nuclear-news

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

Can Trump Restrain Israel?

Middle East Monitor06/13/2026, by Norliza binti Saleh, https://www.juancole.com/2026/06/trump-restrain-israel.html

The latest exchange between Iran and Israel raises a fundamental question: Who is really driving events in the Middle East – Washington or Jerusalem? 

Following Israeli strikes on targets in Beirut, Lebanon, Iran responded with strikes against northern Israel and military facilities around Haifa. Israel then immediately retaliated by attacking Tehran, Tabriz, Karaj and Isfahan. While the ceasefire between the United States and Iran is technically in place, the broader regional conflict continues to intensify. Throughout the crisis, President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed support for de-escalation and urged all parties to avoid a wider war. 

Yet events on the ground suggest that Washington’s desire for stability may not necessarily translate into restraint by its closest ally. The current crisis is becoming a test not only of regional security but also of American influence itself. 

The Trump administration appears reluctant to become involved in another prolonged West Asian conflict. Unlike previous periods of direct American military engagement in the region, Washington’s priorities today are largely domestic and economic. 

A wider regional war would almost certainly increase energy prices, disrupt global trade routes, and create uncertainty in international markets. Such instability would undermine economic recovery efforts and place additional pressure on American households.

For Trump, who has consistently portrayed himself as a leader focused on domestic prosperity rather than foreign military adventures, another regional war offers few political benefits. 

This explains why Washington continues to advocate restraint and emphasize the importance of maintaining the ceasefire framework currently in place. 

Israel, however, views the situation through a different lens. 

From the Israeli perspective, Hezbollah and Iran remain immediate security threats that cannot be ignored. Israeli leaders claim that military pressure is necessary to weaken these adversaries, regardless of American concerns about regional escalation. 

Yet security alone does not fully explain Israel’s actions.

“The conflict is also intertwined with political and ideological ambitions. The influential factions within the Israeli regime continue to be influenced by a broader vision of expanding Israel’s strategic footprint in the region, often associated with the concept of “Greater Israel”.

In this reading, Lebanon is not merely a battlefield but part of a wider Israeli expansionist project. 

This creates an important divergence between American strategic interests and Israeli security calculations. The result is an increasingly visible gap between what the United States wants and what Israel is prepared to do. 

Recent developments have also highlighted Iran’s growing strategic importance. Iran occupies a critical geographical position overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil and gas supplies passes. Any disruption to this maritime chokepoint would immediately affect global energy markets and international trade. 

More importantly, external pressure has strengthened domestic unity within Iran. The groups that previously disagreed with the government have increasingly

rallied around the state in response to external threats. Regionally, Iran has demonstrated both military capability and strategic reach, reinforcing its position as a major regional power whose actions can no longer be ignored. Recent events have witnessed that Iran possesses significant leverage over regional security and global energy stability. 

The central issue, therefore, is not whether Trump supports a ceasefire. He clearly does. 

The real question is whether Washington possesses sufficient leverage to translate its preference into Israeli behaviour.

“If Israeli military operations continue despite American calls for restraint, observers will inevitably question the extent of US influence over its closest ally. “

This matters because American credibility remains a key pillar of regional stability. If Washington is unable to shape the actions of partners that depend heavily on American diplomatic, financial and military support, its broader influence across West Asia may also come under scrutiny. 

Failure to contain the current escalation carries risks far beyond West Asia. A wider Iran-Israel confrontation could threaten critical energy routes, including the Strait of Hormuz and other regional maritime chokepoints. Rising energy prices would affect economies worldwide, including countries geographically distant from the conflict such as Malaysia. 

At the same time, continued instability risks expanding the conflict across multiple fronts involving Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Red Sea region. The longer the crisis continues, the greater the likelihood of miscalculation by one or more actors. 

For this reason, calls for a genuine ceasefire must be matched by meaningful diplomatic efforts and credible pressure on all parties involved. 

“The current crisis has become a test of two things: regional stability and American influence. “

President Trump may genuinely prefer de-escalation, but preference alone is insufficient. The true measure of leadership lies in the ability to shape outcomes, not merely express intentions If Washington cannot persuade its closest ally to support a sustainable ceasefire, the risk of a wider regional conflict will continue to grow. 

“The key question is therefore not whether Trump wants peace. The key question is whether he still possesses the leverage necessary to make it happen”

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Why a single ‘peace deal’ for Ukraine war just won’t work

As Western mainstream media carpet bombs the world with news that Ukraine is turning the tide in the war and could still win, then the calculus may be among Western policy hawks that continuing the war is no bad thing.

The Europeans and Zelensky appear dug in for the long haul.

An agreement within NATO. A peace settlement for Ukraine will only land when its future NATO aspiration is taken decisively off of the table. Anyone who still believes that Russia will give up on this clearest of redlines is dangerously misguided.

The time is ripe for European leaders to set aside the self-licking summits and get in the room with the US, Ukraine, and Russia

Ian Proud, Jun 13, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-russia-europe-talks/

The time is ripe for European leaders to set aside the self-licking summits in European capitals and get in the room with the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia to orchestrate a modern-day Helsinki Conference.

A durable peace for Ukraine will require several interlocking agreements, each of which will be incredibly difficult to negotiate, but all of which will be vital if we are to avoid a general war in Europe.

In a recent post on X, former U.S. diplomat Dan Fried, commenting on the June 7 E3 Leaders’ Statement on peace in Ukraine, said, “If Russia wants to end the war it can, you know, end the war.”

It’s important to pause here and note that Fried was the State Department Coordinator for Sanctions Policy from 2013 until 2017. I know, because I was directly involved at the time, that Fried is the architect of the policy of making Russia sanctions permanent by linking them to the full implementation of the Minsk II agreement, which Russia and Ukraine interpreted in radically different ways. The main aim of sanctions conditionality was therefore to delay any possibility of peaceful settlement, and in that it succeeded.

Eleven years on, Fried’s remark echoes a common line of argument in pro-war Western circles: that Russia could simply end the war without a negotiated settlement. And yet an unconditional about-face by Russia is quite obviously never going to happen, and so the comment serves only to prolong the war.

The E3 statement flowed from the same logic. It offered nothing new or unexpected. Critically, it reiterated the line that roughly $300 billion of Russian assets will remain immobilized until Russia “ceases its war of aggression and compensates Ukraine for the damage caused by the war.”

The current World Bank estimate of the cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine stands at $588 billion. So, the E3 position amounts to confirmation that Russia will never see its money again and moreover will still have $288 billion left to pay.

This, I fear, is another example of Fried’s logic — that peace in Ukraine is indeed possible, but only on terms that Russia would be unable or unwilling to accept. As Western mainstream media carpet bombs the world with news that Ukraine is turning the tide in the war and could still win, then the calculus may be among Western policy hawks that continuing the war is no bad thing.

It’s certainly clear that no one appears in a rush. The E3 statement follows a sixteen-month period of endless and repetitive meetings by European leaders and Zelensky in which everyone violently agrees, but to which the Russians are never invited.

Only in recent months, notably since President Donald Trump’s Alaska Summit with Putin, has the topic of a negotiated end to the Ukraine war slowly bubbled to the surface in Europe. President Alexander Stubb of Finland, President Emmanuel Macron of France, Prime Minister Bart de Wever of Belgium have at various times dipped their toes in the water of suggesting diplomatic talks with Russia.

Last week, Zelensky himself issued an open letter to Putin about a possible meeting.

But, being that the letter contained several pages of personal barbs and insults about Putin, it is hard to see this as anything more than a self-licking stunt, of the type Dan Fried would support. The Europeans and Zelensky appear dug in for the long haul.

A senior Russian contact remarked to me recently that the Europeans spend a lot of time talking about the possibility of talks, but not the substance of what might be on the agenda. In truth, a vast amount of work will be needed in preparatory negotiations to map out the shape of a future peace settlement, requiring a clarity of focus that has hitherto been missing.

A durable peace for Ukraine will require several interlocking deals, possibly negotiated separately with different signatories. Talk of a single ‘peace deal’ for Ukraine is a lazy over-simplification. The latest E3 statement bundles up separate issues in the same basket as does the now dormant US brokered plan. A peace settlement for Ukraine will require, inter alia, the following.

A bilateral peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, brokered by the U.S. and others. The existing U.S.-brokered draft is the right place to start, as that includes the most contentious issue of territory, and in particular the future status of the remaining territory in Donetsk which Russia has not conquered. It would also need to cover sensitive topics such as the size of Ukraine’s army, Ukrainian children who were removed to Russia, and minority languages in Ukraine.

A clear plan and timeline for Ukraine to join the European Union. This can only be negotiated bilaterally by the EU and Ukraine, without U.S. or British involvement. It is arguably as difficult as a bilateral peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

Zelensky has said he wants to see Ukrainian accession by 2027, but this is not going to happen, and not only because the war may still be ongoing. The Europeans aren’t over eager about Ukraine joining because Ukraine is nowhere near ready, and Europe can’t afford it. Chancellor Merz has recently resurfaced the idea of “associate membership,” in which Ukraine gets no voting rights or money. Every rational observer should be able to judge that many Ukrainians will want clarity on the glidepath towards EU membership as a condition for ending the war.

An agreement between Russia and Europe, including the United Kingdom, on the future shape of their relationship. The third issue is equally as complex. Should Ukraine eventually join the EU, then it would join existing former Soviet and Warsaw Pact members (the Balts and Poland) who frame Russia as an existential threat. Relations between Europe and Russia are more shuttered today than they were during the Soviet era.

Europe needs cheap energy to stem the tide of self-imposed deindustrialization; Russia would like European investment again and a more open people-to-people relationship. There will need to be a settlement on how sanctions against Russia are eased during a post-war period. Ignoring an EU-Russia deal risks pressing the pause button on a future general war at a time when Europe is rapidly rearming,

An agreement within NATO. A peace settlement for Ukraine will only land when its future NATO aspiration is taken decisively off of the table. Anyone who still believes that Russia will give up on this clearest of redlines is dangerously misguided.

Ukraine needs cast iron security guarantees that should involve a hard commitment to boots on the ground should Russia renege on its commitments.This will require Russia to have confidence that NATO isn’t stoking the fire in the background to reignite tensions as a pretext for intervention. These are incredibly complex issues and will require U.S. leadership to shift the Europeans into line. The NATO-Russia Council could have provided a forum for discussion and deconfliction but was formally disbanded in December 2025. Perhaps a NATO-Ukraine-Russia Council might emerge, to take its place, reopening a vital avenue for military dialogue and deconfliction.

Amid signs that the Trump Administration is tiring of the Ukraine peace process, the time is ripe for a serious push to bring the disastrous war in Ukraine to a close. Rather than the Europeans and Americans tussling over who should be in charge of the negotiations, the truth is that every Western nation will have a role to play, together with Ukraine and Russia, to hammer out the various agreements needed for peace. That may require a grand summit similar in scale to the Helsinki Conference of 1975. On the back of the E3 Statement, however, I am not holding my breath.

June 19, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

NATO collapsing in 2026? Can’t come soon enough – Walt Zlotow.


A case can be made for creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) when it was founded April 4, 1949. Originally just 10 Western European countries plus the US and Canada, NATO ensured no further Soviet expansion beyond the block of Soviet satellite nations Stalin established following WWII.

Of course, one can debate whether NATO was necessary at all. A was ravaged Russia, had neither the will not the means to expand anywhere beyond the buffer it had created to protect itself from a third invasion from the West in the 20th century. NATO may had more to do with expanding US imperial power in Europe and enriching the Military Industrial Complex than protecting Western Europe from unlikely Russian invasion.

Regardless, when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down on November 9, 1989 and the Soviet Union followed along December 26, 1991, NATO should have joined both in the dustbin of history. Indeed, the US, under President George H.W. Bush, spent much of 1990 negotiating the reunification of Soviet Eastern Germany into Western Germany, something Soviet Russia would have thought unthinkable. The pro in the quid pro quo was that NATO would never expand one inch eastward toward Mother Russia from its then western membership of 16 nations. Russia could even imagine that NATO, like The Warsaw Pact, would go away.

Big Russian mistake. With the US now the world’s sole superpower, the US abrogated any détente with Russia regarding NATO expansion, much less existence. Russia was to be permanently consigned to second class European status. Beginning under President Clinton in 1999, the NATO added 14 former Soviet aligned nations cementing NATO hegemony in Europe and ensuring an ever weakened Russia.

By betraying the former Soviet Union after its collapse, NATO morphed from a theoretically defensive to an overtly offensive organization. Russia was just one of NATO’s offensive moves. In 1999, NATO bombed Russian ally Serbia for 78 days to kick Serbia out of Kosovo, turning Kosovo into a failed province of the West. In 2011 NATO intervened in the Libyan civil war, bombing the Gaddafi regime and Gaddafi himself into oblivion. Libya remains a failed state 15 years on with much of Africa destabilized in its wake. Even the revered Barack Obama laments NATO intervention in Libya as his biggest presidential mistake.

But nothing compares to NATO perfidy in Ukraine. NATO proposed membership to Ukraine in 2008 to further isolate Russia from Europe. When six years of advancing NATO membership failed due to Ukrainian President Yanukovych partnering with Russia, NATO, led by Obama, simply overthrew him in 2014. Even worse, Ukraine began murdering Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas on Russia’s border by the thousands with NATO’s help. Worse Yet, NATO suckered Russia into agreeing to the Minsk I and II agreements that Donbas could achieve autonomy under Ukraine sovereignty to bring peace to Donbas Ukrainians. That was a subterfuge to build up the Ukraine military to finish off the Ukraine separatists in the Donbas. After 8 years of this duplicity Russia had enough, invading in February 2022 to end NATO, Ukraine aggression.

Four and a half years on, Ukraine is on life support, not from the US, which has largely bowed out, but from European NATO, which is still throwing billions of Euros on Ukraine’s lost cause. EU leaders, Especially UK’s Starmer, Frances’s Macron and Germany’s Merz claim Ukraine can win, reclaim all lost territory and save Western Europe from a likely Russian attack as early as 2030.

Long before 2030, Starmer, Macron and Merz will be gone, as well as the Ukraine that existed before the NATO offensive blew it up. NATO may be gone as well and good riddance if it is. Russia has no designs on Western Europe or all of Ukraine. They simply want their sensible security concerns met that have been foolishly rejected by NATO since the Soviet Union went poof in 1991 and NATO, led by the US, used it crush Russian integration in the European political economy.

Had the US and NATO exercised an iota of sensible diplomacy there would have been no war destroying Ukraine. Europe would be enjoying cheap energy and other trade with Russia fostering mutual economic growth. Current NATO leadership would have favorable approval ratings instead of ones worse than President Trump. Right wing European opposition parties would remain on the fringe instead of poised to assume power. European treasure could be spent uplifting the commons instead of destroying Ukraine.

Pivoting away from supporting NATO and the senseless Ukraine war is the one sensible Trump foreign policy. He’s too busy blowing up the world’s economy over Iran to care about NATO. Starmer, Macron, Merz, along with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte, remain in denial that the hopeless war they’re supporting is not only wrecking their careers and their countries; it may spell the end of NATO. It cannot come soon enough.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Europe’s recent peace overtures are war by other means

Zakharova accused the ambassadors of promoting a “dead-end Zelensky formula.”

She said: “The leaders of these countries are pretending, through their statements, to be calling for peace, but in reality they are putting forward unacceptable conditions, increasing the production of long-range weapons for Kiev and generally taking steps towards the militarisation of Ukraine and Europe.”

European overtures for renewing diplomacy with Russia smack of hypocrisy and duplicity.

June 12, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/06/12/europes-recent-peace-overtures-are-war-by-other-means/

After four years of zero diplomacy, multiple rounds of economic sanctions aimed at crushing the Russian state, and hundreds of billions of euros fueling a futile war in Ukraine against Russia, European capitals are lately abuzz with calls for opening peace negotiations with Moscow.

No doubt part of the shifting policy is due to the economic mess that Europe has created for itself by cutting off energy trade with Russia. Escalating energy costs are destroying European industries and imposing crippling financial hardship on millions of its citizens. Realizing the self-inflicted disaster, European capitals are desperate to appear to be normalizing relations with Russia and resume affordable energy supplies.

France and Italy are advocating the appointment of an envoy to engage with Russia to resolve the conflict and the lifting of anti-Russian sanctions.

Last weekend, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany – the so-called E3 – stated that they would “help mediate” a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian puppet president, Vladimir Zelensky, was feted in Downing Street on June 7 by Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Macron, and Germany’s Merz. They proposed taking the lead in negotiations from the United States since President Trump seems more preoccupied with ending the war against Iran.

Various names have been suggested as to who could serve as an interlocutor representing Europe. Angela Merkel, the former German Chancellor, and former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi are two names that have been put forward. Finnish President Alexander Stubb has also been suggested. It’s unlikely any of them would be acceptable to Moscow, especially Merkel, mainly due to her past role in covertly undermining the 2015 Minsk Accords, thereby sowing the seeds for war that erupted seven years later.

The telling – almost laughable – thing is the paucity of any European figure with credibility as an envoy.

The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, has become a laughing stock over her rank incompetence. Her Russophobic ranting has rendered her redundant in conducting foreign policy. So much so that there is a revolt among European diplomats against what they declaim as her “dysfunction”.

This week, Europe sent three ambassadors to Moscow to renew some form of dialogue. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Galuzin, met with representatives from Britain, France, and Germany. The Russian foreign ministry said it was open to hearing what Europe had to say.

However, Galuzin reportedly gave the visitors short shrift, reminding them that Europe cannot pose as mediators when it is a participant in the war against Russia.

Following the meeting on Thursday, Maria Zakharova, the foreign ministry spokeswoman, dismissed the European mission as not serious about addressing the challenge of finding a peace settlement.

Zakharova accused the ambassadors of promoting a “dead-end Zelensky formula.”

She said: “The leaders of these countries are pretending, through their statements, to be calling for peace, but in reality they are putting forward unacceptable conditions, increasing the production of long-range weapons for Kiev and generally taking steps towards the militarisation of Ukraine and Europe.”

If Europe were serious about peace, it would stop arming the Kiev NeoNazi regime and show some meaningful acknowledgment of Russia’s long-held demand to deal with the root causes of the conflict.

Europe’s backing of the Kiev regime’s call for an immediate ceasefire while expanding Ukraine’s ability to carry out deep strikes on Russian territory with European-manufactured drones, killing hundreds of civilians over recent months, is just a cynical ploy to rearm the proxy regime and give it some respite in order to resume the war with more lethal vigour at a later stage.

The duplicity of the European politicians goes back to the treachery of the Minsk Peace Accords in 2015 and the sabotage of the Istanbul peace negotiations in April 2022. That has culminated in the biggest war in Europe since World War Two, with millions of casualties and a real threat of spiralling into open war.

Europe’s governments and its EU and NATO bureaucrats are still wedded to the ideology of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. So, too, it seems is Washington, despite Trump’s talk of wanting peace.

Arming the Nazi regime in Kiev at an increasing pace while calling for a superficial ceasefire is proof that the European leaders are not authentic in their belated espousal of seeking diplomacy with Russia.

Former German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel (2017-2018) recently pointed out a shameful truth when he said that Europe lost its chance for diplomacy in 2021.

Back then, the EU leadership and the American Biden administration both repudiated Russia’s earnest efforts to negotiate a way to avoid war in Ukraine. Moscow had clearly set out its objections to NATO expansion, in particular, the absorption of Ukraine into the military alliance, and it proposed rational solutions for collective security. Russia’s diplomacy was rejected out of hand by Washington and Brussels.

The Europeans and the Americans were bent on provoking Russia into an armed confrontation with their proxy Ukrainian regime that they had installed in the 2014 coup and weaponized. Diplomacy was rejected because the NATO axis calculated that it could defeat Russia with war and economic strangulation, or, as some Western politicians admitted, “total war”.

The European agenda, as reflected in demands for an immediate ceasefire without any cognizance of Russia’s arguments about historic claims and indivisible security, demonstrates that European leaders are not yet ready or willing to engage genuinely and meaningfully.

As 18th-century Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz might put it, their recent overtures for political talks are simply war by other means.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

New Billionaire Jared Kushner Is Mired in Conflicts of Interest as “Peace Envoy”

Kushner’s current fundraising efforts with Gulf state regimes, through which he aims to personally profit, raise serious concerns over conflicts between his business interests with regional states and his diplomatic role as a top Trump administration negotiator.

Jared Kushner, like the rest of the Trump family, uses the White House for personal enrichment.

By Derek Seidman , Truthout, June 12, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/from-peace-envoy-to-billionaire-kushner-makes-a-killing-in-white-house-admin/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=8d7f421301-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_06_12_06_45_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-16ee3bf6a0-650192793

Kushner is now a billionaire,” proclaimed Forbes in September 2025 of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. While just over half of Kushner’s wealth — $560 million — comes from his family’s real estate empire, what’s catapulted Kushner into billionaire status is the growth of his private equity firm, Affinity Partners, formed in 2021.

“[T]hese days,” said Forbes, Kushner is “laser-focused on Affinity.”

Kushner is not an experienced investment manager. His key clients are Gulf state sovereign wealth funds — hugely wealthy state-owned coffers that invest revenue generated by fossil fuel sales — overseen by the same regimes with whom Kushner is now involved diplomatically as a U.S. “special envoy for peace.”

That Kushner personally profits from, and is currently trying to raise billions from, the same actors he’s negotiating with, raises code red-level alarms over potential conflicts of interest. Moreover, two of Trump’s sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, have been tied to a slew of business deals connected to companies that are benefitting handsomely from federal government contracts.

“The degree of shamelessness is unprecedented,” Jeff Hauser, founder and executive director of the Revolving Door Project, a watchdog group monitoring the U.S. executive branch, told Truthout. “The degree of unity among elected Republicans to not speak about the Trump progeny, and their corruption, is the worst conspiracy of silence in American political history.”

Affinity Partners

Jared Kushner founded Affinity Partners in 2021, and he is the firm’s sole owner. Forbes estimates Affinity was worth $215 million as of September 2025, up from $170 million in October 2024. Through Affinity, Kushner recruits wealthy clients and invests their money through funds that acquire stakes in different companies.

Affinity currently has $6.2 billion in assets under management. According to the Israeli financial paper Globes, Kushner earns “a commission of 1.25 percent on investors’ capital.” Forbes says that Affinity’s investors “pay about $60 million per year in fees.”

The New York Times also reports that Affinity has earned an estimated 25 percent rate of return on its investments since 2021. Private equity investment firms often get a double-digit percentage cut on client returns.

Affinity’s biggest clients are Gulf state sovereign wealth funds. According to The New York Times, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which invests the kingdom’s oil profits and is led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is “already the largest and earliest investor in Affinity,” having invested $2 billion with the firm after Trump’s first term ended. As part of that investment deal, Saudi Arabia was also given “the first chance to invest during any subsequent attempts by Affinity to raise funds,” said The New York Times.

The sovereign wealth funds of both the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar were also early investors in Affinity Partners, with the UAE investing over $200 million in Kushner’s firm.

“Most of Affinity’s investors came through connections Kushner made while serving in the White House,” wrote Forbes.

Kushner is currently trying to raise $5 billion or more in new funds for Affinity. As part of this effort, The New York Times reported in March 2026 that Affinity representatives had met with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and that the United Arab Emirates and Qatar “are also expected to be asked for more” as the fundraising efforts should “stretch on for the better part of this year,”

“Staggering Conflicts of Interest”

Kushner’s current fundraising efforts with Gulf state regimes, through which he aims to personally profit, raise serious concerns over conflicts between his business interests with regional states and his diplomatic role as a top Trump administration negotiator.

“There’s an enormous conflict of interest when you have somebody who had never been a money manager like this before, and who is all of a sudden building massive funds based off a handful of foreign investors with an interest in buttering up the Trump administration,” said Hauser.

Hauser said it’s “not unprecedented” for well-connected family members or friends of presidents to influence U.S. diplomacy. But, he adds, “it is very susceptible to abuse, and I think it’s being abused here,” and government reforms are needed in the wake of Kushner’s current “diplomatic exploits.”

The potential conflicts of interest have been highlighted by some members of congress. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) has opened an investigation into what he labels Kushner’s “foreign entanglements and staggering conflicts of interest.”

“From the standpoint of the American people, your decision to act in these two roles — one public for the government and one private for personal profit — creates a glaring and incurable conflict of interest,” Raskin wrote in a letter to Kushner.

Kushner’s diplomatic efforts have included helping to design and advance the Abraham Accords, which aims to normalize relations between Israel and key Gulf States; carrying out negotiations with Iran, whose retaliatory strikes have been aimed at nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE; and working on Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” which several Gulf states, including top Affinity clients, have joined.

Kushner’s Portfolio Companies

Read more: New Billionaire Jared Kushner Is Mired in Conflicts of Interest as “Peace Envoy”

Affinity Partners’ most significant deal has been its $55 billion acquisition in 2025, in partnership with Saudi Arabia and other investors, of the video game giant Electronic Arts, maker of popular franchises like Madden and Sims. The transaction, which has garnered protests from gamers and developers, would be the largest-ever private buyout of a publicly-traded company. It’s currently in its final stages of approval.

Under the deal’s terms, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund — which already had a 10 percent stake in Electronic Arts — will own 93.4 of EA, while Affinity Partners will own 1.1 percent. For Saudi Arabia, the deal advances two separate but intertwined aims: diversifying its economy away from overreliance on oil revenue, and partnering with a member of the Trump family as the deal seeks regulatory approval from the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, chaired by Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

Affinity Partners also invests in smaller AI and financial companies, including U.K. digital bank OakNorth, AI infrastructure firm Universal AGI, and the fintech start-up company Revolut. Forbes reports that Kushner recently launched a new San Francisco-based AI start-up with the prominent Israeli-born venture capitalist Elad Gil. The firm, Brain Co., also raised funds from Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong and LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman.

Raising more potential for conflicts with his diplomatic role, Kushner also has stakes in several Israeli companies, including $1.68 billion in Phoenix Financial, one of Israel’s leading insurance and financial companies. Affinity is Phoenix’s top shareholder and has seen a five-times return on its investment.

Affinity is also invested in the Israeli Shlomo Group, one of Israel’s largest holding groups with big investments in the auto sector.

Kushner, TikTok, and the Trump Web

Jared Kushner is also embedded in a wide web of business figures advancing the Trump agenda — which could be seen in the January 2026 deal that created a U.S. spinoff of TikTok.

Kushner’s Electronic Arts deal is co-led by Silver Lake, a Los Angeles-based private equity firm. As Truthout previously reported, Silver Lake is also a 15 percent stakeholder in the new U.S. TikTok. The firm’s co-CEO Egon Durban sits on the seven-member board of U.S. TikTok.

In 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported that acquiring Electronic Arts was Durban’s “dream deal,” but that “the pieces began to fall into place” for the acquisition only after Durban “began spending time with Jared Kushner.”

Silver Lake also owns Endeavor, whose portfolio includes TKO Group Holdings, the parent company of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the mixed martial arts corporation that is chummy with Donald Trump.

Durban and Silver Lake are close business partners with Michael Dell, the megabillionaire chairman and CEO of Dell Technologies who is also part of the U.S. TikTok ownership group with Durban. Dell has cast himself as a Trump ally by donating $6.25 billion toward the president’s so-called “Trump Accounts” program, which creates investment accounts for U.S. children.

Billionaire Yuri Milner, another U.S. TikTok investor, previously invested $850,000 in a real estate company started by Kushner in 2015. Jon Winkelried, the billionaire CEO of TPG Global, a private equity firm represented on U.S. TikTok’s board, also previously served as a strategic adviser and partner for Thrive Capital, an investment firm overseen by Jared Kushner’s brother, Josh Kushner.

The Trump Sons

If Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, may be personally benefiting from his closeness to the president, so too might be two of the president’s own children.

Donald Trump Jr. is a partner with an investment firm called 1789 Capital, which he says is dedicated to “patriotic capitalism,” and which has seen its assets under management boom from $200 million to $3.5 billion over the past year.

1789 Capital has made investments in companies that have gone on to benefit from federal contracts. For example, the Trump administration helped secure a $620 million loan for Vulcan Elements, a rare earths firm, months after 1789 Capital acquired a stake. Other 1789 Capital portfolio companies that benefit from federal contracts include rocket propulsion start-up Firehawk Aerospace, quantum computing company PsiQuantum, and AI group Cerebras Systems, as well as SpaceX and Anduril. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have also been linked to other drone makers, including Unusual Machines and Powerus, that have secured federal contracts.

Trump Jr. told the Financial Times that he is “very involved in the strategic decisions regarding where to invest” the resources of 1789 Capital.

The Financial Times also reported that Eric Trump accompanied his father on his recent state visit to China at the same “a company linked to him and the US president’s family” — Alt5 Sigma, a Las Vegas-based financial technology company — “explores a deal” with Chinese chipmaker Nano Labs that U.S. lawmakers says is tied to the Chinese Community Party. Eric Trump is an “observer” on the board of Alt5 Sigma, while Zach Witkoff, the son of top Trump aide Steve Witkoff, chairs Alt5’s board.

The Financial Times also reports that a shell company backed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump is set to merge with a critical minerals group that last year secured up to $1.6 billion in U.S. government backing to mine tungsten in Kazakhstan. Now, that group is asking for $400 million more from the government.

Holding Politicians to Account

While Donald Trump may be struggling in the polls, his family, financially, is doing just fine.

Hauser told Truthout that much of Donald Trump’s “economic interest” is tied to “increasing the wealth of his kids,” including his son-in-law Kushner. “When they are engaged in these types of overseas actions, they are carrying Trump’s interests with them inherently,” said Hauser.

But, Hauser adds, the law treats adult children of presidents as wholly independent from their parents, allowing “relative impunity” for their intermixing of business transactions with diplomatic roles or close familial relations.

“The law is just not written to address this type of situation,” said Hauser.

But Hauser sees hope in past U.S. history, which he says has always experienced vicissitudes of political corruption and revulsion against corruption that propels reform through both legal avenues as well as social ostracization of bad actors.

“Political corruption cycles tend to be cyclical,” he said. “Hopefully this is [the] nadir, and we can all be angry enough and hold our politicians to account such that they start to clean this up, and we can switch from a vicious cycle of ever-increasing corruption to a virtuous cycle of greater integrity.”

June 18, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, MIDDLE EAST, USA | Leave a comment

Senate wants to force US to share sensitive intel with Israel

A measure in a must-pass bill would dramatically increase Israeli access to American secrets

Paul R. Pillar, Responsible Statecraft, Jun 10, 2026

Buried deep inside a 192-page intelligence authorization bill is Section 622, titled “United States-Israel Intelligence Sharing Enhancement.” It would require the president, acting through the director of national intelligence and as necessary the secretary of defense, to “expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel” on a list of subjects that encompasses almost every topic of intelligence interest in the Middle East.

The bill, put forward by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, would prohibit any suspension, reduction, or limitation of such sharing “except on the basis of a specific and identifiable national security concern determined by the President.” Any such exception would require a report to Congress within fifteen days detailing not only the reason for the change but also the categories of information involved. The same report would require an assessment of the anticipated impact on regional security and various other matters.

This proposal is one of several recent moves by those in Washington who carry the Israeli government’s water to keep the United States tied to Israel despite plummeting support for the country among the American public. The most salient form of U.S. support to Israel has been more than $300 billion in economic and especially military assistance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried to get ahead of the declining public support and avoid embarrassing losses by suggesting it would be fine with him to phase out the military aid.

Israel’s strategy and that of its U.S. supporters is now to rely on ties with, and support from, the United States that are not as salient as the military aid with its prominent price tag. The strategy includes forms of military integration that are less visible than congressionally appropriated grant aid and therefore less publicly accountable. Section 224 of a defense authorization bill currently in the House of Representatives embodies this form of integration.

The mandating of intelligence sharing carries this strategy further by moving it into the shadowy world of relations between intelligence agencies. That world is even farther removed from public visibility and accountability than the defense integration, and even less likely to stimulate thoughts about American taxpayers’ money going to a foreign country. So far, Section 622 of the intelligence bill has received less attention than Section 224 of the defense bill.

The notion of legislating an intelligence liaison relationship in this way, with any foreign country, is bizarre……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The current ill-advised war with Iran demonstrates the sharp divergence of U.S. and Israeli interests. After being the principal influence on President Donald Trump’s decision to launch the war, Netanyahu’s government has been sabotaging efforts to end it. 

It currently is doing so mainly with relentless attacks in Lebanon that have killed thousands and displaced over a million people. The divergence of objectives was reflected in an expletive-laden phone call last week between Trump and Netanyahu that was mainly about those attacks.

Attacks that sabotage diplomacy are among the Israeli operations that might use shared U.S. intelligence. The United States also will be blamed for aiding other violent Israeli operations because of the “enhanced” intelligence sharing, even if it were no longer paying for Israeli arms.

The supposed escape clause in Section 622 of the intelligence bill would in practice be so cumbersome as to be useless. The required report to Congress would dump the issue on Capitol Hill, where the Israel lobby would quickly depict it as a question of being for or against the security of Israel. The mandated intelligence sharing in the bill thus would tie the president’s hands and prevent any administration from using management of the intelligence liaison relationship as leverage to deter destructive conduct by Israel. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-intelligence-israel/

June 18, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Most Israelis oppose Netanyahu’s re-election as Trump says PM ‘may quit politics’

Trump continues to call the premier a ‘wartime prime minister’ as Netanyahu faces ongoing internal opposition and a long-delayed corruption trial

News Desk, JUN 10, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/most-israelis-oppose-netanyahus-re-election-as-trump-says-pm-may-quit-politics

A poll published by an Israeli research center on 9 June has revealed that most Israelis do not want Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to run in the upcoming election. 

The poll was released by the Viterbi Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research at the Israel Democracy Institute, based in occupied Jerusalem.

It was conducted between 31 May and 5 June. 

According to the results, 61 percent of Israelis believe Netanyahu should not run in the elections. Thirty-five percent were in favor of the premier running. 

The number of Israeli Jews who are opposed to his running stood at 57 percent, while 39.5 percent of Jewish Israelis believe he should run. 

Among the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship living in the territories ethnically cleansed during the 1948 Nakba, 83 percent are against Netanyahu running in the election, according to the poll. 

Eleven percent of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship support his candidacy, the poll added. A recent poll revealed a significant deterioration in the global reputation of Netanyahu and Israel.

The survey was published amid growing uncertainty over Netanyahu’s political future following comments by US President Donald Trump, who claimed the premier may want to step back from politics.

Trump told ABC News on Tuesday that he was unsure “if Bibi even wants to continue.”

“I don’t know, he’s had an amazing career. Does he want to continue? Because, you know, he’s a wartime prime minister. We will very shortly win the war one way or the other, and you know he’s a wartime prime minister,” Trump added.

Likud has since responded, saying that Netanyahu will run in the upcoming election.

Netanyahu is mired in a years-long criminal trial over corruption and other scandals. The trial has seen near-constant delays.

The prime minister has also failed to resolve the Haredi draft crisis plaguing Israel, with ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredim) still avoiding conscription and opposition parties criticizing the ruling coalition for placing secular reservists at the forefront of the conflict. 

Israeli army leadership has warned of a collapse in the reserve forces, and troops are taking heavy losses in battles against Hezbollah in south Lebanon.

Since Netanyahu’s government came to power in late 2022, illegal West Bank settlements and annexation plans have expanded dramatically, and a genocide in Gaza has taken place. 

Tel Aviv has also continued to wage brutal wars on multiple fronts, including Lebanon and Iran. 

The draft crisis and other long-standing issues between Netanyahu and the opposition have prompted former premiers Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid to merge parties in a bid to challenge the prime minister politically. 

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Israel, public opinion | Leave a comment

Legal Profession Revolt Against The UK Judge Whose Job Is To Protect Israel’s Genocide

Proscription has led to thousands of people, most of them elderly and including upstanding members of British society – from magistrates and doctors to army veterans – facing convictions for “supporting terrorism” for holding up placards stating: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Judge Johnson so rigged the trial of anti-genocide activists that 1000s of legal professionals have urged him to step down from the sentencing hearing. But Johnson’s dirty work is not yet complete

SCHEERPOST, Jonathan Cook Substack, June 11, 2026

The trial of the Filton Four reaches its climax on Friday. Judge Jeremy Johnson will decide the sentences of four Palestine Action activists found guilty of criminal damage – after two juries refused to convict them of far more serious charges brought by the British government, via the Crown Prosecution Service.

Keir Starmer’s government failed to secure the convictions for aggravated burglary and violent disorder it so desperately needed. They would have helped retroactively justify its decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation – the first time in British history that a direct action group, which targets property, has been proscribed.

Starmer’s hostility towards Palestine Action is personal. It has been a massive thorn in his side during Israel’s near three-year genocide in Gaza.

From the outset, Starmer suggested that Israel had the “right” to withhold food, water and power from the 2 million Palestinian residents of Gaza – a crime against humanity for which the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

Starmer’s complicity in the genocide has only been underscored by Palestine Action, which has targeted Israeli factories operating in the UK run by Elbit Systems that supply Israel’s genocidal army with killer drones for use in Gaza.

The so-called Filton trial derives its name from an Elbit factory in the Filton neighbourhood of Bristol that Palestine Action targeted in August 2024. Efforts to destroy these Israeli drones came at a time when Starmer was under enormous popular – if little political – pressure to end British arms sales to Israel.

PR crisis

Proscription, however, has not worked out well for Starmer. It has entangled him in a self-inflicted public relations crisis of almighty proportions.

Palestine Action activists have been held in remand without trial for an unprecedented period of time, far in excess of the normal maximums, and in especially harsh conditions that have treated them as if they were terrorism suspects, even though their arrests long precede the group’s proscription last year.

These sustained abuses led to a prolonged hunger strike, and a desperate government and media campaign to justify their mistreatment.

Proscription has led to thousands of people, most of them elderly and including upstanding members of British society – from magistrates and doctors to army veterans – facing convictions for “supporting terrorism” for holding up placards stating: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

This popular backlash cornered the High Court into declaring the proscription unlawful – a decision the government is appealing. That has led to another unprecedented situation: police are still arresting people for holding the placards, despite the courts ruling that the basis for such arrests is unlawful.

The law has never looked more of an ass………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Rigged trials

Judge Johnson has done precisely nothing to counter the overwhelming impression that the Filton activists’ prosecutions were entirely political. He quite openly rigged both trials in manifold ways, as former British ambassador Craig Murray has set out………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Gagging order

But even with the convictions for criminal damage secured under these rigged conditions, Judge Johnson is still in a position to cause more harm to the rule of law. He is due to sentence the Filton Four on Friday……………………………………………………………………………………..

Remember, all this is happening as Starmer’s government makes unprecedented moves to end many jury trials in Britain, leaving us to the mercy of judges like Jeremy Johnson……………………………………………………………………………..

If this is all starting to look like theatre, that is because it is. In dictatorships, these are called show trials. Everyone understands that the outcome is predetermined. Everyone understands that justice is non-existent. The verdict is entirely political. It is a faux-legal rationalisation of what the security state wants.

Judge Johnson is the perfect judge to play that part…………………….https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/11/legal-profession-revolt-against-the-uk-judge-whose-job-is-to-protect-israels-genocide/

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

SMRs axed from New Brunswick Power’s energy plan

it has become increasingly clear that faith in small modular technology is fleeting.

Looming integrated resource plan likely to leave out new nuclear, a dramatic change from the last plan the utility released

Adam Huras, Telegraph Journal, Jun 09, 2026 

NB Power’s new plan to meet New Brunswick’s electricity needs likely won’t include any new nuclear power, according to the utility.

It’s a dramatic change from the last plan the utility released just three years ago that relied heavily on adding small modular nuclear reactors over the next decade as a linchpin to meeting demand.

And it’s a move that raised eyebrows when first delivered by NB Power CEO Lori Clark at a major industry forum last week in Saint John set up to push forward new nuclear power in the province.

“In the short term, our integrated resource plan would say it’s gas plants, batteries are part of the solution going forward,” Clark said at the Pioneering New Nuclear in Atlantic Canada forum at the Saint John Trade & Convention Centre. That’s despite her openly backing new nuclear as the solution.

Clark also stated that legislation calls on the utility to pick the lowest-cost option to meet demand.

It means new nuclear power will largely be ruled out in a plan that’s soon to be released.

In a statement to Brunswick News, NB Power spokesperson Tracey Stephenson confirmed a new integrated resource plan, to be released in early fall, “focuses on least cost options” and, as a result, “it is likely that new nuclear will not be a part of the base case.”

Stephenson added that “existing nuclear” will be included in the plan.

“Sensitivities will be provided for new nuclear.”

Clark made clear her interest in pursuing additional nuclear capabilities in New Brunswick………………………………………………………………………..

Regardless, the new plan looks to say something different.

NB Power must release a new integrated resource plan every three years to reflect the changing energy landscape and customer expectations.

It ultimately lays out several likely scenarios NB Power can take in the decades ahead to balance demand for more power, calls from customers to keep rates stable, federal mandates, and provincial government direction.

The plan just three years ago was based heavily on small modular nuclear reactor development.

“SMRs are a critical part of the future of electricity in New Brunswick,” reads the 2023 plan. “They provide a unique opportunity for New Brunswick to offer stable and predictable carbon-free generation.”

Four scenarios developed by NB Power in 2023 banked on at least 450 megawatts of power from SMRs by 2034-35.

That ranged upward to 750 megawatts.

The only analysis that removed SMRs from future projections suggested the need for “extreme volumes of wind and solar builds,” over 4,000 megawatts, would be needed in its place.

Under the province’s Electricity Act, NB Power is legally required to seek out the lowest-cost options for energy generation.

That said, amendments to the act passed into law by the former Higgs government in December 2023 mandated the utility to purchase electricity generated by small modular nuclear reactors, even if it wasn’t the lowest-cost option.

Then-Energy Minister Mike Holland said that may have prevented power purchase agreements with SMR operators.

NB Power said in an email that “the mandate regarding the purchase of electricity from small nuclear reactor technology remains,” while pointing to the provincial government for further clarity.

With the Holt government in power, it has become increasingly clear that faith in small modular technology is fleeting.

Two SMR companies that have set up in New Brunswick have both pushed back timelines.

Amid delays, NB Power has said it’s completing pre-development work at Lepreau to accommodate a wide variety of SMRs working towards commercialization, giving the utility the flexibility to eventually choose a viable winner that might not be a made-in-New Brunswick design.

Energy Minister René Legacy said last October that the Holt government wasn’t interested in building a “first-of-a-kind” SMR at Lepreau, adding they’re “always the most expensive.”

Those words came after the federal government pledged $2 billion toward the building of four small modular nuclear reactors at Ontario’s Darlington nuclear plant, with that model now becoming an eventual option for New Brunswick.

More recently, Premier Susan Holt unveiled what she called an “action plan” in response to an independent review of the troubled utility’s finances and its recent pattern of large rate increases for customers.

That said, it delays decisions on things like splitting the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station into its own separate company, as well as a recommendation to build a second larger nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau.

Clark also stated that legislation calls on the utility to pick the lowest-cost option to meet demand.

It means new nuclear power will largely be ruled out in a plan that’s soon to be released. https://tj.news/new-brunswick/smrs-axed-from-nb-powers-energy-plan

June 17, 2026 Posted by | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Trump news at a glance: president claims Iran ‘no longer want a nuclear weapon’ amid peace deal hopes

Washington and Tehran express increasing optimism that weeks of halting negotiations may be drawing to a close – key US politics stories from Saturday 13 June at a glance

Guardian staff, 14 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/14/trump-news-at-a-glance-president-claims-iran-no-longer-want-a-nuclear-weapon-amid-peace-deal-hopes

Donald Trump says a deal with Iran to end the war would be signed on Sunday, and that the strait of Hormuz would be “open to all” immediately after.

Iran had offered a different timeline earlier in the day, but nonetheless signalled an agreement was in the offing, as both the warring parties and their mediators expressed increasing optimism that weeks of halting negotiations were drawing to a close.

“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform. Since an 8 April truce paused the worst of the fighting, Trump has repeatedly insisted a deal was near only for the wrangling to drag on.

The Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baqaei, had said earlier on Saturday that the date of the signing was yet to be determined, but “it will not be tomorrow”. However, he added: “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out.”

June 17, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

ROSATOM report

 Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has profoundly altered the
political and strategic environment in which the Russian state nuclear
corporation Rosatom operates. Not only has the war intensified scrutiny of
the corporation’s role in nuclear safety, energy security, and
international governance, but it has also highlighted the extent to which
Rosatom functions today at the intersection of technology, state policy,
and geopolitical influence.

In this report, we at Bellona continue to
analyze Rosatom during wartime. We argue that Rosatom can no longer be
understood solely through the traditional framework of a civilian nuclear
operator or global technology supplier. Rather, it has increasingly emerged
as a multifunctional state instrument—combining industrial, strategic,
and political roles both within Russia and internationally.

Several broader
conclusions emerge from the report: Rosatom’s wartime role has deepened
institutionally and politically, reinforcing its function not only as a
nuclear corporation, but as a strategic component of Russian state policy;
The occupation of the Zaporizhzhia NPP represents a challenge to
established assumptions in nuclear governance, exposing gaps in
international mechanisms designed to respond to conflict involving nuclear
infrastructure; Despite sanctions pressure and geopolitical disruption,
Rosatom has maintained significant external reach, particularly through
long-term projects in the Global South and through forms of nuclear
diplomacy that remain politically resilient.

 Bellona 11th June 2026, https://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/4/2026/06/ROSATOM_report_2026_ENG.pdf

June 17, 2026 Posted by | politics, Russia | Leave a comment

The push to lift Ireland’s nuclear ban: Going nuclear or nowhere?

“You can go into Harvey Norman in the morning and buy a solar panel. You can’t go anywhere and buy a small modular nuclear reactor.”

By Louise Byrne, RTE, 12 Jun 2026

From the backbenches of Fianna Fáil in recent months has emerged a political push to lift the ban in Ireland on nuclear power generators.

What’s behind the move to ‘go nuclear’ now? And is it a viable option, or a distraction from already proven renewable technologies?

In the late 1970s Ireland had its own version of Woodstock. Thousands of demonstrators descended on Carnsore Point to attend carnival-like protests against the development of the country’s first nuclear plant.

ESB engineers had chosen the Co Wexford site for its low population, stable geology and access to the Irish Sea for plant cooling.

Minister for Energy at the time, Desmond O’Malley dubbed the protesters “members of the flat-Earth society” hindering Ireland’s entry into the atomic age.

Yet the scale of opposition, the discovery of gas off Kinsale and the Three Mile Island accident in the US eventually led to the withdrawal of political support for the Carnsore Point project.

The u-turn was so pronounced by the late 1990s legislation was introduced to veto any future nuclear production.

Two Acts contain legislative blocks – the 1999 Electricity Regulation Act and 2024 Planning and Development Act, but there is no constitutional impediment to nuclear power. And for the first time in decades, the issue is back on the political agenda.

Fianna Fáil TD James O’Connor has introduced a bill which would reverse the legislative ban. The proposal has been supported by both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste……………………………………………………………..

Green Party leader Roderic O’Gorman described the idea as Government “kite flying”.

“The nuclear industry promises to deliver at a cheap price on a reasonable timescale but it doesn’t happen,” he told the programme.

“We should double down on delivering renewable energy, cutting bills for consumers and giving us energy security.”

Going nuclear, or going nowhere fast?

The war in Ukraine has highlighted our dependence on imported fuel and the argument goes that nuclear power may provide an additional low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels; one that can complement renewable sources.

The optimism of nuclear proponents lies in new technology called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are smaller reactors that require less cooling but that can produce up to a third of the power of large, conventional reactors.

Prefabricated units can be manufactured, shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable to build than large power reactors, according to the Institute for Atomic Energy Agency.

However, the new technology is still in development and is years away from being deployed at scale, said Dr Paul Deane, Senior Lecturer in Clean Energy Futures at University College Cork.

“There’s lots of uncertainty around the costs and capability of the technology and big questions on what you do with the nuclear waste.”

While keeping an open mind on its potential, Dr Deane cautioned that SMR technology was not yet commercially available.

“You can go into Harvey Norman in the morning and buy a solar panel. You can’t go anywhere and buy a small modular nuclear reactor.

“When something doesn’t exist in the commercial world everyone is able to be right and wrong about it because we’ve nothing to benchmark against.”

The delivery of nuclear power requires supply chains with a steady supply of raw materials as well as large workforces of highly specialised engineers. China and Russia are the only countries currently with operational small reactors, although Canada is developing the first such facility in a G7 nation.

“They started building it last year. It’s probably going to take about five years for it to be developed but then we’ve got to see, does it work?,” Dr Deane said.

For people like Roderic O’Gorman, the obvious step to improve our grid capacity while meeting climate goals is not untested nuclear technology, it’s investment in battery storage and renewable generation.

“Spain made a call after the Ukraine war to go with renewables, to go with solar. They now have the lowest wholesale electricity prices in Europe,” he said

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Small Modular Reactors are among the technologies being examined by the Sustainable Energy Authority as part of its Decarbonised Electricity System Study. It will present the Government with a range of options for decarbonising Ireland’s electricity system post-2030.

A draft technical report noted “SMRs are not expected to be available before 2045. Moderate scale deployment may be possible by 2050, but it is plausible that no nuclear fission will be deployed by 2050.”

“Optimistic scenarios” envisaged that SMRs could complement renewables by providing stable, low-carbon baseload power needed for grid stability, but legal complexity, upfront investment, and public acceptance remain significant hurdles, the report said.

The SEAI has cautioned that the report is provisional. “Subsequent work, that is currently under way, will provide a more precise assessment of the potential for the (decarbonising) technologies to be adopted within the Irish electricity system.

“Specific conclusions should be based on the final publication.”

Safety concerns have also not gone away, according to anti-nuclear activist Adi Roche who cited Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhia nuclear plant in Ukraine as evidence of the technology’s inherent security flaws.

“Nuclear facilities themselves can function as potential radiological weapons — “dirty bombs” whose consequences could be catastrophic without a single warhead being deployed,” she wrote in the Irish Examiner.

………………………………………………. Environmentalists contend that every euro invested in an Irish nuclear energy project is money that isn’t spent on green energy, grid resilience or large batteries that could smooth out renewable supplies.

There is no need, they argue, to revisit the Carnsore Point debate.https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2026/0612/1578039-the-push-to-lift-irelands-nuclear-ban-going-nuclear-or-nowhere/

June 17, 2026 Posted by | Ireland, spinbuster | Leave a comment

While Britain’s defence strategy comes under fire, the nuclear arms race continues

By Laura Tingle, Sat 13 June, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-13/nuclear-weapons-spending-united-kingdom-defence-aukus/106737440

When British Defence Secretary John Healey resigned on Thursday night, Australian time, the implications of his move were largely judged by what it would mean for the future of his embattled Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.

Healey was followed out the door hours later by the armed forces minister, Al Carns, and two ministerial aides.

The future shape of the British government is, of course, of great interest. And political battles are always a subject of public fascination.

But, in an increasingly rare event these days, Healey’s resignation was on a matter of principle.

That matter of principle helps shine a light on a much bigger story about the state of the world, geopolitics and war preparedness than the implications of resignations at Whitehall.

“You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats,” Healey wrote, damning his leader for failing to provide what many people would regard as the most fundamental of protections for a country’s population: its defence.

Britain’s growing nuclear weapon spend

There has been a long and complicated brawl going on in the British Labour government about defence spending; much of its public face being about the fact that other parts of the government would have to cut spending to fund plans to significantly increase defence spending — by about 15 billion pounds.

The debate has dragged on for some time since a strategic review of Britain’s defence needs was completed last year.

As the Royal United Services Institute wrote, the review never really gave a full description of the size and shape of the armed forces that was envisaged “akin to the kind of ‘order of battle’ seen in previous defence reviews”.

In other words, while the overall size of the British defence budget has been fought over, there is little known about how exactly it will be spent. Questions linger — does the UK aim to have a land army to fight a war in Europe? (Answer: unlikely). Does it need more conventional missiles and drones for such a war? And what’s the role of manned and unmanned naval power?

But one capability that seems to just blunder on with little scrutiny and increasingly little strategy is Britain’s nuclear capacity.

Two reports released this week document a surge in the number of nuclear weapons around the world in the past year. And not just their growth in number but a seemingly growing reliance on them, in an environment where most of the deterrence and detente architecture which kept things manageable in the past has been eroded.

The nature of nuclear weapons is changing. Analysts say the gap between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons is getting smaller, and the way nuclear weapons are conceived to be used is changing.

What makes the UK’s role in this story so compelling is that the current fracas has highlighted the fact that nuclear weapons will soon represent 25 per cent of Britain’s defence spend.

Not only that, but the small island nation has overtaken Russia in the past year as the third biggest spender on nuclear weapons.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which tracks military spending, noted the UK also announced last year its intention to buy 12 nuclear-capable F-35A combat aircraft from the USA, and equip them with US nuclear bombs, in order to join NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements. The plan walks back the decision from the 1990s to denuclearise the Royal Air Force.

‘A worrying development’

The rationale for escalation in nuclear weaponry is strongly linked to the United States’ declared plan to reduce its commitment to European defence.

So it is hardly surprising that the UK might be seeking to compensate for this.

But as British defence analyst Carne Ross said this week “the other unnoticed thing that’s going on in the UK and indeed Europe as a whole, is that the US is increasing its deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, so-called tactical nuclear weapons, which can have a yield of 50 kilotons, which is three times greater than the bomb used in Hiroshima”.

“There appears to be a rapid increase in the deployment of these tactical weapons in Britain, but also on continental Europe, maybe Turkey and elsewhere — bizarrely in response to the fact that Trump is less committed to the conventional military defence of Europe,” he told Al Jazeera podcast The Inside Story.

Read more: While Britain’s defence strategy comes under fire, the nuclear arms race continues

“This appears to be an appeal from the Europeans for greater security through tactical nuclear deployments. This is a very bizarre and paradoxical and indeed worrying development.”

But more than the usual difficulty in knowing just how defence dollars are being spent, anything specifically related to nuclear weapons has a tradition of being particularly opaque.

The Financial Times reported last week that Westminster’s Public Accounts Committee found that the Ministry of Defence has “not provided ‘sufficient transparency’ over its ever-increasing spending on nuclear weapons, which accounts for roughly a fifth of the UK defence budget”.

“The report criticised the secrecy surrounding Britain’s nuclear spending, saying the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, a collection of organisations that operate and maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent, ‘lacked accounting records to support more than £6bn of its assets’ in its 2024–25 annual report,” the FT reported.

Britain’s nuclear deterrent consists of submarines carrying US-made Trident nuclear missiles. Creating a new class of four Dreadnought nuclear submarines to take the place of the ageing Vanguard-class subs is expected to cost £41bn.

Nine nuclear-armed countries spending more

Where the story of the UK’s nuclear spend goes even wider though is in another report released this week by the anti-proliferation group the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) which documents the last year’s spending on nuclear weapons by the nine nuclear-armed countries. (That’s the US, China, UK, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.) 

ICAN says those nine states spent just under US$119 billion ($168 billion) on their nuclear arsenals in 2025, a staggering increase of 19 per cent from the previous year.

The US had the biggest increase (US$12.4 billion) and spent more than all the others combined — US$69.2 billion.

China remained in second place. But the UK came in third at US$12.6 billion, overtaking Russia.

While the US and Israel went to war to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, they are both believed to have them — even though Israel has never confirmed it possesses them.

ICAN’s Susi Snyder told the same Al Jazeera podcast this week: “On average, we see an increase of about 10 per cent. Last year, it was almost double that. So it is by far one of the largest increases we have ever seen.”

Nuclear war and weapons have historically been seen as a threat of missiles exchange over continents in a showdown between the “great” powers.

But the sheer cost and difficulties of warfare in modern times gives too many countries some sense of relatively easy security in having a nuclear “deterrent”.

SIPRI notes that in 2025 several European states, including Germany, indicated a desire to supplement NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements focused on US weapons with similar arrangements with France and the UK.

A changing warfare landscape

There are two major confrontations going on in Europe and the Middle East at present. (The conflicts in Africa seem beyond the reach of nuclear stand-offs at present).

In both the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East, we have been witnessing increasing signs of frustrated eruptions between combatants — notably around the Strait of Hormuz this week — as fights bog down into apparently intractable conflict.

The risks of an accident have seemed all too clear.

The prospect of nuclear weapons being used in either Ukraine or the Middle East, rather than being fired between Moscow, Washington or Beijing has risen.

SIPRI Director Karim Haggag says that “influential voices, including some world leaders, are advocating nuclear weapons as a guarantee against attack by a hostile state. But making national defence and security strategies dependent, or more dependent, on nuclear weapons could significantly increase nuclear risks.”

Tariq Rauf, the former head of verification and security at the International International Atomic Energy Agency agrees.

“First of all, we have new types of delivery systems, supersonic delivery systems, hypersonic delivery systems,” Rauf told Al Jazeera. 

“The gap between large conventional weapons and small-yield nuclear weapons is now largely disappearing. So, we can now have conventional weapons used with strategic effect to even try to take out nuclear bases and decision makers.”

The Healey resignation came just hours before he was supposed to stand up at Portsmouth to trumpet AUKUS with Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

Like much of the British media, Marles chose to focus on the personnel change, rather than what might have driven it, in his comments.

AUKUS, he said, would continue, as it already had across changes of government in the UK, the US and Australia “because it fundamentally is in the national strategic interests of the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, and all of that gives us a sense of confidence that we will be able to deliver this”.

The only question is over the value of delivering “this” at a time when the threats and means of warfare are changing by the day, in ways most of us can’t easily see.

Laura Tingle is the ABC’s Global Affairs Editor. 

June 17, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Can small nuclear reactors deliver for Europe?

SMR’s promise affordable, low-carbon nuclear power, but the continent will reap the benefits only if governments abandon piecemeal projects and deploy reactors at scale.

The Parlament Magazine, By Matej Tonin and Malwina Qvist, 11 June 26

Europe needs reliable, low-carbon power for its industries, cities and energy security and it will need even more in the coming decade. Small modular reactors are increasingly seen as part of the solution, but only if the European Union develops them as an industrial program rather than a series of scattered national experiments.

SMRs must be deployed as a fleet. Repetition can reduce costs and build the supply chains Europe needs. The next three years will determine whether Europe develops that capability itself or watches it emerge elsewhere.

The fleet logic

SMRs are often sold on the promise of being cheaper than large reactors. On a first-of-a-kind basis, they are not.

Their economics depend on something different: serial production.

An illustrative model by the EFI Foundation shows why: in a four-unit SMR order book, the fourth unit is around one-sixth cheaper than the first. The savings come from factory fabrication, standardized designs, established supply chains and the learning gained from each successive unit.

This has a policy implication. In the short term, no single European market will be able to anchor a fleet on its own. The order book needed to drive SMRs down their cost curve must be European in scale, otherwise large-scale deployment will remain out of reach.

The European Commission projects between 17 and 53 gigawatts of SMR capacity across the EU by 2050.

The range itself is telling: even the lower bound would require a serious industrial program; the upper bound would put Europe among the leaders in SMR deployment. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/oped-can-small-nuclear-reactors-deliver-lowcost-energy-for-europe

June 17, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

No electricity at Zaporizhia nuclear power plant after attack, IAEA says

11 Jun 2026 , https://swedenherald.com/article/no-electricity-at-zaporizhia-nuclear-power-plant-after-attack-iaea-says

An attack has disrupted the electricity supply to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Russian-occupied southern Ukraine, the UN atomic energy agency, the IAEA, announced.

No elevated radioactivity has been recorded, the IAEA said in a statement, adding that diesel generators are currently used to power critical functions, including cooling systems.

It is not clear who is behind the attack at the facility, which is Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. It occurred on Wednesday evening and was aimed at a nearby transformer station.

Kyiv and Moscow have repeatedly accused each other of risking a disaster by attacking the nuclear power plant and its nearby area.

The power outage is the 19th since Russia’s full-scale offensive war against Ukraine began in February 2022.

June 17, 2026 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »