Scotland & Nuclear Power
A fresh opinion poll conducted in the middle of the Scottish election
campaign has found widespread support for renewable energy sources to
reduce energy bills and tackle climate change.
When asked about
Scotland’s energy security needs, support for a uranium-fuelled nuclear
future polled a ‘miserable’ 14%, compared to 55% support for harvesting
home grown wind, water and solar sources. The findings will likely make
grim reading for Scottish Labour and Libdem campaign bosses who are
promoting new nuclear power stations, due to resounding support for
renewables compared to nuclear, from their own voters.
SCRAM 20th April 2026,
https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/scram/
THE US HAS NO ROUTE TO VICTORY IN IRAN WHICH WILL LIKELY EMERGE STRONGER
THIS ADVENTURE MAY DO TO AMERICAN COLONIALISM WHAT SUEZ DID TO THE BRITISH AND THE FRENCH
Ian Proud, Apr 19, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/the-us-has-no-route-to-victory-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=194637482&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I was pleased to meet Laith Marouf, a War Correspondent and Executive Director of Free Palestine TV for the first time.
As Laith is based in Lebanon, we discussed the recently announced 10 day ceasefire with Israel, and whether it might endure. This ceasefire had clearly been imposed on Netanyahu by Trump, but what was the prevent Israel from returning to position normal after any putative peace deal over Iran? Laith laid out the historical and religious reasons why Iran would never abandon Lebanon purely to obtain a peace deal with the USA. Other people I have spoken to talk about the muti-confessional nature of Lebanon but that, come what may, Hezbollah remains a powerful force in politics, that won’t be eradicated by air strikes.
So, Israeli conquest of Lebanon will likely never be possible for as long as Iran remains a powerful force in the region.
We therefore discussed the US and Israel’s inability to inflict a defeat on Iran. There is no evidence that the US has the capability or the political capital at home to endure an extended military engagement with a country, thousands of miles from the US, geographically and by population size far bigger than any adversary confronted in the twenty first century, and with the support of the two big regional military and economic powers, Russia and China.
The only way that the US can impose a defeat on Iran is to precipitate regime change and despite Trump’s ramblings about regime change equating to a change of leader (sic!) the proposition that a modern-day Shah can be returned to the throne in Tehran have never looked possible or remotely likely.
That leaves the US militarily stuck in a conflict that is causing global economic shocks that are mobilising both the developing world and parts of the western world against American hegemony. Iran may be to US colonialism what Suez was to the British and French.
Laith situated this latest war in the context of what he describes as the 100 years of humiliation for the Muslim world.
Iran differs from the Arab world in having civilisational integrity and history that will endure this latest attempt at subjugation by western powers. War in the other hand is putting significant pressure on the smaller more fragmented governments across the Arab world which are reliant for survival on the umbrella of US hegemony which is collapsing.
We briefly considered the risk of nuclear escalation in Iran and the likelihood that this, ultimately, would backfire spectacularly on the west with a potentially enormous flood of refugees heading west, not to mention the intense ecological damage and the impact that would have on the global economy. Lots of people pontificate about Israel using tactical nukes, which, while I consider Netanyahu desperate to cling to power, I consider unlikely if only because it would likely sever the hitherto ironclad relationship with the US and lead to more immediate and existential risks to the functioning and integrity of Israel as a state.
We discussed Israel’s nuclear capability and how it can coexist in a more peaceable way with other countries in the region. Laith drew on the example of Apartheid South Africa which was also nuclear armed but which gave up its nuclear programme and completely shifted its model of governance to abandon the rule of white supremacists.
In the completely hypothetical scenario of Israel doing the same – which looks wholly unlikely anytime soon – I asked about the position of Jewish people in Israel under theoretical Palestinian rule. We considered the outlier role of the Jewish community in Iran which is the only major subset of Judaism that isn’t hardwired into the ecosystem of Zionism as a potential model.
In the final analysis, whenever the war against Iran ends, however it ends, Iran appears likely to emerge in a stronger position as a regional superpower than it held before the war started, indeed, before Donald Trump abandoned the JCPOA deal. US power and influence, on the other hand, continues to shatter, ushering in a multipolar world with greater clarity.
A genuinely thought-provoking discussion which I’d encourage you to watch via the link above. I had a microphone problem so my audio is terrible, though still audible.
TRUMP SAYS “ENOUGH”—BUT ISRAEL PUSHES ON IN LEBANON WAR LATEST
April 17, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/17/trump-says-enough-but-israel-pushes-on-in-lebanon-war-latest/
A fragile pause in the widening Middle East war is colliding with escalating rhetoric, conflicting claims, and continued violence on the ground.
In a flurry of social media posts, President Donald Trump declared that the United States had directly intervened to halt further Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
“Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer,” Trump wrote.
“They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you!”The statement, issued amid a rapidly evolving ceasefire framework, suggests a level of U.S. leverage over Israeli military operations that officials and analysts have long debated—but rarely seen asserted so bluntly.
Yet even as Trump claimed de-escalation, events on the ground told a more complicated story.
Reports out of southern Lebanon indicated continued violence, including a drone strike that killed at least one person despite the announced ceasefire. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled no intention of ending the broader campaign.
“Israel is “not done yet” with Hezbollah, Netanyahu said, describing a strategy of pursuing both military pressure and political negotiation simultaneously.”
Hormuz Reopens—But Under Pressure
At the same time, Iran announced that the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical oil chokepoints—would be reopened to commercial shipping during the ceasefire period.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated:
“Passage for all commercial vessels through [the] Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire.”
Trump quickly echoed the announcement, declaring the strait: “COMPLETELY OPEN AND READY FOR BUSINESS AND FULL PASSAGE.”
But the reopening came with contradictions. While signaling relief for global markets—oil prices reportedly dropped sharply following the news—the U.S. simultaneously maintained its military pressure.
“The naval blockade will remain in full force and effect … until such time as our transaction with Iran is 100% complete,” Trump said.
In other words: open waters, closed fists.
Conflicting Claims, No Clear Deal
Despite Trump’s sweeping declarations—including that Iran had agreed to “never close the Strait of Hormuz again”—there was no immediate confirmation from Iranian officials.
On the ground and in diplomatic channels, uncertainty remains the defining feature of this moment.
Negotiations are reportedly ongoing, with proposals for a temporary framework lasting several weeks. But key issues—including sanctions relief, uranium enrichment, and regional military activity—remain unresolved.
Even Trump appeared to acknowledge the disconnect, insisting:
“This deal is not tied, in any way, to Lebanon.”
That separation may be more rhetorical than real.
Ceasefire or Illusion?
The current 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon has already shown signs of strain. While some displaced civilians have begun returning home, analysts warn that the underlying dynamics of the conflict remain unchanged.
“Hezbollah will keep its ‘finger on the trigger’” if violations continue, one warning noted, underscoring how quickly the situation could unravel.
And with more than a million people displaced and thousands killed in recent weeks, the pause—however real or temporary—offers only limited relief.
A War Paused, Not Ended
What emerges from the past 24 hours is not clarity, but contradiction.
A ceasefire declared—and violated.
A waterway reopened—under blockade.
A bombing campaign “prohibited”—while leaders vow to continue fighting.The language of peace is here. The reality of war has not left.
And as global powers posture over oil routes, naval blockades, and regional leverage, the question is no longer whether the conflict can pause—
—but whether anyone is actually in control of it.
As the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran spills across the region, a sudden ceasefire in Lebanon is being framed as a breakthrough—but the reality is far more unstable. Iran’s influence appears to have forced a pause on one front, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and easing global economic panic, while Israel signals it has no intention of ending its campaign against Hezbollah. At the center of it all is Donald Trump, claiming control over both escalation and restraint—yet presiding over a situation where bombs still fall and tensions continue to rise.
In this live discussion from Breakthrough News, analysts break down what’s really driving the ceasefire, how battlefield dynamics forced political shifts, and whether Washington is actually capable—or willing—to restrain Israel. Is this the beginning of de-escalation, or just a temporary pause before a wider war?
“I Felt Like a Monster”: Israeli Soldiers Break Silence on Gaza—and the System Behind It
And what lingers in these testimonies is not just what was done, but what it did to those who carried it out. Soldiers speak of shame, of dissociation, of an inability to reconcile their actions with any moral framework. The military calls it PTSD. But the soldiers—and some experts—call it something else: moral injury. Not fear of what happened to them, but horror at what they themselves became.
April 18, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/18/i-felt-like-a-monster-israeli-soldiers-break-silence-on-gaza-and-the-system-behind-it/
The official narrative isn’t just cracking—it’s being dismantled by the very people who carried it out.
In a devastating investigation, Israeli soldiers are now speaking in their own words about what they did, what they witnessed, and what their commanders allowed in Gaza. These are not secondhand accusations or political attacks. They are confessions—raw, detailed, and impossible to dismiss.
“I Felt Like a Monster”: Israeli Soldiers Expose ‘Moral Injury’—and a System Built on Silence
They describe opening fire on unarmed civilians identified only as “targets” on a drone feed. They describe prisoners humiliated, abused, and discarded. They describe executions—men surrendering with hands raised, only to be shot and later labeled “terrorists.” And they describe something just as revealing as the violence itself: a system where none of this leads to accountability.
What emerges is not chaos. It is structure.
This is not the “fog of war.” It is policy by practice—kill first, justify later, investigate never.
As we have seen in this country, the destructive effects of the “fog of war”—the brutal killings, the unjustified pushes toward empire—do not end on the battlefield. The damage lives on in the soldiers who are sent to carry it out. And too often, it feels as if those in power simply do not care. But we can choose something different. We can listen. We can create space for those who were there to speak honestly about what they saw and did. And in doing so, we can begin to confront the truth—not from the top down, but from the ground up—where real accountability, and the possibility of change, actually begins.
And what lingers in these testimonies is not just what was done, but what it did to those who carried it out. Soldiers speak of shame, of dissociation, of an inability to reconcile their actions with any moral framework. The military calls it PTSD. But the soldiers—and some experts—call it something else: moral injury. Not fear of what happened to them, but horror at what they themselves became.
Because moral injury doesn’t just indict individuals—it indicts systems.
This is not a new phenomenon in Israel. The concept of “moral injury” has been studied for years, but what Israeli researchers and clinicians are now documenting gives it renewed urgency—and clarity. It names what many soldiers themselves are struggling to articulate: a rupture between what they did, or were ordered to do, and the values they believed they held. Unlike PTSD, which is rooted in fear, moral injury is rooted in recognition—the realization that lines were crossed, often knowingly, in the heat of revenge, chaos, and command pressure. Psychologists working directly with troops describe a pattern: soldiers firing on people later found to be uninvolved, approving strikes with known civilian casualties, or participating in actions they justified in the moment but cannot live with afterward. The consequences are severe—depression, shame, substance abuse, even suicidal thoughts—but the deeper implication is structural. This is not just about individual breakdowns. It reflects a system that places soldiers in situations where moral collapse becomes not an exception, but an expectation.
It exposes a military culture that normalizes dehumanization, a political structure that shields it, and an international order that enables it. It reveals a reality that cannot be dismissed as isolated misconduct or “a few bad actors,” but instead points to a pattern—repeated, reinforced, and quietly accepted.
And of course it may take years for the damage the understanding to take hold with Y Net Global reporting “One of the complexities of moral injury is that it does not always appear at the moment of action,” Levi-Belz said. “Sometimes it emerges weeks later, after you take off the uniform. Sometimes years later.”
“There is no doubt that among IDF soldiers and reservists there has been an increase in moral injury compared to routine operations,” he said. Based on clinical experience and preliminary samples, he estimates that 40 percent to 50 percent of soldiers, particularly reservists, encountered morally injurious events during the war.
And that is where the story turns outward.
Because none of this unfolds in a vacuum. The bombs, the cover, the diplomatic protection—all of it flows, in part, from Washington. The United States continues to fund, arm, and politically defend the very system these soldiers are now describing from within.
The facts are no longer hidden. The voices are no longer external critics. They are coming from inside the system itself.
So the question is no longer whether the world knows.
The question is whether it is willing to act—or whether it will choose, again, to look away.
Because when even the perpetrators are telling the truth, silence is no longer ignorance.
It is complicity.
America’s pro-Israel J Street says Israel should pay out-of-pocket if it wants US weapons
The pro-Israel advocacy group likely changed its tune after widespread popular opposition to taxpayer-funded weapons
By MEE staff, 13 April 2026 , https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/j-street-says-israel-should-pay-out-pocket-if-it-wants-us-weapons
The pro-Israel advocacy group J Street is now calling for an end to “direct” US military support to Israel, per a new policy document published on Monday.
The group had previously backed Washington’s continued provision of defensive weapons systems, such as the replenishment of Israel’s Iron Dome, at no cost to Israelis.
Now, it says the US “should continue to sell” short-range air and ballistic missile defence capabilities to Israel, but Israel should use its own money to pay for them.
“Israel faces real security challenges that require a significant defense investment. With a per capita GDP comparable to leading US allies such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan, as well as an annual defense budget of over $45 billion, it has the financial means to address these challenges,” J Street said.
“It does not require almost $4 billion per year in US financial subsidies to purchase weapons,” it added.
“Continuing this assistance is both unnecessary and politically counterproductive, creating avoidable tensions in US domestic politics and in the bilateral relationship.”
The way the current military aid package operates is that the US provides Israel with American taxpayer funds, and those funds are put into US weapons companies to acquire equipment.
On its website, J Street says that it “organizes pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans to promote US policies that embody our deeply held Jewish and democratic values and that help secure the State of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people”.
Political tide turns
J Street’s shift follows a distinct change in attitudes towards Israel among the American public after the genocide in Gaza, where over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel’s war on the enclave broke out in October 2023.
But perhaps more importantly for the group, whose support base is made up of Democrats, the party’s future is changing course.
Progressive New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is widely believed to be seeking higher office, announced earlier this month that she would no longer vote for any US military support to Israel, despite having previously backed the provision of defensive weapons, much to the disappointment of many of her supporters.
It is notable, however, that her statement followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s surprise declaration earlier this year that Israel will not seek to renew its military aid package with the US in 2028.
“I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” all the way down to zero, Netanyahu told The Economist in January.
J Street’s new position demands that any future US arms sales that Israel pays for out-of-pocket “be fully consistent with American law”, which echoed Ocasio-Cortez’s statement.
US law prohibits security assistance to any country whose government engages in a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations or blocks or restricts the transport or delivery of US-backed humanitarian aid.
“US arms sales to Israel should be further conditioned to incentivize alignment with American interests and laws – as has been the case with other allies and partners – when their behavior is inconsistent with US interests,” J Street said.
At the same time, the group acknowledges that Washington and Israel generally share the same interests anyway.
“The US also benefits meaningfully from the relationship. Intelligence sharing has been critical in campaigns such as the fight against ISIS, while joint operations such as Israel’s 2006 strike on Syria’s secret nuclear facility have advanced shared security goals.”
It added that because “approximately 500,000 American citizens live in Israel”, selling it weapons should continue to be a US national security priority.
Israel Destroys a Synagogue; US Media Yawn
“Iranian Jews are viewed by Iranians as indigenous,” he said. “They’re the original Bundists,” a nod to the Jewish political movement that “stood not just for socialism, but for do’ikayt—Yiddish for ‘hereness,’” the concept that a Jew’s homeland was in whatever nation they resided in (New York Times, 4/6/26).
Ari Paul, April 16, 2026 https://fair.org/home/israel-destroys-a-synagogue-us-media-yawn/
An Israeli missile attack destroyed a Tehran synagogue during the Jewish Passover holiday (Religion News Service, 4/9/26). The Israeli military “expressed regret over what it called ‘collateral damage’ to a synagogue in Tehran caused by an overnight strike,” which was “targeting a senior Iranian commander,” said the Middle East Eye (4/7/26).
Photos of the wreckage at the Rafi-Nia Synagogue have accompanied many of these pieces. The Council on American-Islamic relations condemned the attack in a statement (4/7/26):
We strongly condemn the Israeli regime’s bombing of a synagogue in Tehran, which was the predictable end result of the indiscriminate US/Israel bombing campaign against mosques, hospitals, schools, apartments and other civilian sites across Iran.
The group challenged “various Israel advocacy groups and politicians that support this war in the name of protecting Israel to condemn Israel’s synagogue attack.”
Buried at best
The story of the attack on the Tehran synagogue was, at best, buried in the US corporate media. CNN posted a brief video (4/7/26) about the bombing but had no online article about it. The New York Times (4/7/26, 4/7/26) mentioned the attack, but as background in broader stories about the US/Israel war on Iran.
A search for “Rafi-Nia” on the Washington Post website yields no results. Ditto for the AP, although the news service did post a video to YouTube (4/7/26). Al Jazeera’s coverage (4/7/26) of the attack was a mélange of AP and AFP copy. CBS News (4/7/26) also used a few paragraphs of AFP copy to report on the attack, although it was buried in the middle of a general timeline about the war.
The Wall Street Journal (4/7/26) had the story, but led with Israel’s contrition over the destruction; that’s not a journalistic construction we see in US news coverage when it comes to the Israeli bombings of other civilian structures in Iran, Gaza or Lebanon. When Israel destroys a hospital, apartment building, encampment, etc., the stories don’t lead with official regret, but rather include Israeli claims that the civilian facilities were actually legitimate military targets. The Journal’s lead provided the government with public relations cover over the sensitive issue of destroying a Jewish house of worship.
Newsweek (4/8/26), once a bigger player in the US media landscape, led with condemnation of the attack from Jewish Iranian leaders, who declared “their unwavering solidarity with Iran in defending the homeland.”
Jewish presence in Iran
Underplaying the story obscures not only the wantonness of Israel’s aggression, but the actual nature of Iranian society, which is portrayed as obsessed with wiping Jews off the map (ADL, 6/25/25). “Iranian foreign policy freely mixes anti-Israel furies with anti-Jewish ones,” wrote New York Times columnist Bret Stephens (1/13/26), a pro-war cheerleader (2/22/26, 3/24/26).
In fact, while Israel is obviously the center of Mideastern Jewish life, the Iranian Jewish population dwarfs those elsewhere in the Middle East. “Estimates range from 9,000 to 20,000 Jews currently living in Iran,” according to the Forward (6/18/25).
Wrote the Palestine Chronicle (3/6/26): “The Jewish presence in Iran is among the oldest continuous Jewish communities in the world, with roots that historians trace back more than two millennia.”
Yes, Iran is a theocracy; the government is no model for an open society. But there is a Jewish member of Iran’s parliament, who even went on record this year openly criticizing Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s handling of popular unrest (i24, 1/29/26).
‘Well-protected second-class citizens’
US media have covered the Jews of Iran before. USA Today (8/29/18) did a story in 2018, reporting from Tehran. Former Forward reporter Larry Cohler-Esses (8/12/15, 8/12/15, 8/18/15, 8/27/15) reported extensively and critically on Iranian Jews, indicating that the country was at least open to letting a reporter for a Jewish publication do their job.
Cohler-Esses told FAIR that Jews in Iran are “well-protected second-class citizens.” In fact, when he read about the attack, he “wondered if it was the synagogue I spent Shabbat in, but it wasn’t,” because there are more than a dozen active synagogues in Tehran—a reflection of the size of the Jewish community there.
Recalling his 2015 reporting trip, Cohler-Esses said that on Shabbat, Jews would spill out of their synagogues and mingle in the street after services, a sight he didn’t often see in many places in Europe. In one instance, after he left a synagogue service, one of the congregants ran after him through a street teeming with people, wearing a kippah and a tallit (traditional religious attire), and “no one batted an eye.”
The Jews of Iran do suffer discrimination, because Muslims are favored in the legal code over all non-Muslims, Cohler-Esses said. He noted that the Jewish population of Iran has shrunk significantly since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
“Iranian Jews are viewed by Iranians as indigenous,” he said. “They’re the original Bundists,” a nod to the Jewish political movement that “stood not just for socialism, but for do’ikayt—Yiddish for ‘hereness,’” the concept that a Jew’s homeland was in whatever nation they resided in (New York Times, 4/6/26).
Cohler-Esses was hopeful that coverage of the synagogue’s destruction in the Jewish and Israeli press (JTA, 4/7/26; Jerusalem Post, 4/7/26) had the “potential to make Jewish readers of Jewish media outlets go, ‘Oh, they have synagogues there.’” But with the underplaying of the story in US media, it’s a missed teachable moment for news consumers generally.
More robust press coverage of the attack could have taught Americans that the Jews of Iran do have something to fear: Israel.
THE NEW NUCLEAR POWER PUSH INTENSIFIES PART 1
Enviro Close-Up #712, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZxgwmJi-ew
The push for nuclear power has intensified. It’s as if the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power disasters never occurred —and the growing and widespread use of safe, clean, green energy, led by solar and wind, is not happening.
In this Enviro Close-Up, three experts on nuclear issues, each for many decades, analyze what’s going on. Kevin Kamps, executive director of the organization Don’t Waste Michigan, says the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has “from the beginning…not been about nuclear safety and nuclear security, the environment, public health, the list goes on…but it’s never been worse than it is now.”
Nuclear regulations are in freefall. It’s the “nuclear push on steroids,” says Kamps. Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer and former nuclear industry vice president who broke from the industry and for decades has been a leading nuclear whistleblower, says: “I’ve always said the NRC is a lapdog, but under Trump the lapdog has had its vocal cords cut and its teeth ground down.”
Attorney Terry Lodge, who has been in court battle after court battle in challenges to nuclear power, describes it as “the most dangerous, inherently technologically difficult way of boiling water…and it continues to be that.” Further, the NRC and the agency it replaced, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, have been “the absolute epitome, textbook examples of captive regulatory agencies….owned and dominated politically by the industry that they supposedly regulate.” Also, it’s “the most expensive” energy technology, and in financing it “we’re siphoning off money” from energy forms that are to create “faster…and cheaper, to feed a nuclear industry.” And the intensified nuclear push in the U.S. is going on elsewhere in the world.
With 38,000+ Dead, Women and Girls Make Up Over Half of Those Killed in Israel’s US-Backed War on Gaza: UN
“Not a single combatant among them,” said one human rights activist. “Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians.”
Brad Reed for Common Dreams, Apr 17, 2026 https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-war-women
Israel’s yearslong assault on Gaza has killed more than 38,000 women and girls, according to a report released Friday by the United Nations.
In total, the UN found that at least 22,000 women and 16,000 girls have been killed in the conflict, an average of nearly 50 women and girls per day.
Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action at UN Women, said the report shows how Israel’s war on Gaza “has affected every aspect of life, with its most horrific toll seen in the scale of death.”
“Women and girls accounted for a proportion of deaths far higher than those observed in previous conflicts in Gaza,” Calltorp emphasized. “Those killed were mothers, they were daughters, sisters, and friends—deeply loved by those around them. They were individuals with lives and with dreams.”
More than 72,000 people in total have been killed since Israel launched its attack on Gaza in October 2023, after Hamas invaded Israeli territory and killed approximately 1,200 Israelis. Experts warn that the current known death toll is likely an undercount.
While Palestinian women and girls represent more than half of those who have been killed, according to the report, Israeli and US officials have persisted in claiming the US-backed assault has targeted Hamas fighters.
“Not a single combatant among them,” said Ramy Abdul, chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. “Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians.”
Although a ceasefire has been in place since October 2025, the report notes that an estimated 730 Gaza residents have been killed over the last six months. Additionally, the report says the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire.
“Nearly one million women and girls have been displaced, repeatedly,” said Calltorp. “Access to water and food have been severely limited, with nearly 790,000 women and girls experiencing crisis-level or catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Extensive damage to infrastructure has made it almost impossible for women and girls in Gaza to access their basic needs, like healthcare.”
Calltorp demanded that the ceasefire deal “be fully implemented,” and that “respect for international law must be upheld” to ease the suffering in Gaza.
“Humanitarian assistance must reach those in need—at scale and without obstruction,” Calltorp said. “And women and girls must be placed at the center of response and recovery efforts.”
In addition to causing a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, Israel in recent weeks has also been waging an aerial bombing and ground invasion in Lebanon that has killed thousands of people and displaced more than 1 million. US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that Israel and Lebanon came to a ceasefire agreement that is set to last for 10 days.
At the same time, Israeli settlers have been waging a campaign of increased violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank, and veteran Israeli war correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai on Thursday declared that the actions of the settlers look like “ethnic cleansing.”
Zaporizhzhia NPP loses external power for the second time in a week, IAEA investigates
Kyiv • UNN, April 17 2026,
The Zaporizhzhia NPP has temporarily lost all external power for the fourteenth time
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant temporarily lost all external power supply, which was subsequently restored. This was reported by the IAEA, which is currently studying the situation and investigating the incident, writes UNN.
Details
According to the agency, the incident occurred in the evening. External power was restored approximately 40 minutes later.
The cause of the outage is currently unknown and is being investigated by specialists on site.ime since the start of the war. The IAEA is conducting an investigation due to critical nuclear safety risks.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated that this is the second such incident in less than a week and the 14th since the beginning of the full-scale war.
The loss of external power supply underscores the ongoing critical nuclear safety situation– he noted.
The IAEA team at the plant continues to monitor and investigate the circumstances of the incident. The agency emphasizes that such failures pose a serious risk to nuclear safety. https://unn.ua/en/news/zaporizhzhia-npp-loses-external-power-for-the-second-time-in-a-week-iaea-investigates
US Mining Plan Will Sacrifice Mexico’s Environment for Weapons and Tech
A new mining agreement provides no benefits for Mexico and fails to address health and environmental impacts.
By Tamara Pearson , Truthout, April 18, 2026
The U.S. and Mexico have established a mining agreement which has Indigenous and other residents of the Sierra Norte mountains, as well as activists around Mexico, worried.
Announced on February 4, the U.S.-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals aims to guarantee the U.S.’s supply of minerals for its arms industry, technology like data centers and smartphones, and the so-called energy transition. It sets out price floors, identification of mining projects, geological mapping coordination, and mineral location identification for the U.S., but provides no benefits for Mexico and fails to address health and environmental impacts.
“They want us to show these gringo companies where the minerals are and then go and hand over everything, all without a fuss,” said Miguel Sánchez Olvera, a Totonac man from the Sierra Norte region who has been at the forefront of struggles that have expelled mines from the area. “That’s concerning, because where does it leave us, as Mexicans? Basically, they are going to keep stealing from us.”
The beautiful Sierra Norte — teeming with rivers and sprawling forests, and where a majority of people speak Indigenous languages — has massive amounts of minerals that the U.S. has identified as “critical,” such as manganese, gold, silver, and copper.
According to NATO, manganese is one of 12 minerals critical for the weapons industry; it is used in submarines, fighter aircraft, tanks, and torpedoes. For Mexico, however, manganese is a source of distress before it is even processed. In the lush Sierra Norte cordillera, stark black mountains of manganese ore and slag piles are set off by smoking chimneys from a plant run by Autlán, a major Mexican mining company. Homes nearby are drenched in black stains. Residents describe mornings of black clouds along the ground and black dust covering their windows.
Autlán operates four electric furnaces in its Teziutlán plant to smelt manganese ore, producing ferroalloys. Manganese is also on the U.S.’s critical minerals list and aside from weapons, it is vital to batteries and other steel applications.
Mexico as a whole is the top silver-producing country, and among the top producers of copper, lead, and zinc — all on the U.S.’s list. Silver is vital for new weapon systems, hypersonic missiles, bombs, fighter jets, satellites, torpedoes, radar systems, AI data centers, electric vehicles, 5G infrastructure, and smartphones. Demand for copper for munitions is skyrocketing as the U.S. restocks its arsenal, and it is essential for armor and electronics. Copper supply problems can cause significant weapon production delays, and supply chain vulnerabilities for weapons manufacturers.
The U.S. is home to 6 of the top 10 global arms companies and 13 of the top 15 global tech companies. The White House’s 2027 budget includes over 18 billion U.S dollars for the Department of Defense to stockpile minerals that are critical to the military industry. That figure is up from the current 2 billion U.S. dollars.
A few days before the U.S.-Mexico plan was signed, the White House had also announced Project Vault, which will establish a public-private partnership to stockpile critical minerals for U.S. businesses. These moves “imply hyper-extractivism — or basically, renewed extractivism,” César Enrique Pineda, a researcher and professor of geopolitical and capitalist intersections with the environment at the José María Luis Mora Research Institute, told Truthout……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Nobody Benefits From Weapons Except Weapons Companies
But while the mining industry is being heard, the mines bring no economic benefits to the country or to nearby communities.
“I very much doubt that Mexico would benefit economically from this plan because it has never been that way with mining projects. Extraction only contributes 0.9 percent to the GDP, for example,” said Olivera. “Mining represents just 0.66 percent of formal employment, and in terms of taxes, they contribute very little.” There are 22,247 active mining concessions in Mexico, with a total surface area of 10.2 million hectares, or 5.2 percent of Mexico’s territory………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mining’s Legacy of Environmental Disaster
The U.S.-Mexico action plan “benefits investors, but it doesn’t benefit us at all,” said Urbano Córdova Guerraas, a local resident and also a member of Servicios Ambientales Amelatzin Hualactoc as we chatted in a small eatery near the Autlán plant. To extract copious amounts of manganese, Autlán has destroyed whole mountain tops in nearby Hidalgo state, buying off local politicians in order to do so. In Zoquitlán, Autlán chopped down 77 hectares of forest for a hydroelectric plant…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Imposing Destruction
In order to operate without disruption, mining companies in Mexico are often involved in the disappearance of activists and with organized crime. The top minerals that attract organized crime groups are the same critical minerals that Mexico plans to supply to the U.S…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Over the years, thousands of organized communities have declared themselves “mining-free territory” to legally prohibit mining in their territory.
Stopping mines after the fact is much harder, but many communities are willing to wage the legal and organizational battle. Even after victory, the struggle continues.
“We want to clean our rivers, so that the Sierra Norte de Puebla can be a paradise again,” said Sánchez. https://truthout.org/articles/us-mining-plan-will-sacrifice-mexicos-environment-for-weapons-and-tech/
Collapsing Empire: Hezbollah Crushes ‘Greater Israel’
Kit Klarenberg, Global Delinquents, Apr 17, 2026
On April 8th, the Zionist entity struck a demonic blow to the heart of Beirut, dropping 1,000 pound bombs in densely packed residential areas, killing untold civilians and injuring many more. One of Lebanon’s most dire mass-killings since the end of the 1990 civil war, it marked the resumption of Israel’s avowedly genocidal invasion. With bombs raining down apace even as rare in-person talks between the pair near, Zionist Occupation Force-backed settlers are moving quickly to establish a permanent presence in the country’s south.
Whatever abrupt pause in the war on the Islamic Republic can be sustained by duelling Iranian and US blockades of the Strait Of Hormuz must be viewed in the context of the Zionist entity’s longstanding determination to annex Lebanese territory, in service of ‘Greater Israel’. Tel Aviv’s criminal incursion ignited March 16th, Orwellianly dubbed by officials a “targeted ground operation against key targets.” It was not until 10 days later that major news outlets deigned to call it an invasion.
On March 23rd, Tel Aviv’s finance minister Bezalel Smotrich – a self-proclaimed fascist – urged the ZOF to formally annex southern Lebanon. Since then, over a million people have been displaced, thousands killed, and civilian infrastructure razed en masse. While a significant chunk of the country is now occupied, the cost for Tel Aviv was substantial. Unrelenting Hezbollah fire produced heavy casualties and record equipment and vehicle losses, including 21 Merkava main battle tanks in a single day on March 26th.
On April 2nd, Israeli media openly advertised the impending ceasefire in the war on Iran. It was revealed the Zionist entity was preparing to intensify its air campaign against Lebanon, due to enormous damage inflicted by the Resistance upon the ZOF. Tel Aviv reportedly planned to “[reduce] the current focus on Iran,” in order to support “Israeli ground forces attempting to seize Lebanese territory.” Were it not for hell being unleashed from the skies, the ZOF would currently be in big trouble.
On April 5th, the ZOF’s Northern Command chief admitted Tel Aviv had grossly overestimated damage inflicted upon Hezbollah during its October 2024 invasion of Lebanon. Entity political and military chiefs had long-claimed the Resistance faction was obliterated by the illegal intervention. The ZOF estimated 70 – 80% of Hezbollah’s rocket capabilities were destroyed during the conflict. This reverie was comprehensively shattered by hundreds of the group’s projectiles successfully targeting Tel Aviv daily, throughout the Zionist-American war on Iran.
No wonder that conflict is now on hold. Hezbollah remains a redoubtable adversary, which can independently, and in tandem with its Resistance comrades, thwart Tel Aviv’s seizure of Lebanese territory, and permanently expel Zionist settlers from northern Palestine. This wreaks havoc with Greater Israel’s construction, which Benjamin Netanyahu openly yearns to be his enduring political legacy, and literal ‘get out of jail free’ card. Hence, southern Lebanon must be annexed, and Hezbollah neutralised. But attempting to do so will, as before, end in fatal catastrophe.
‘Forced Expulsions’
In June 1982, Zionist militants invaded Lebanon, ostensibly to drive Palestinian freedom fighters away from the entity’s claimed northern border. Quickly, it became apparent ethnic cleansing, massacres, and land theft were the ZOF’s true goal. As a declassified July 1983 US National Intelligence Council assessment noted, ultra-Zionists then as now were aggressively demanding outright annexation of Lebanon’s south. Which is precisely what temporarily came to pass, until Hezbollah expelled the ZOF decisively in 2000. Along the way, obvious lessons weren’t learned by Tel Aviv.
The Council predicted the ZOF would create a puppet state in the south, to fulfil “some day-to-day governing tasks,” while “real power will remain in Israeli hands.” Despite judging the costs “of semi-permanent occupation” to be “not inconsequential,” they were nonetheless “manageable”, due to the entity’s “proven track record” of suppressing “unrest” in territory it illegally occupies. “Forced expulsions, use of local surrogates, and ruthless counterintelligence operations” by the ZOF were correctly forecast, which the NIC believed would negate “increasingly” hostile local opposition.
The Council assessed the ZOF would “[get] a handle on the guerrillas in the next six – 12 months.” This prediction couldn’t have been more wrong. Unmentioned by the Council, Hezbollah was quickly founded following the Zionist entity’s invasion. Inspired by the Islamic Revolution and assisted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group rapidly gained in strength, spreading radical fervour among Lebanese citizens of every faith, until forcibly purging ZOF militants from Lebanon outright in May 2000.
Hezbollah’s success – repeated with an unprecedented battering of Zionist invasion forces in 2006 – inspired new generations of Resistance fighters, including Hamas. Today, the faction is the most popular and potent political and social force in Lebanon, embraced by citizens of every faith. Bashar Assad’s fall also did not, contrary to widely-held assumptions, make it remotely difficult for Iran to equip and coordinate with Hezbollah. A failure to comprehend these inconvenient truths has led the Zionist entity into disastrous ruin in Lebanon, yet again.
On March 27th, ZOF chief of staff Eyal Zamir issued a grave warning during a security cabinet meeting. Namely, Israel’s military “is going to collapse in on itself,” due to “mounting operational demands and a deepening manpower shortage,” which could rapidly prove catastrophic. Already, an infantry battalion intended to be deployed to Lebanon had been redirected to the West Bank, to “keep the peace” as armed settlers carried out violent if not murderous attacks on Palestinians. The ZOF would’ve struggled to field further forces in either Greater Israel theatre.
Then on April 3rd, the ZOF openly admitted “its goal of disarming Hezbollah” was “unrealistic, as it would require the military to launch a full-scale invasion of Lebanon,” which Tel Aviv wasn’t able to wage. In other words, the Resistance was undefeated, and Lebanese territory couldn’t be stolen. Having been engaged in perpetual, multi-front war since October 7th 2023, the exhausted Zionist entity lacked the muscle to achieve its Lebanese goals while also targeting the West Bank and Iran, contrary to intelligence, military and political forecasts.
‘Last Minute’
Israel was so ruinously overextended attempting to wage all-out war on the entire Resistance – without AnsarAllah even having fully joined the fight – it was reportedly considering an extraordinarily desperate solution. Namely, inviting Syria’s MI6-installed extremist government to battle Hezbollah. Ahmed al-Sharaa’s regime is maintained in power exclusively via a brutal, repressive domestic security and military apparatus. Forces could not be deployed in sufficient numbers to counter Hezbollah, without risking major domestic upheaval. However, Hebrew-language outlet Maariv reported April 5th this suicidal pact was being seriously contemplated:
Under the auspices of these “understandings”, the ZOF would “take over southern Lebanon, while the Syrians will act in northern Lebanon against Hezbollah.” However, the US reportedly “very much [preferred] not to reach such a scenario.” After all, it would be a deeply hazardous Faustian bargain, imperilling al-Sharaa’s already brittle rule. While he and his army of ISIS fighters may detest Hezbollah, the overwhelming majority of Syrians reject alliance with Israel, at a time local Resistance elements are growing in strength.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. With Hezbollah supposedly dismantled, and Syria at last transformed into a doting Anglo-American puppet state, Greater Israel could be advanced without hindrance – or so Netanyahu thought. In reality, the “great opportunity” about which he boasted from the Golan Heights following Bashar Assad’s fall has become a dangerous trap. Unable to sustain a grand battle against the triumphant Islamic Republic even with US help, Israel is now overextending itself yet further in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah isn’t fazed one iota, and the Resistance is watching intently.
As history old and new amply shows, the Empire and its Zionist proxy underestimate AnsarAllah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the wider Resistance at their immense peril – but persist in doing so. Over and again across decades, the same failed strategies are applied without success, then aren’t subsequently revised. The Empire’s crushing past defeats by the Resistance are spun as victories, and/or promptly forgotten about. All along though, in the real world, the Zionist-American death machine is ever-weakened, and Palestine’s long-overdue liberation grows irresistibly closer. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/collapsing-empire-hezbollah-crushes
Confused Closures and Opaque Openings: Continuing Dramas in the Hormuz Strait
19 April 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/confused-closures-and-opaque-openings-continuing-dramas-in-the-hormuz-strait/
Reading messages from President Donald J. Trump is an exercise in taunting masochism. It is one inflicted on commentators and the press corps the world over, and they are not better for it. The latest – and here, the latest will become distant and dated shortly – is that the Strait of Hormuz, predictably controlled by Iran with devastating global effect, was to be reopened for commercial traffic under certain conditions. Trump thought this undertaking absolute and indefinite, a rich suggestion coming from a man with such a fair-weather mind. “Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World!”
This proved typically premature: within a matter of hours, Iran’s decision was, if not reversed then heavily qualified. (The Strait technically always remained open to vessels favoured by the Iranian authorities.) On April 17, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Eshmaeil Baghaei affirmed two key principles in Tehran’s policies: Iran retained the right to control traffic moving through the Strait, and that it would not surrender enriched uranium, an issue “sacred to us as Iranian soil” and non-negotiable. The latter was certainly aimed at Trump’s dotty claim that Washington and Tehran would jointly deploy “lots of excavators” to remove fissile material (“nuclear dust”) and shift it to the US. On CBS News, the president claimed that “Our people, together with the Iranians, are going to work together to get it.” This all suggested much confusion on the part of the Americans.
Iran’s moves on the Strait were always going to be governed by other impediments. There was the demand, for instance, that Washington release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets. This was rejected. Trump has also insisted on a continued blockade of Iranian ports, which currently employs over 12 warships and something in the order of 100 fighter and surveillance aircraft. As he told Fox News, “we’re not going to let Iran make money on selling oil to people that they like and not people that they don’t like.” Maritime intelligence on this, however, suggests that the blockade has not been quite as effective as heralded by US officials. Martin Kelly, Head of Advisory at EOS Risk Group can point to the successful passage of sanctioned tankers and vessels of the shadow fleet such as LPG carriers Crave, Raine and NV Aquamarine.
On April 18, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy issued a statement that “no vessel is to move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Oman.” A number of vessels had successfully managed to pass through under supervision since Friday night, but the Strait would be closed till the US ceased blocking Iran’s ports. “Approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted.”
The IRGC have been true to their word. According to UK Maritime Trade Operations, the Master of a tanker reported “being approached by 2 IRGC gun boats” without a VHF challenge, “then fired upon the tanker.” No injuries were sustained. Another report documented “a Container Ship being hit by an unknown projectile which caused damage to some of the containers.” There were no fires or environmental impacts reported. A third incident involved the sighting by the Master of a cruise ship of “a splash in close proximity to the vessel” regarded as suspicious.
The ongoing US blockade, argues Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), was also a violation of the ceasefire agreement between Tehran and Washington. As Tehran revealed in a statement, passage through the Strait would only take place through a “designated route” and only with Iranian authorisation. The opening or closing of the Strait, along with pertinent regulations governing it would be “determined by the field, not by social media.” The Council has also revealed that it is reviewing new proposals from the US that may form the basis of future talks.
Trump has also huffed that the latest developments in the Strait were “not tied, in any way, to Lebanon,” a barely plausible contention. Iran has insisted that any lasting ceasefire manoeuvres would have to include a cessation of Israeli strikes on Lebanon and Hezbollah positions, even if negotiations between the US and Lebanon did not involve any mention of the Shia militia. The US president duly went on Truth Social to bluster that Israel “will not be bombing Lebanon any longer.” They were “PROHIBITED from doing so by the USA. Enough is enough.”
The somewhat devalued currency of a ceasefire did not, as it was subsequently confirmed, prohibit Israel from resorting to its right to self-defence, a right so latitudinous as to be boundless. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised that things were far from concluded. “I will say honestly, we have not yet finished the job.” Remaining rocket and drone threats needed neutralisation. Hezbollah would have to be dismantled through a “sustained effort, patience, and careful navigation in the diplomatic arena.”
There was also much room for lashing reluctant allies. “Now that the Hormuz Strait situation is over,” declared Trump, “I received a call from NATO asking if we would need some help.” With the usual flourish of petulance, he dismissed the call: Stay away unless you want to load up with oil. “They are useless when needed, a Paper Tiger!” Increasingly, the US imperium is resembling that tiger, incapable of stalking and capturing its far more resourceful prey.
Seven Democrats Side With Republicans to Keep Weapons Flowing to Israel as War Expands
April 16, 2026, Joshua Scheer
In a vote that cuts straight through the carefully managed language of Washington diplomacy, seven Senate Democrats broke with much of their party and joined Republicans to block an effort that would have halted U.S. arms sales to Israel. The resolution—introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders—failed 40–59, ensuring the continued transfer of military equipment as the region slides deeper into war.
Seven Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, voted for the resolution. Which included Senators Richard Blumenthal, Chris Coons, Catherine Cortez Masto, John Fetterman, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jacky Rosen, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—voted to keep the pipeline open. Their decision ensured the failure of a measure that, while unlikely to pass, represented one of the clearest attempts yet to challenge U.S. complicity in Israel’s ongoing military campaigns.
At stake was not just a shipment of military bulldozers or thousands of 1,000-pound bombs. It was a question that has been building for months: whether the United States will continue to bankroll and materially support an expanding conflict that now stretches from Gaza to Lebanon to Iran.
The answer, at least for now, is yes.
The backlash was immediate—and public.
With Bernie Sanders making the statement: “When we started this effort there were just 11 votes. Now, there are 40,” Bernie Sanders said in a statement.
“That shift reflects where the American people are. Americans, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or independents, want to see our tax money invested in improving lives here at home — not used to kill innocent women and children in the Middle East and put American troops in harm’s way as part of Netanyahu’s illegal wars of expansion.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
Caitlin Johnstone, Apr 12, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/nobodys-obsessed-with-israel-its?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=193965406&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has accused Spain of an “anti-Israel obsession” for its criticisms of the US-Israeli war on Iran and its refusal to allow its airspace to be used in the onslaught, a perceived slight to which Israel has responded by banning Madrid from participation in a coordination center for the oversight of the so-called “ceasefire” in the Gaza Strip.
We’ve been hearing this “obsession” talking point from Israel and its apologists a lot lately. A recent article from the Jewish News Syndicate carries the headline “Why is the media obsessed with violent Israelis?”, bizarrely trying to argue that the western press likes to “smear Israelis” in order “to distract attention from Palestinian terror.” The other day right-wing pundit Meghan Murphy had a strange conversation with Tablet Magazine editor Jacob Siegel about our society’s “recent insane obsession with Israel,” speaking as though everyone just randomly began fixating on this genocidal apartheid state out of nowhere a short while ago, for no valid reason.
The argument, as I understand it, is that Israel is just a normal small country like any other small country, and any special focus on it suggests a sinister desire to single out Jews for discrimination.
But have you ever noticed how the same people who accuse Israel’s critics of “obsession” with a tiny insignificant country will also fall all over themselves to tell you that Israel is an indispensable ally whose interests are inextricably intertwined with the interests of western civilization?
When Israel is being criticized they try to frame it as unworthy of special attention; when alliances and military aid for Israel are being criticized they frame it as worthy of all our resources and energy. When Israel’s evil actions are making headlines, its apologists try to frame it as an itty bitty country the size of New Jersey trying to mind its own business while being victimized by obsessive hatred from the entire world because its inhabitants happen to be Jewish. When people question why their tax dollars and military resources need to support that small nation in west Asia, suddenly the argument pivots in the exact opposite direction: Israel is massively important, and is absolutely central to the wellbeing of the west.
You can claim Israel is a crucial ally in the middle east, OR you can claim it’s discriminatory to focus more on Israel’s crimes than the abuses of other countries. You can’t claim both are true, because they’re contradictory. Israel can’t be (A) immensely significant and intimately involved in the fate of our own society, and also (B) insignificant and unworthy of special attention. It’s either A or B. It can’t be simultaneously deserving AND undeserving of special treatment.
In reality, everyone in the world has every right to focus their attention on Israel — especially right now while its efforts to sabotage the ceasefire with Iran threaten to cause a global fuel crisis. You don’t get to cause a global fuel crisis and then act like you’re just an uwu smol bean who’s being singled out because of your religion.
But really Israel has always been worthy of critical attention in the west, exactly because it is so intimately intertwined with western power structures. Its genocide in Gaza is our genocide. Its abuses are our abuses. Its wars directly impact us. The aggressive push from its lobbyists to stomp out free speech throughout our society is taking away our rights.
Israel is our business, and it always has been. We are right to spotlight its criminality, and the complicity of our own western governments in those crimes.
Israel supporters will tell me “Oh yeah well how come you don’t criticize Egypt’s humanitarian abuses, huh? How come you’re not tweeting every day about the human rights violations of Iran? Something in particular about this one specific middle eastern country that draws your attention, is there? Perhaps you just HATE JEWS??”
But the reason I criticize Israel more than Egypt or Iran has nothing to do with religion. Egyptian aggressions aren’t starting wars of immense consequence which directly affect me. Nobody’s trying to make it illegal to criticize Iran in my country. My government is providing material and diplomatic cover for wars and genocides for this one country in particular, and eroding my free speech rights in order to protect its information interests. This would be true regardless of what religion or ethnicity happens to be favored in this one particular nation.
I’m not “obsessed” with Israel. Does it look like I’m having a great time talking about this horrible apartheid state every day? Does it look fun having people call me a Nazi in my replies all the time?
I wish I could ignore Israel completely. If it were up to me, I would. But because my own society is so complicit in its abuses, and because its abuses affect my society directly, I have an obligation to call out its wrongdoing. And so does every other westerner.
Regulating the regulators: How the nuclear power industry steers the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
by Arnie Gundersen | Apr 17, 2026, https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/regulating-the-regulators-the-extraordinary-influence-of-the-nuclear-power-industry-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission/
The Nuclear Energy Institute approves NRC commissioners, oversees its workers and, staff say, undermines its independence and public safety mandate
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mission statement provides a dual — and, critics say, contradictory — mandate that it “protects public health and safety” but also that it “advances the nation’s common defense and security by enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies…”
Given the history of nuclear accidents and lack of fully safe and permanent ways to address nuclear accidents and waste, critics see the mandate to protect public safety but also “advance” nuclear power as a conflict of interest. And given the nuclear industry’s heavy influence — some say control — over the nation’s regulatory agency, many both inside and outside the agency believe the industry has successfully turned the NRC into its advocate rather than its regulator.
Concerns about NRC objectivity
Concerns about the NRC’s objectivity and balance of support for public health versus industry support have taken on added urgency since President Trump last year signed an executive order calling for 10 new large nuclear reactors to be under construction by 2030 and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to speed reactor approvals. The first five or 10 new planned US nuclear reactors will “almost certainly” receive loans from the US Energy Department’s lending office, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told lawmakers Thursday.
The NRC employs several thousand technical staff. But it’s led by a commission of five people appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate. But the President and Senate see potential nominees only if they’ve already been approved by a well-funded industry group. That means the regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
Regulators are regulated by the industry — not the other way around.
The real control over nuclear power in Washington, D.C. lies in the nonprofit Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Every member of the NRC for the last decade has been screened by the NEI, which is the lobbying, campaign financing, and public relations organization for the nuclear industry.
The industry chooses its regulators
One does not become a Commissioner unless NEI finds that you are acceptable. Never has a member of a non-governmental organization or a safety critic been appointed to the Commission. Even nuclear proponents who’ve raised any questions about the nuclear industry, or worked for people who did, have been blocked.
While the NRC puts “public health and safety” first in its mission statement, the NEI’s charter says:
NEI is the unified voice of the commercial nuclear energy industry, influencing policies that affect its members, their customers, and the industry’s future. NEI represents the industry’s interests before Congress, the executive branch, state and local legislatures, federal regulators, international organizations, courts, and influential platforms where policy matters affecting the industry are discussed.
The NEI’s 2024 budget for direct lobbying was $1,570,000 while its total yearly operating budget was $57,500,000. According to IRS filings, its President & CEO earned a total compensation of $3,594,043,000 while its other 12 top executives together earned $7,222,173 with other staff salaries adding an additional $17,188,000, Propublica reported. That’s a lot of money to “represent the industry’s interest before Congress… and… federal regulators...”
“Regulatory Capture”
More significant to the public interest, however: Industry access to and even control of the NRC through informal channels euphemistically called “drop-in meetings” by NEI, nuclear reactor vendors, and plant owners has long been a concern of the NRC’s staff engineers.
In its 2022 audit prepared for the five Commissioners by the NRC’s Inspector General acknowledged that those concerns pose risks to the public:
Perceived Asymmetry of Access to NRC Management and Risk of Regulatory Capture Undermine NRC Transparency Goals
During our audit, the OIG identified chronic concerns, expressed by NRC staff and external stakeholders alike, about drop-in meetings and similar non-public informal interactions. One of these concerns was regulatory capture, which in relation to drop-in meetings is the concern that the NRC is serving to advance the interests of the very industry it regulates. Regulatory capture is often intangible and not measurable.
At a September 5, 2024 all-staff “Briefing on Human Capital” video call, with NRC leadership, eight top staff and two union leaders present, an intrepid staffer noted that the nuclear industry was unduly influencing regulatory policy:
Question: With NRC staff trust in the objectivity and integrity of NRC Commissioners and NRC executive leadership at an all-time low, with an annual exodus for sweetheart positions in the industry, what can be done to restore credibility and confidence that executive-level decision-making is not industry biased and actually serves the public interest?
Chairman Hanson: …everybody in this room, everybody up on this dais, are dedicated public servants, and I don’t question that at all…
Later in the same meeting, from an engineer:
Question: Okay. This question has a little bit of a background in it. The way outside stakeholders treat NRC staff is a factor in staff morale and workload, but it is often ignored. This has turned out to be a major issue with respect to advanced reactors where some company representatives and lobbying organizations have been downright abusive to agency workers. What’s worse, senior management is perceived as taking the side of the outside stakeholders and leaving the NRC project teams to take the brunt of the criticism. This is both demoralizing and time consuming for project staff. What can be done to limit repeated and unproductive industry interactions with project staff so that they can focus on doing the projects, rather than on handling difficult people of all the things that could help NRC meet tighter schedules?
Chairman Hanson: So thank you for the question. I wasn’t aware that this was an issue, so I appreciate the question just in kind of raising the awareness to me.
Think about that response. The Chairman of the US federal government’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission claimed that he “wasn’t aware” that stakeholders’ heavy-handed interaction with staff — and NRC leaderships’ support of those stakeholders over its own staff — was an issue, even though it had already been reported in an Inspector General’s audit that any self-respecting chairman of a public regulatory agency with fiduciary duty to taxpayers would have been obligated to read — and to respond to.
Chairman Hanson’s 2024 claim — either reckless and irresponsible, or simply not credible — also flies in the face of comments by one of his predecessors, former NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko. Five years earlier, in 2019, Jaczko publicly stated,
“I saw things up close that I was not meant to see: an agency overwhelmed by the industry it was supposed to regulate and a political system determined to keep it that way… honesty and integrity mean nothing if you are perceived to be critical of nuclear power…”
Clearly, the NRC and its five Commissioners have failed to live up to the agency’s core mission to put the public first.
The NEI presents itself as an impartial source of nuclear science and wisdom. Yet it also funds “astroturf” advocacy groups, including Nuclear Matters and Third Way. Schedule I of NEI’s 2024 990 tax filing shows that NEI paid $2.3 million to Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Nuclear Matters, which on its website claims:
Nuclear Matters is a national coalition of grassroots advocates, working to inform the public and policymakers about the clear benefits of nuclear energy.
The 2024 IRS 990 tax filing for Nuclear Matters states that its operating income was $2,309,945, showing that 99.5% of its income came from the NEI. Its form 990 identified three executives whose combined total compensation was $2,206,460. That means 95% of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s donation to the nonprofit Nuclear Matters was compensation to just three people. That’s highly irregular in the world of nonprofits.
Moreover, you might think that an organization claiming to represent a “nationwide coalition of grassroots advocates” should be funded by actual coalitions of grassroots advocates. But with 95% of its funding from NEI, Nuclear Matters is not.
Grassroots or astroturf?
You might also expect that an organization claiming to represent a “nationwide coalition of grassroots advocates” would work with, find substantial support from, and list a significant nationwide coalition. However, Nuclear Matters’ “Advocacy Council” includes 21 people, virtually all of whom are current or former nuclear industry representatives, policymakers or regulators. And its 16 listed “partners” are pro-nuclear organizations, many of which have received industry funding.
Does that fit your definition of “grass roots”?
The NEI’s reach extends beyond the NRC and into the Department of Energy, which controls funding of future nuclear reactor designs through DOE’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing. Membership in NEI is not limited to the owners of existing nuclear power plants, but also is open to newer companies seeking government funds to design the next generation of atomic power plants.
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 