermine Iran and fragment the Shi’a state suggest that the boundary between cultural genocide targeting a broad ethnic-religious group and full destabilization is a line drawn in waters.

Allegations of ethnic cleansing, relying on deliberate forced displacement are likely over time. While ethnic cleansing is not a formal treaty crime, it is recognized in jurisprudence. It rests on forced population removal, which is the net effect of the strikes against Iran and a deliberate intention in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.

Israel’s rapidly expanding buffer zone in southern Lebanon, extending roughly 3 to 14 kilometers north of the Blue Line demarcation, is premised on demographic engineering. In Iran, the objective to fragment the state, instigate inter-ethnic polarization and regional divides is also predicated on identity 

At first sight, allegations of ethnic cleansing seemed to be more relevant to Gaza and the West Bank. But with shifting objectives, forced displacement is now an overwhelming reality. The US/Israel strikes have caused displacement of 3.5 million people in Iran and over 1 million in Lebanon, with up to 22,000 killed or wounded in the former and another 3,600 in the latter.

Collective punishment, economic warfare

Combined with illicit strikes, Washington’s decades-long sanctions against Iran, most of which are unilateral, and the underlying warfare is reminiscent of economic warfare premised at collective punishment.

Combinations of economic sanctions and military strikes, particularly when invalid from the standpoint of international law, raise serious issues under humanitarian law and human rights law. In Gaza and in Iran, unilateral sanctions have caused unwarranted mass suffering violating international law.

Ever since the early 1970s, when Beirut was still called the “Paris of the Middle East,” Israel’s wars against Palestinians have destabilized Lebanon’s fragile ethnic mosaic pushing the country to the edge of default. That’s the fate PM Netanyahu would like Iran to share.

In this regard, there is a clear continuity from the Gaza War, carried out by Israel with arms and financing by the US-led West, ICJ provisional measures and ICC arrest warrant debates, to the US/Israel strikes against Iran.

The common denominators feature an inflated self-defense doctrine, weak enforcement of humanitarian law, selective application of international law and ultimately the inevitable US veto in the Security Council.

The more these violations of international law are permitted, the greater will be the costs in economic terms, the more brutal the military destruction and the more lethal the human devastation.

That’s why multilateral cooperation – across all  political differences – and the enforcement of international law is so desperately needed today, before it’s too late.

Dr Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net

March 29, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Legal, Reference, USA | Leave a comment

Does SMR Stand for Spending Money Recklessly?

March 23, 2026, Susan O’Donnell, M.V. Ramana, https://www.theenergymix.com/does-smr-stand-for-spending-money-recklessly/

What did Canadians get for the $4.5 billion in public funding spent on small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) activities? Our new report assessing SMR development in Canada found the results underwhelming, to say the least.

Published in 2018, A Call to Action: A Canadian Roadmap for Small Modular Reactors recommended that the federal government fund SMRs and undertake other support measures. The report’s first “expected result” was that “one or more SMR demonstration [projects would be] constructed and in operation by 2026.” Our report in this milestone year covers not only this expected result, but also what the federal government has provided in funding for SMRs in Canada.

For many years, the “Micro Modular Reactor” (MMR) proposed for the Chalk River nuclear site in Ontario was to be this first demonstration. Back in 2019, the project proponents applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to prepare the site for construction.

Fast forward to 2024: instead of the reactor built and being prepared to go into service, CNSC announced it had “paused all work” on the MMR project. Later that year, the company leading the project, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States, leaving unpaid debts of more than $16 million. That total included $641,307 to the CNSC and lesser amounts to dozens of Canadian small businesses.

In 2018, the New Brunswick government lured two start-up SMR companies into the province from the U.S. and the United Kingdom—ARC and Moltex—giving each $5 million and help to apply for funding from federal taxpayers. The SMR strategy called for two “advanced” reactor designs, which were not cooled with water, to be built at NB Power’s Point Lepreau nuclear site. Both designs have serious problems that have been documented extensively (for example, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) .

Over the next five years, the federal government handed over more than $97 million to develop the two SMR designs in New Brunswick, and the provincial government added more than $31 million to the project. Yet in late 2025, New Brunswick’s Energy Minister said the government would no longer wait for the ARC and Moltex designs because the province could not take on the risk of first-of-a-kind reactors. The millions of dollars in subsidies are essentially a write-off, funding highly paid positions at these companies at the public expense.

Of the 10 SMR designs in Canada since 2018, only one is in development. Most of the public subsidy money for SMRs—$4.025 billion—has been spent developing this reactor design, the BWRX-300, to be built at the Darlington nuclear site on Lake Ontario. As of early 2026, workers are digging a deep shaft for the reactor vessel. Sometime this summer, we can expect to see concrete being poured into the ground.

Four billion dollars is a lot of money, but nowhere near enough to pay for the four BWRX-300 reactors planned for the site. Even the first BWRX-300 reactor is expected to cost more—$6.1 billion—and the whole project will run at least $20.9 billion. It final bill could come in far higher, since the vast majority of nuclear power projects have historically overrun initial cost estimates.

The high costs for the SMR compare poorly with other options for electricity generation. For example, estimates by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) show that each unit of electrical energy from SMRs would be far more expensive that a corresponding unit from solar and wind power plants, even when the cost of storage technologies and other means of accounting for renewable energy’s variability are included.

CSIRO has been undertaking an annual cost estimate in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator and its reports involve extensive consultation with various stakeholders. The research agency’s analysis is informing an active debate under way in Australia to determine if the country should embark on nuclear energy. There is no corresponding effort at rigorously computing the costs of different kinds of generating energy from different technologies by any official research agencies in Canada.

Overall, the report’s analysis found little interest in SMRs among banks and other sources of private capital. When measured in terms of their ability to generate power, SMRs are more expensive than big reactors. Given the high costs, the report suggests that exporting significant quantities of SMRs from Canada is only a slim possibility.

Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana are authors of the report on SMRs in Canada. O’Donnell is Adjunct Research Professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. Ramana is Professor; Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security; and Director pro tem of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

March 29, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

A Great British Nuke-Off in Wales?

25 March 2026, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/great-british-nuke-wales

Quintessentially British Rolls-Royce wants to put its small new reactors on Anglesey, but it turns out they’re not so small or even particularly British, writes LINDA PENTZ GUNTER

THERE is something about Rolls-Royce that is quintessentially British. Not necessarily in a good way. The name tends to bring to mind tweedy toffs or rock stars with more money than sense, driving too fast in shiny and extravagantly baubled motor cars.

It’s the cars that made the Rolls-Royce name synonymous with luxury and class, specifically upper-class. It’s even entered the lexicon. Something can be called “the Rolls-Royce of….;” fill in the blank.

Of course, Rolls-Royce is now much bigger than just a car manufacturer. Frequent fliers will have spotted the company logo on many a jet engine.

Less well known is that Rolls-Royce makes the reactors for nuclear submarines, specifically the British Trident nuclear fleet. The company is set to produce a new propulsion reactor, PWR3, for the Dreadnought-class ballistic deterrent submarine, expected to be operational in the early 2030s, and whose missiles are capable of destroying all life on Earth multiple times over.

More recently, Rolls-Royce has entered the commercial nuclear reactor market, proposing its own small modular reactor (SMR) design — which, at 470 megawatts, isn’t actually very small at all. Many of Britain’s old Magnox reactors, now all permanently closed, were smaller than that. Two of the largest, at Wylfa in Anglesey, were each 490 megawatts.

Ironically, it is to Wylfa that Rolls-Royce is looking to site its first not so small modular reactors. It is planning for three there — with the capacity to extend to eight — and even won a competition conducted by Great British Energy-Nuclear to become the preferred bidder to place SMRs at the Wylfa site, purchased by the government from Hitachi in March 2024 after the Japanese company ditched plans to build two full-size reactors there.

The prize for Rolls-Royce’s winning bid was £2.5 billion in public funding (ie taxpayer money) toward the cost of the first three SMRs, not such good news for people who can’t afford to drive Rolls-Royces.

Another £25 million is to be shelled out to two engineering consultancies, WSP and Mott MacDonald, who will advise on environmental assessments, permitting and regulatory compliance.

As Linda Clare Rogers, co-deputy leader of the Welsh Green Party, asked in a letter to her Anglesey MP Llinos Medi of Plaid Cymru: “Why does Rolls-Royce need £25m of our money to spend on advisers and engineers to help it meet environmental and legal requirements, if they are confident what they’re doing is serviceable? As this is public money, will we have a say in proceedings? If not, why not? Other public services involve public engagement.”

That £25m just happens to be equal to the price tag for the Rolls-Royce La Rose Noire Droptail luxury car, unveiled in August 2023. So why not just sell one of those to pay for the advisers and engineers instead of fleecing British taxpayers?

Appropriately, the multi-billion pound Rolls-Royce triumph (to mix motoring metaphors), was lauded by a lord — it is unknown if he was wearing tweeds for the occasion — during a debate last July in the House of Lords.

Reading the transcript of what takes place in that neo-gothic edifice makes you wonder if you have time-travelled back a few centuries. Everyone is addressed as “my lords” even though there are ladies, too, and “my noble friend” and phrases such as “I thank the noble Earl for that question,” and “I thank the noble Viscount.”

It was Labour peer Lord Wilson of Sedgefield — real name Philip — who was beating the drum most loudly for nuclear power in general and Rolls-Royce in particular during that July debate.

This same “noble lord,” as we must perforce address him according to tradition, was also one of the “Famous Five” who helped Tony Blair get selected as a Labour candidate. Later, before he ascended to “The Lord Wilson,” he became an enthusiastic Jeremy Corbyn backstabber when Corbyn was Labour Party leader. So not really all that “noble.”

The lone voice of reason during the Lords nuclear debate came not from a “lord” but a woman, the Green Party’s Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb who said: “My lords, the minister said that everybody around the House supports nuclear. No, the Green Party does not support nuclear. It is a dinosaur technology and it is really very expensive, when you look at the planetary impact and the cost to the Exchequer. It is going to be a disaster and it will be overtaken by sea-level rises as well. Why do the government not take some good advice on this instead of believing in nuclear all the time?”

The good Lord Wilson quickly and condescendingly dismissed her ideas as “a bit on the fringe,” then repeatedly referred to new nuclear in Britain as “clean, secure, homegrown energy.”

But just as it is obvious that nuclear power is neither clean nor secure, whether great and British or not, it is most certainly not “homegrown” either, given that no uranium, the raw material needed to fuel reactors, is mined in the UK.

And, as it turns out, even Rolls-Royce isn’t quite so very British after all.

Rolls-Royce SMR (Small Modular Reactors), the company’s subsidiary focused on future nuclear energy, is not solely owned by the parent group. It has investors including the Qatar Investment Authority, BNF Resources (connected to the French Perrodo family that owns European oil and gas company Perenco), Constellation (a US energy company and part of Exelon), and CEZ, a Czech company.

Of course, even the Rolls-Royce car division isn’t actually British. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Germany’s BMW.

In addition to the Perrod family’s investments in oil and gas companies, Constellation owns oil and gas plants in the US. And while the Qatar Investment Authority has said it will not finance new fossil fuel projects, it has not divested from all of its existing oil and gas interests. CEZ continues to maintain coal plants and is supporting natural gas infrastructure.

This is a quiet reminder about the level of greenwashing that seeks to paint nuclear power as environmentally friendly when many of the companies involved in nuclear power are also still heavily invested in fossil fuels.

The partner Rolls-Royce has chosen to oversee delivery of the Wylfa reactors is the US-based engineering firm Amentum, which has around 6,000 staff in the UK. The small modular reactor is an old concept that has been around for decades and was consistently rejected due to poor economies of scale. Yet Amentum’s chief executive officer, John Heller, describes SMRs as a “transformational technology, a critical enabler in strengthening energy security in the UK and continental Europe.”

However, that “energy security” will be delivered largely by Russia, in order to meet the needs of the fast-reactor designs targeted for Britain. These include the Newcleo 200 MWe lead-cooled fast reactor and the Natrium, TerraPower’s sodium-cooled fast reactor, two US companies looking to secure contracts in the UK. Russia is currently the only country that manufactures the High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium fuel needed for these reactor designs.

When star footballer Marcus Rashford totalled his £700,000 Rolls-Royce in a September 2023 accident, the car was entirely written off. That’s exactly what should happen to the company’s SMR plans before consumers and taxpayers are forced to foot the bill.

Linda Pentz Gunter is a writer based in Takoma Park, Maryland. She is the author of the book, No to Nuclear: How Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress And Provokes War, published by Pluto Press.

March 29, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Pentagon Whistleblower Criticizes “Bloodthirst” of Iran War, Says Hegseth Is Enabling War Crimes

26 Mar 2026

As the United States mobilizes thousands more troops for deployment to the Middle East, we speak with retired U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Wes Bryant, who criticizes the “bloodthirst” of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. Bryant led the Pentagon office for civilian harm assessment from 2024 to 2025, before the unit was dissolved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The “wholly illegal war” has been “carried out recklessly from the start and with little regard for the innocent,” Bryant tells Democracy Now! “Pete Hegseth has already directed the committing of war crimes. And unfortunately, our senior military leadership is bending the knee and carrying out whatever he tells them to do.”

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream at democracynow.org Mondays to Fridays 8-9 a.m. ET.

March 29, 2026 Posted by | Religion and ethics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump White House plagiarized Iran war manifesto from Israel-aligned think tank

Wyatt Reed and Max Blumenthal.The Grayzone, March 20, 2026

The Trump White House plagiarized its justification for attacking Iran from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the main DC outfit promoting war with Tehran. The think tank was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image,” and partners closely with the Israeli government.

The Trump Administration appeared to plagiarize its official justification for its war on Iran, copying almost word-for-word a document originally produced by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a pro-war think tank with close ties to Israeli intelligence which was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image.”

The FDD document was authored by Tzvi Kahn, the former assistant director for policy and government affairs at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

A March 2, 2026 statement issued by the White House accusing Tehran of 44 instances of terrorism against American citizens is “virtually identical” to the list published by FDD in June 2025, analyst Stephen McIntyre noted Thursday.

While the White House did make superficial alterations to the text, they largely consisted of appending the label “Iran-backed” to every mention of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. In the few instances where Trump administration officials bothered to make significant changes to the original FDD list, the edits were almost always made in service of “ratcheting up the underlying allegation,” McIntyre concluded.

Among the most egregious examples was a 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which FDD originally said merely that Hezbollah al-Hejaz was “deemed responsible” for. In the White House version, however, the group’s responsibility was “asserted as factual,” explained McIntyre, noting that serious questions about the incident remain unanswered to this day. “Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry subsequently wondered (along with many others) whether Khobar Towers should have been attributed to Al Qaeda,” he wrote.

A 2009 investigation by journalist Gareth Porter based on interviews with over a dozen former CIA, FBI and Clinton administration officials demonstrated that the FBI’s inquiry into the Khobar Towers attack was precooked to blame Iran, when Al Qaeda was most likely the culprit. Porter found that Shia citizens of Saudi Arabia had been tortured into confessing to the crime by Saudi secret police.

While the White House declined to join FDD in blaming Iran for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, it echoed the Israel-oriented organization in blaming Tehran for 603 military deaths in Iraq, which both documents attributed to “Iran-backed militias.” But there are major discrepancies with the figure, which amounts to 60% of the total US combatant deaths attributed to Iran. As McIntyre noted, such a claim is “not made in the State Department annual reports on Global Terrorism.”

At least four of the Americans the Trump administration claims were killed by Iran had served in Israel’s military. These included a US citizen who died while invading Lebanon in 2006 and two Americans in the IDF’s Golani brigade who were killed while invading Gaza in 2014. The fourth American, who was born in Israel and had also served in the Golani brigade, was killed amid violent reprisals against settlers in the West Bank in 2015.

A number of the claims are undermined by the very sources they cite, including a December 2019 incident in which the Trump administration insisted “Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorists killed an American civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. service members in a rocket attack at K1 Air Base in Kirkuk, Iraq.” But the Reuters article cited by the White House as proof that Iran was responsible made no such claim, explicitly cautioning that “no group has claimed responsibility for the attack.” In reality, Reuters suggested the attack was the work of “Islamic State militants operating in the area [who] have turned to insurgency-style tactics.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://thegrayzone.com/2026/03/20/trump-plagiarized-iran-israel-think-tank/

March 29, 2026 Posted by | Iran, Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Israel’s primary role in Iran war scrubbed from mainstream media.

By Walt Zlotow  , 25 Mar 26, https://theaimn.net/israels-primary-role-in-iran-war-scrubbed-from-mainstream-media/

No Israel, no Iran war. That fact is AWOL from any coverage of criminal US, Israeli war destroying Iran, US Gulf States bases and possibly the world economy.

Destroying Iran as a hegemonic rival preventing their Middle East expansion of Greater Israel has been Israel’s objective for decades. But the small country of Israel, without billions in US firepower and participation could never accomplish their cherished goal. What to do? Put tremendous carrot and stick pressure on Donald Trump to achieve Israel’s Middle East supremacy.

They came close to getting George W. Bush to take out Iran after Bush demolished Afghanistan and Iraq back in 2003. But Bush stopped his war-crazed Veep Dick Cheney from pulling the Iran war trigger.

Obama was a huge problem for Israel. Instead of attacking Iran he made peace with it… or tried to. His leadership in creating the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) put the end to any concern that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Which they never were. It should have stopped Israel’s lust to destroy Iran. But it didn’t. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embarked on a relentless propaganda campaign to destroy the JCPOA.

His dream was realized when Trump succeeded Obama in 2017. A year later, Trump, likely following Netanyahu’s orders, withdrew from the JCPOA, putting Iran regime change back in play.

When Biden succeeded Trump in 2021, Netanyahu garnered another complacent ally in the White House. Biden did nothing to rejoin the JCPOA and normalize relations with Iran. But the Israeli genocide in Gaza, fully supported and funded by Biden, put Iran on the back burner.

Enter Donald Trump – back in power in 2025. Within 9 months he secured a ceasefire in Gaza. Palestinian genocide switched places with Iran on the forefront of destruction. Iran moved into Trump’s crosshairs to please his Israeli masters.

Had Harris succeeded Biden, likely no Iran war. Unlike Trump, Harris was neither as fully funded by the Israel lobby nor possibly subject to Israeli blackmail threatening to expose Trump’s peccadillos.

March 28, 2026 Posted by | Israel, media | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »