Nationals’ nuclear climate policy puts Australia’s Paris deal in doubt
The Age, James Massola and Mike Foley, April 25, 2024
The Coalition cannot commit to Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction targets, with senior Nationals MPs conceding a plan to adopt nuclear power would mean a future Coalition government would not comply with the Paris Agreement.
Days after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton delayed his announcement of up to six sites for future nuclear power plants – the announcement is now expected after the budget – Nationals leader David Littleproud told this masthead the path to net zero emissions by 2050 would not be linear under a future Coalition government.
The Nationals’ stated aim of slowing down the rollout of large-scale renewable energy projects, combined with the 15-year timeline for building a nuclear plant, means the Coalition would struggle if returned to power to meet Labor’s current target of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030.
But a Coalition government would inherit Australia’s legally binding 2030 target under the Paris Agreement, which requires nations to contribute to an international effort to keep global warming under 2 degrees.
Walking away from the Paris Agreement would infuriate Liberal moderates and MPs in metropolitan seats, where climate action is more popular; embolden the teals and other independents; and risk reigniting the climate wars fought between Nationals and Liberals in the former Morrison government.
Littleproud said “there is not a linear pathway to net zero, and trying to achieve one will have a detrimental impact on the economy. We have to have a broad-based solution rather than an all renewables approach.”
He would not commit to Australia’s climate target, set by the Albanese government, to cut emissions by 43 per cent by 2030.
“We want to wait and see what the modelling we come up with for 2030 [in the party’s new nuclear policy] says, but we won’t rush into anything …”
Experts including former chief scientist Alan Finkel and former Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Professor Andrew Dyer have said it would take a minimum of 15 years for a nuclear plant to be built in Australia
Grattan Institute deputy energy director Alison Reeve said it would be impossible for Australia to reach its 2030 Paris target if there were a slowdown in the renewables rollout – including a pause to accommodate nuclear plant…………………………………………………………..
The Grattan Institute’s Alison Reeve said Australia would not hit the 2030 target under the Coalition’s nuclear push because most of the decarbonisation needed hangs off the government’s renewable goals.
“If you don’t reach that, you just don’t meet the 2030 target,” she said.
The bulk of reductions are to come from reducing coal-fired power and achieving the target to boost renewables to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.
Reeve said cutting emissions from the energy sector by replacing fossil fuel electricity with renewables was a fundamental underpinning of Australia’s climate policy and any slowdown in wind and solar farms would make it harder for other sectors to clean up their act………. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/nationals-nuclear-climate-policy-puts-australia-s-paris-deal-in-doubt-20240424-p5fm8p.html
New civil nuclear programmes crossing over into military nuclear programmes
New Nuclear Dual-Use Risk: Beating Swords into Ploughshares? By Dr. Paul Dorfman, https://nct-cbnw.com/new-nuclear-dual-use-risk-beating-swords-into-ploughshares/ 24 Apr 24.
Dr. Paul Dorfman discusses whether new civil nuclear programs could cross over into military nuclear programs, and what this means for global non-proliferation efforts.
According to key global finance advisory and asset management firm Lazard, new nuclear power systems perform poorly compared to renewables’ storage, energy efficiency, cost, roll-out speed, and management. So why invest in new nuclear?
Prof. Andy Stirling and Dr. Phil Johnstone, from the University of Sussex Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), argue that the answer lies in the clear and present link between civil and military nuclear infrastructure. This is because civil nuclear energy maintains the skills and supply chains also needed for military nuclear programs, without which the costs of nuclear military capabilities could become politically unsupportable.
As they point out, the U.K. Government’s ‘Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050’ report includes sets of statements on civil and military nuclear ambitions in order to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”, strengthening existing interconnections between civil and military industries’ research and development, and thereby minimizing costs for both the weapons and power sectors.
More recently, in March 2024, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly linked military nuclear weapons production capability with civil nuclear power generation development. French President Emmanuel Macron has gone further, saying that “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear”. And the fact is that 90% of all new nuclear construction projects worldwide involve corporations controlled by states with nuclear weapons
New Nuclear, New Proliferation Risk
The increasingly tense geopolitical environment makes nuclear a controversial issue, with nation states concerned that neighbors might use notionally civilian nuclear programs for military ends. In this sense, there are unique challenges and perceived opportunities when it comes to new civil nuclear ambitions.
Choice of offensive or defensive doctrine affects the way other states evaluate their respective security and, in turn, influences the probability of cross-over between civil and military nuclear capacity. Indeed, current movements in military doctrines share the common denominator of adopting more offensive postures.
Meanwhile, according to the U.K. Royal Society, all forms of nuclear production pose weapons development risks, as “there is no proliferation proof nuclear fuel cycle – the dual use risk of nuclear materials and technology and in civil and military applications cannot be eliminated.”
Unhelpfully, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), which are the best new hope for fissile fuel, could make the weapons proliferation problem even worse as any potential SMR roll-out to either developed or developing countries is likely to increase nuclear proliferation and security risks. This is especially so if any of those states prove politically unstable or have relatively limited resources to support a robust nuclear security and regulatory infrastructure.
Nuclear Cross-over in an Increasingly Unstable World
Unless uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies are effectively regulated against the diversion of civil materials for military purposes, the reality is that new nuclear plants can provide the cover to develop and make nuclear weapons. Whether that capability is turned into actual weapons depends largely on political inclination.
Saudi officials have made it clear on more than one occasion that there’s another reason for their interest in civil nuclear energy technology which was not captured by the royal decree on the Saudi nuclear program – the relationship of the civil program to nuclear weapons. More recently, Saudi Arabia is pushing for the right to produce nuclear fuel, a move that poses further significant proliferation risk. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has voiced concerns about Saudi intentions and safeguards.
Unfortunately, the IAEA’s support for Saudi’s civil nuclear clashes with their position on the Kingdom’s military ambition. This is not the first time that the UN nuclear regulator has been caught in this uncomfortably dualist situation.
More worryingly, the Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, has just met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus to “agree on a new engagement between Syria and IAEA with a view to providing confidence in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for the benefit of its people”. Given the deeply problematic military and human rights history of al-Assad’s regime, the IAEA’s actions seem profoundly concerning, and bring the IAEA’s role in the global nuclear arena into sharp focus.
Thinking this through, an important question springs to mind. Due to the apparent potential for civil-military nuclear cross-over, could the IAEA’s mission – to work for “the safe, secure and peaceful application of nuclear science and technology” – inevitably result in weapons proliferation by default?
Irrational Paradoxes
Back in Eastern Europe, although Ukraine runs a substantive civil nuclear power program, it’s no longer a nuclear weapons state. Ukraine, once briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world, made the decision to give up nuclear weapons on the basis that the U.S., U.K., and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s security via the Budapest Memorandum.
In this sense, both Putin’s invasion of an independent state and subsequent nuclear weapons threats highlight the very real practical distinction between unilateral and multilateral nuclear weapons disarmament in an increasingly unstable world.
And then there’s Zaporizhzhia, where a civil nuclear power plant has become a target of war at the very same time that Russia’s role as a major player in the global civil nuclear power sector continues to expand via Moscow-backed international nuclear new-build projects and technology, uranium supply and enrichment, and spent nuclear fuel management.
Direction of Travel
While it appears reasonably clear that civil and military nuclear can enmesh, one must ask whether one inevitably leads to the other. While the usual concern is that civil nuclear infrastructure leads to military development, according to former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Australia is bucking the trend: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish […] a civil nuclear capability […] a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine program.”
In other words, despite the new nuclear submarine AUKUS deal, the current Australian government has no plans to develop new civil nuclear infrastructure.
So, does that start to negate the civil-military nexus hypothesis? Well, it’s not that nuclear military interests are the sole drivers of support for civil nuclear power, but for some states dual-use technology may comprise a significant complementary factor.
In the end, it’s the direction of travel that counts. While all key energy institutes and research organizations agree that renewables will do the heavy-lifting for the net-zero energy transition, it’s worth considering the implications of U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm’s speech to Australia’s Energy Forum: “No country has ever been held hostage for access to the sun. No country has ever been held hostage for access to the wind. They have not ever been weaponized, nor will they be.”
Dr. Paul Dorfman is the Chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, a Visiting Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) of the University of Sussex, U.K., a Member of the Irish Government’s Radiation Protection Advisory Committee, and a Former Advisor to the U.K. Ministry of Defence Nuclear Submarine Dismantling Project.
U.S. Senate Passes $95 Billion Foreign Military Aid Bill
The bill passed in a vote of 79-18
by Dave DeCamp April 23, 2024, AntiWar.com
On Tuesday night, the Senate passed a $95 billion spending bill that includes military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan in a vote of 79-18. The bill has already passed through the House and now heads to President Biden’s desk for his signature.
Earlier in the day, the Senate rejected an effort by some senators to add amendments to the legislation in a vote of 48-50. The legislation, which also includes a provision that could ban TikTok, was passed through the House as four separate bills but was combined into one in the Senate.
The legislation includes $61 billion for the proxy war in Ukraine, much of which will go to US weapons makers to replenish US stockpiles. It includes over $9 billion in economic aid in the form of repayable loans, but Ukraine is not actually expected to pay it back. Another provision will authorize the US to sell off frozen Russian assets, which could be used to pay the loans. CNN previously reported that the Biden administration will also be able to cancel the debt.
The bill also includes $26 billion to support Israel. About $9 billion will go toward humanitarian aid in Gaza and other places, while the remaining $17 billion will go toward military aid to support the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and replenish Israeli air defenses. The aid is on top of the $3.8 billion in military assistance that Israel receives from the US each year.
Another $8 billion will go toward military aid for Taiwan and other spending in the Indo-Pacific region to prepare for a future war with China. It includes $1.9 billion to replenish weapons sent to Taiwan and regional countries and $2 billion in Foreign Military Financing, a State Department program that gives foreign governments money to purchase US weapons. Over $3.3 billion will go toward submarine infrastructure in the region.
The massive spending on foreign military aid was put forward by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who previously killed a deal that would have included similar foreign aid spending and billions for border security and changes to migrant policies………….. more https://news.antiwar.com/2024/04/23/senate-passes-95-billion-foreign-military-aid-bill/
TODAY. Oh it’s a great time to be an American – with shares in “Defense” companies!
The USA Congress knows this. These worthy persons understand that their job is to enrich weapons companies and the people “wise” enough to have shares in them. After all, “defense” is the USA’s fastest growing and most successful industry. And of course, that’s the job of a patriotic American government – to promote American business.
Some think that the proper role of government is not solely protection of people from attack, but also to provide for the general well-being of the people. But that second purpose is not a goal of American government. And I would argue that even the first purpose is not a real goal – as the practices of diplomacy, negotiation, discussion and respect for other countries would be the best methods – rather than bullying and sabre-waving.
Anyway, the U.S. Senate just passed a $95Billion Bill for weapons for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Law-makers of both stripes are keen to promote weapons. Probably the Congress will approve this.
The U.S. Congress has the power to pull back, to prevent wars. But once they’ve given the White House the money for weapons – then the President (advised by warmongers like Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken) can go ahead and wage war – Congress will then have no say.
Once the Congress approves an appropriation the President as commander-in chief can use the money any way he likes. If the aim of warmongers is eventual war against Iran, providing money for weapons will be Congress’s role in following this aim. Think tanks and media enthusiastically go along with this.
There seems to be no awareness that USA’s endless strikes on distant countries – Iraq , Syria, backing Israel against Palestine, Iran – are arousing fierce anger among millions of people. In Ukraine whole generations of men are being wiped out.
Weapons get used. Then you make and sell more weapons. That means continuing, endless wars. That’s the business. It’s great when there’s no, or relatively few, American soldiers killed. Terrific – only “the others” are dying.
It’s great for business. Lockheed Martin’s shares are up. Investing advice enthuses “Where there’s war, there’s money to be made, and rising geopolitical tension in the Middle East, and the two-year-long war in Ukraine are leaving investors to shield their portfolios with defense stocks………….no better time than being in the business of defense contracting than right now“
But one day – the shit will hit the fan! Shock horror – it might even happen in the lifetime of those making $millions from weapons sales.
TODAY. The failed social species – Homo-not-sapiens-at-all
‘We’re supposed to be “social animals”, but I wonder about that.
Especially the “advanced” world, the predominantly white people, and particularly the anglophone world are directing their attention, their energy, and above all their MONEY. into ways to kill each other. More importantly perhaps, to kill “less white” people – Arabs and Chinese.
In Pakistan, melting of glaciers and extreme rain is causing heavy loss of life.
Today I read that millions of people in China are threatened by record-breaking floods – tens of thousands evacuated.
European villages are suffering unprecedented extreme heat stress, with rising numbers of heat deaths, as well as having experiencing months of drought and wildfires
One might think that the most important task for a social species would be to help these victims of global heating, and indeed to put a stop to, or at least slow down global heating.
But perhaps, the not-very-bright leaders of the advanced countries do not understand that we are all in fact one species, that for example, Palestinians are not a separate species of untermenschen. That even Russians and Chinese are people, too.
And that we’re all in the same perilous boat -and the job is to deal with climate change – not to enrich weapons manufacturers.
‘A little awkward’: Coalition faces internal tension over nuclear plans
Sky News host Chris Kenny says the Coalition is in an “awkward” situation with their behind the scenes negotiations around nuclear energy.
It is reported that a rift has formed with the Coalition regarding Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plans.
“Inside the Coalition, there is argument about where the nuclear power stations might be sited in this country,” Mr Kenny said.
“Apparently some MPs saying they don’t want them in their backyard.
“Sounds like there is tension.”
Bankers upgrade Lockheed stock after Iran strikes at Israel
defense contractors are actively shaping U.S. foreign policy through lobbying and campaign contributions, among other tactics.
The American company has played an outsized role in Tel Aviv’s bombing and invasion of Gaza since Oct. 7
NICK CLEVELAND-STOUT, APR 17, 2024 https://responsiblestatecraft.org/lockheed-martin-israel-war/
Over the weekend, Iran launched over 300 missiles at Nevatim Air Base, a base in southern Israel that houses U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who oversaw a strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria just a few weeks ago, has already promised to retaliate. Observers viewed these brewing tensions with concern, ringing the alarm bells of the breakout of a wider war.
Not JP Morgan analyst Seth Seifman. On Monday morning, Seifman upgraded JPMorgan’s outlook from “hold” to “buy” for Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of Israel’s F-35s, and set a higher price target for the stock.
Seifman says the change was pre-planned, but noted that these developments could be good for business. “What we can say is that it’s a dangerous world and while that is not a sufficient condition for defense stocks to outperform,” he said, “it is a potential source of support, especially when they are under-owned.” JP Morgan owns $355 million worth of Lockheed Martin stock, about a third of which was bought in the last quarter of 2023.
UK investment bank Liberum Capital was similarly bullish on defense stocks, so long as a wider war does not break out. “In our base case scenario of Israel retaliating but in a limited way that keeps the conflict from escalating further, this could lead to a 5-10% correction in the stock market together with further strength in the U.S. dollar,” Liberium told investors. “The obvious short-term winners will be oil & gas stocks as well as defense contractors.”
As finance journalist Jacob Wolisnky put it in a recent preview of defense stock picks, “Where there’s war, there’s money to be made.” At least one member of Congress agrees. Yesterday, Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) disclosed that he bought Lockheed Martin stock on March 29.
Lockheed Martin has played a large role in Israel’s bombing and invasion of Gaza, manufacturing Hellfire missiles, providing transport planes, and supplying F-16 and F-35 fighter jets. A missile that hit journalists on November 9 of last year in Gaza City was reportedly manufactured by Lockheed Martin. “Their core business model has no respect for human rights,” said Jilianne Lyon, who leads shareholder advocacy campaigns at Investor Advocates for Social Justice.
While privately acknowledging conflict is good for business, the defense industry and its financiers publicly claim they are simply doing America’s bidding. As Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet once said, “It’s only up to us to step to what we’ve been asked to do and we’re just trying to do that in a more effective way, and that’s our role.” After all, it was the U.S. government — not Lockheed Martin — that came to Israel’s defense and intercepted the majority of Iran’s missiles.
But this “we just do what we’re told” defense doesn’t quite work given that defense contractors are actively shaping U.S. foreign policy through lobbying and campaign contributions, among other tactics. Aaron Acosta, program director at Investor Advocates for Social Justice, told Responsible Statecraft that defense contractors “are often the ones creating demand by lobbying the U.S. government and pushing for sales of these weapons.”
In 2023, Lockheed Martin spent over $14 million lobbying Congress. The three companies that lobbied the House’s version of the annual defense policy bill the most were RTX (formerly known as Raytheon), Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics. During the 2022 election cycle, Lockheed Martin contributed nearly $4 million to political candidates. So far, 2024 promises similar results. In its 2023 annual report, Lockheed Martin wrote that, “Changes in the U.S. Government’s priorities, or delays or reductions in spending could have a material adverse effect on our business.”
Sure, 84% of voters might be concerned about the U.S. being drawn into conflict in the Middle East. But as far as defense companies and their shareholders are concerned, business is booming.
Under UN Charter, Iran’s Attack Was a Legal Response to Israel’s Illegal Attack
Iran’s attack on Israel was lawful self-defense carried out in compliance with international humanitarian law.
On April 13, Iran’s aircraft struck two air bases in the Negev desert, where the April 1 attack on Iran’s consulate had been launched. “Iran retaliated against those targets in Israel directly related to the Israeli attack on Iran,”
By Marjorie Cohn , TRUTHOUT, April 18, 2024
On April 1, Israel mounted an unprovoked military attack on a building that was part of the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, Syria, killing seven of Iran’s senior military advisers and five additional people. The victims included Gen. Mohamad Reza Zahedi, head of Iran’s covert military operations in Lebanon and Syria, and two other senior generals.
Although Israel’s attack violated the United Nations Charter, the UN Security Council refused to condemn it because the United States, the U.K. and France exercised their vetoes on April 4.
Iran considered this attack on its consulate “an act of war,” Trita Parsi wrote at Foreign Policy.
On April 11, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations stated: “Had the UN Security Council condemned the Zionist regime’s reprehensible act of aggression on our diplomatic premises in Damascus and subsequently brought to justice its perpetrators, the imperative for Iran to punish this rogue regime might have been obviated.”
Then, on April 13, in response to Israel’s attack, Iran fired more than 300 drones and missiles at the Israeli air base from which the April 1 attacks had emanated. Only two of them landed inside Israel and no one was killed; a Bedouin girl was injured. The U.S., U.K., France, Jordan and Israel intercepted the remaining Iranian missiles and drones. A senior U.S. military official said “there’s no significant damage within Israel itself.”
The Iranian mission to the UN wrote in an April 13 letter to the UN secretary-general that Iran’s action was conducted “in the exercise of Iran’s inherent right to self-defense” under Article 51 of the UN Charter “and in response to the Israeli recurring military aggressions, particularly its armed attack” on April 1 “against Iranian diplomatic premises, in the defiance of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The April 1 attack was not the first time Israel had attacked key Iranian personnel………………………………………………………………………….
Iran made clear that it seeks to avoid further escalation that could spark a widespread regional war. An April 13 social media post from Iran’s permanent mission to the UN stated, “The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe. It is a conflict between Iran and the rogue Israeli regime, from which the U.S. MUST STAY AWAY!”
At a Security Council meeting on April 14, Iran’s UN Ambassador Saeid Iravani defended the lawfulness of the missile and drone attack on Israel. He noted the hypocrisy of the U.S. and its allies that claim Israel is acting in self-defense as it conducts its genocide of the Palestinian people:………………………………………..
Israel’s Attack on Iranian Consulate Violated the UN Charter and Vienna Conventions
Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel was a lawful exercise of self-defense in response to Israel’s unlawful April 1 attack on the Iranian consulate. The Israeli attack was an illegal act of aggression.
Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
An act of aggression is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Article 39 of the Charter says, “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
An “‘act of aggression’ means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. Aggression includes “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.”
Moreover, “Consular premises shall be inviolable,” according to Article 31 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Article 1 defines consular premises as “the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post.”
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations likewise provides in Article 22.1 that, “The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.”
During Israel’s bombing of Iran’s consulate in Syria, it targeted and killed very senior Iranian officials. The attack constituted an act of aggression, which triggered Iran’s right to self-defense.
Iran’s April 13 Attack on Israel Constituted Lawful Self-Defense
Article 51 states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
An armed attack includes not just an attack against the territory of a state, including its airspace and territorial sea, but also attacks directed against its armed forces or embassies abroad.
On April 13, Iran’s aircraft struck two air bases in the Negev desert, where the April 1 attack on Iran’s consulate had been launched. “Iran retaliated against those targets in Israel directly related to the Israeli attack on Iran,” former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote.
Nevertheless, the Security Council has failed to adopt a resolution condemning Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate, as Iran pointed out in its April 13 letter to the UN secretary-general.
At an April 14 meeting of the Security Council, the Israeli representative declared that Iran is the number one global sponsor of terrorism and the world’s worst human rights violator. It is Israel, however, that has killed nearly 34,000 Palestinians — two-thirds of them women and children — during its campaign of genocide in Gaza that has now entered its seventh month.
Iran’s self-defense action was the natural outcome of Israel’s violations of international law — both on Syrian territory and elsewhere — the representative from the Syrian Arab Republic said at the April 14 council meeting. Israel is trying to cover up its genocide and military failures in Gaza, the Syrian representative added.
Iran’s Attack Satisfied the Principles of Proportionality, Distinction and Precautions……………………………………………………………….
Netanyahu Is Gunning for War With Iran
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would like nothing better than to start a war with Iran. Netanyahu considers Iran an “existential threat” to Israel. He persuaded former President Donald Trump to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, which was working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
As the world waits for Israel’s response to the Iranian attack, President Joe Biden said the U.S. would not assist Israel in an offensive military action against Iran but it would give Israel defensive support if Iran attacks Israel. “But the distinction between offensive or defensive support becomes meaningless the second a war breaks out,” wrote Trita Parsi.
Today, the U.S. and U.K. imposed additional punishing sanctions on Iran. Unilateral coercive measures, levied without the imprimatur of the Security Council, are illegal and generally harm only the general population…………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://truthout.org/articles/under-un-charter-irans-attack-was-a-legal-response-to-israels-illegal-attack/
5 Reasons Why What Congress Just Did Does Not Help Ukraine
Crimea was Russian or Soviet from 1783 to 1991. No election should ever be held with armed troops anywhere within sight. And it’s no simple matter to say that Crimea should hold a new referendum, since people have left and entered. But nobody seriously doubts that any fair election in 2014 or at any time since would have resulted in a majority choosing Russia. The Donbas needed some degree of independence before Minsk II and still does.
It needs it free of militarized borders and chest-thumping empires. Some consideration should be given to whether the people who live there “win” or “lose” — that is, how their lives look going forward. For them and for the world, peace is preferable to war, and peace is prevented by endless weapons and endless opposition to negotiations.
By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, April 21, 2024, https://worldbeyondwar.org/5-reasons-why-what-congress-just-did-does-not-help-ukraine/
You may have heard that the U.S. Congress is finally doing the decent, moral, liberal, democratic, Democratic thing and aiding Ukraine.
You may believe, as pretty much everyone I ask tells me, that there was only one other choice available, namely “letting Putin win.”
You may agree with me that the Russian government and its leader — like every government I’ve ever heard of — have done horrendous things, that invading a country militarily is one of the worst things that can ever be done (with the possible exceptions of invading Libya or Yemen or Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere in Latin America, but still), and that rewarding a military invasion is a terrible precedent that could encourage more military invasions (with the possible exception of keeping those bases in Iraq or Syria, or selling more weapons to Saudi Arabia, or marketing that empty beachfront property in Gaza — and who the heck is Niger to tell U.S. troops to leave Niger? I mean come ON! — but still). I’m with you. Between (A) send more unimaginably huge piles of money that materializes out of nowhere and (B) allow a military invasion to succeed, I’m for A.
But please consider five slight complications to this simple tale.
- What the U.S. Congress just did is send huge piles of money that comes out of urgent non-optional crises like climate, eco-collapse, disease, poverty, and homelessness, mostly to U.S. weapons dealers, damaging — yes damaging — the U.S. economy, in order to send mountains of weapons to the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, and a yet-to-be-ginned-up war in Asia. No matter how much you support the war in Ukraine, unless you also support providing enough weapons to murder every last person in Gaza and the West Bank, and in addition support building up toward a catastrophic war with China, you ought to at least have mixed emotions here.
2. Countless experts around the globe believe that the war in Ukraine has placed the world closer than ever before to nuclear apocalypse. I picture two cockroaches endowed with the power of speech meeting each other as they crawl over the ruins of the de-personed Earth. One says “Well, at least they stood up to Putin,” and the other simultaneously, “Well, at least they stood up to NATO.” Upon which the war that eliminates all cockroaches is begun. But where, while we still breathe, are our priorities? Is smashing every aspiration of the criminal Russian government (which I’m all in favor of) in order to uphold a rules-based order in which you can freely fuel a sadistic genocide in Palestine (which I’m not so much in favor of) a higher priority than preserving life? And if so, why are you not over there killing Russians yourself, instead of over here cheering for Congress buying more weapons?
3. ’ll leave the option of Russia “winning” to point #4 below. But what is the other option exactly, the one that has been so correctly and nobly chosen? It’s clearly not Russia losing. Nobody even pretends it is. It’s clearly just continuing the endless slaughter with no desirable outcome for either side anywhere on the horizon. Yet more Ukrainians can go on dying, and Russians can go on dying in larger numbers, but that can’t continue until everyone’s dead, not without nuclear escalation — possibly following a French escalation that U.S. media outlets might begin by opposing. So what is it that you think you’ve chosen? Choosing “Not Putin Winning” is great, like choosing “The Candidate Who Isn’t Trump.” Who could disagree? But what if there were an option superior to “Putin winning” and also superior to endless war that risks apocalypse?
4. It helps to face for a moment the complex story of Ukraine, to come to grips with some facts that are as well established as is the illegal, immoral, murderous Russian invasion of 2022, such as that U.S. and foreign officials (including the current CIA director) warned for decades that NATO expansion would create this war — and some (such as the authors of a RAND Corporation report) advocated for just the provocative steps that were taken in order to create this war, that the U.S. supported a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that overthrew a government pursuing neutrality, that the coup government threated the rights of Russian speakers, that the people of Crimea heavily favored returning to Russia, that Ukraine waged a war on its eastern provinces for 8 years, that Ukraine and its Western partners never intended to and never did honor the Minsk II agreements which could have meant lasting peace, that Russia and Ukraine were ready to agree to peace 1 month into the Russian invasion at talks in Turkey where they agreed on Russian withdrawal and a Ukrainian commitment not to join NATO or allow NATO bases in Ukraine — until the U.S. and UK said No, as they have continued to say in the face of horrific suffering, not to mention in the face of nearly identical peace proposals from African leaders, Latin American presidents, the Pope, the Chinese government, and scholars and activists across the globe. This history does not erase, but does complicate, the tale of angelic Ukrainian innocence against evil Russian outlaws.
Crimea was Russian or Soviet from 1783 to 1991. No election should ever be held with armed troops anywhere within sight. And it’s no simple matter to say that Crimea should hold a new referendum, since people have left and entered. But nobody seriously doubts that any fair election in 2014 or at any time since would have resulted in a majority choosing Russia. The Donbas needed some degree of independence before Minsk II and still does. It needs it free of militarized borders and chest-thumping empires. Some consideration should be given to whether the people who live there “win” or “lose” — that is, how their lives look going forward. For them and for the world, peace is preferable to war, and peace is prevented by endless weapons and endless opposition to negotiations.
5. Prior to this recent “aid” package, 62% of U.S. federal discretionary spending was going into militarism. Now it’s more. The other 38% and shrinking has to cover environment, education, health, housing, transportation, agriculture, and everything else. Normalizing endless massive warmaking, just because it’s non-U.S. troops dying, is a path to disaster. To begin considering a different course, here are a few eye-opening reads:
Primer on Foreign PolicyAction for Ukraine and the WorldThe
EU Can Only Survive as a Peace Project and Not as a NATO SubsidiaryWBW Advisory Board Member
Matt Hoh Addresses United NationsAre We Stumbling Into World War III in Ukraine?
Attacking Pope, Militarists Target Ukrainian
Peace Formula of President ZelenskyyPutin’s Draft Treaty Between Russia and Ukraine Did Exist
Letter on Ukraine from Latin America to the World
Message from Ukraine to Europe After Two Years of War in Ukraine, It’s Time for PeaceA World BEYOND War
Tens of thousands evacuated from massive China floods
Authorities have evacuated nearly 60,000 people from their homes in
Guangdong, as days of heavy rain caused massive flooding in China’s most
populous province. Eleven people have gone missing, while no casualties
have been reported so far.
Footage on state media and online show large
swathes of land inundated by the floods and rescuers ferrying people on
lifeboats in waist-deep water. Several major rivers have burst their banks,
and authorities are closely monitoring “dangerously high” water levels.
They had warned that the level of a river in northern Guangdong could hit a
“once in 100 years” peak on Monday morning, though this had yet to
materialise by noon.
BBC 22nd April 2024
Nuclear news – week to 22 April
Some bits of good news – ‘The Largest Environmental Restoration in History’ Continues to Restart the Heart of the Everglades
Adopting the Aquaculture of the Future in Thailand A sustainable, integrated approach to fish farming has caught on in China and elsewhere. Thailand could be next.
TOP STORIES.
Iran Israel: An audible sigh of relief in the Middle East. The ‘Accepted Insanity’ of World War III
From the archives. How long can Israel defy the world?
Climate. Coral bleaching: Fourth global mass stress episode underway – US scientists. Swiss ruling could pave way for more climate activist cases. Pakistan issues flood alert and warns of heavy loss of life due to glacial melting.
Noel’s notes. Israel v Iran – religious fanaticism or common sense in the atomic age. Ukraine’s going the full Ukraine – no more bilingual nonsense, thank you very much.
********************************
AUSTRALIA. Washington Syndrome: Australia’s sovereignty sell-out hidden in plain sight. Greens call for anti-AUKUS movement at community forum.
Nuclear power in Australia is a really bad idea. The ban ensures that is all it is. Why South Australia will be a nuclear power battleground at the 2025 federal election. Coalition rift emerges over Dutton’s nuclear plans. Dutton kicks his own nuclear policy can down the road, amid reports of split in Coalition.
Universities for AUKUS: The Social License Confidence Trick.
The unyielding spirit of Uncle Kevin Buzzacott.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| ARTS and CUTURE. No more Russian language on air in three months – Kiev | ECONOMICS. Abrdn and two more City giants shun Sizewell C nuclear project. Small reactors don’t add up as a viable energy source. Sizewell C signs multi-billion euro deal with nuclear reactor business Framatome. |
| EMPLOYMENT, Two days of strikes planned at Dounreay nuclear power complex. The size of the workforce at Hunterston B Nuclear is to be cut by nearly a third. | ENERGY. Should we use nuclear energy? | ENVIRONMENT. New Hinkley nuclear power plant expected to kill 46 tonnes of fish a year. – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2024/04/18/1-b1-new-hinkley-nuclear-power-plant-expected-to-kill-46-tonnes-of-fish-a-year/ Japan starts 5th ocean discharge of Fukushima nuclear-tainted wastewater despite opposition. |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. The climate crisis and nuclear weapons. Is the possibility of a World War real? | HISTORY. Labour and nuclear weapons: a turbulent ideological history. |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Survey by East Lindsay District Councillor and Guardians of the East Coast (GOTEC) say ‘85% don’t want nuclear dump’.Seasoned Clams back – anti-nuclear alliance of the 1970’s revived . | POLITICS 5 Reasons Why What U.S. Congress Just Did Does Not Help UkraineYou will not BELIEVE what the Tories just gave Fujitsu ANOTHER government contract for. Keir Starmer doesn’t speak for Labour members on nuclear weapons.Analysis of Canada’s Budget 2024 provisions related to nuclear. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. “Rules-Based Order” Means Rules For Thee But Not For We. Biden Administration Defies Australia’s Call To End Assange Case, Submits ‘Assurances’ To UK Court. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zwfQX5evbA Iran warns Israel it knows where its nukes are hidden. Iranian commander says Tehran could review ‘nuclear doctrine’ amid Israeli threats. Biden considering a new Iranian nuclear deal. I’ve seen Iran’s nuclear HQ – these are the risks if Israel tries to destroy it,. Kiev demands Israel-style security guarantees. | SAFETY. Attacks on Ukraine’s nuclear plant put world at risk, IAEA warns. An additional eight days for the annual outage of Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor due to new faults. Corrosion found in treated radioactive water tanks at Fukushima plant. Theberton faces nightmare Sizewell C roadworks disruption. Safety probe at Cheshire-based nuclear cargo firm. Continuing safety problems with New Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Shaft. More deficiencies in the @NuScale_Power standard design approval application. |
| ECRETS and LIES.Fujitsu ‘managing top-secret military system’ two years after contract expired. Bombs and viruses: The shadowy history of Israel’s attacks on Iranian soil. Wyden Says Spying Bill Would Force Americans to Become an ‘Agent for Big Brother‘. Facebook designates Grayzone journalist Kit Klarenberg a ‘dangerous individual’ | SPINBUSTER. The fantasy of reviving nuclear energy – ALSO AT …… | TECHNOLOGY.New Fujitsu security research center in Israel to further develop digital identity tools. MPs flag UK’s HM Revenue & Custom’s £1.4bn active contracts with Fujitsu. Nuke authorities approve loading fuel at Niigata’s long-idled Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant. Stuxnet – how a simple USB stick sabotaged Iran’s nuclear plan in a ‘world-first’ showdown. Potential for small and micro modular reactors to electrify developing regions. |
WASTES. Decommissioning. EDF wants public views on plans for Hinkley Point B decommissioning.
| WAR and CONFLICT.Under UN Charter, Iran’s Attack Was a Legal Response to Israel’s Illegal Attack. The West now wants ‘restraint’– after months of fuelling a genocide in Gaza. Iran Closes Nuclear Sites Fearing Israeli Attack: IAEA Chief. Eve of destruction.Can war in the Middle East be avoided? Iran President Warns of ‘Massive’ Response if Israel Launches ‘Tiniest Invasion’ . Israel attacking Iran ‘could prompt it to develop nuclear bomb in months’ Israel: the road to Masada. AI-assisted genocide’: Israel reportedly used database for Gaza kill lists. We are closer to nuclear disaster today than at any point in the Cold War. | WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.U.S. House Passes $95 Billion Foreign War Bills. Missile Defenseless. Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. Frequently Asked Questions about nuclear weapons in the Middle East. US reportedly built missiles that can ruin Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Iron Dome and US-Israel Relations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TBiTNVV4Og The short march to China’s hydrogen bomb.‘ Pakistan advanced nuclear weapons programme despite economic challenges’ No Russian heavy weapons at Zaporozhye plant – IAEA boss. U.S. is building first new nuclear warhead in decades. |
Washington Syndrome: Australia’s sovereignty sell-out hidden in plain sight
“The process is almost complete. The Australian Defence Force’s integration into the US military to serve the needs of Washington has been announced, albeit without announcement, this week.”
Arguably the only thing left to do is to adopt American spelling and replace the letter ‘c’ with the letter ‘s’ in ‘Department of Defence’.
by Rex Patrick | Apr 21, 2024 https://michaelwest.com.au/washington-syndrome-marles-defence-plan-sovereignty-sell-out/
Defence Minister Richard Marles rolled out some glossy new brochures this week spelling out the composition of the Australian Defence Force in the decades ahead. As media quibbled about this equipment purchase or that one, former Senator and submariner Rex Patrick explains the sovereignty sell-out hidden in plain sight.
Washington Syndrome
It’s confirmed. All the evidence points to the Defence Minister suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (or more accurately Washington Syndrome), except that he hasn’t just formed a bond with his Defence Department, where he won’t challenge them. He’s swallowed the whole kit and caboodle; adopting Defence lingo and lines as his own.
Marles has expressed Defence’s wishes beautifully, without revealing explicitly what that wish is. But it’s sitting there in plain sight.
National Defence Strategy
The use of smokescreens is a longstanding battlefield tactic, and it’s often employed by bureaucrats too. To get a clear and truthful picture from the National Defence Strategy released this week, you have to peer through a dense cloud of verbiage to get a clear sense of what’s really going on.
Early in the document the strategic framework is laid out.
Our Alliance with the US remains fundamental to Australia’s national security. We will continue to deepen and expand our defence engagement with the US, including by pursuing greater scientific, technological and industrial cooperation, as well as enhancing our own cooperation under force posture initiatives.
So, we’re joined at the hip to the United States, and we intend to stay that way.
The document spells out why Defence thinks we need to do that. The optimism at the end of the Cold War has been replaced by uncertainty and tension of entrenched and strategic competition between the US and China.
It is accompanied by an unprecedented conventional and non-conventional build-up in our region, taking place without strategic reassurance or transparency.
…
This build up is also increasing the risk of military escalation or miscalculation that could lead to a major conflict in the region.
Indeed, it zooms in with on the specifics. The risk of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait is increasing, as well as other flashpoints, including disputes in the South and East China Seas and on the border with India.
The Government will continue to strengthen its defence engagement with the US to:
- ensure joint exercises and capability rotations with the US are focused on enhancing collective deterrence and force posture cooperation.
- Acquire the technology and capability required to enhance deterrence, including through increasing collaboration on defence innovation, science and technology.
- Leverage Australia’s strong partnership with Japan in its trilateral context, including opportunities for Japan to participate in Australia-US force posture cooperation activities, to enable interoperability and contribute to deterrence; and
- Progress enabling reforms to export controls, procurement policy and information sharing to deliver a more integrated industrial base.
- Meanwhile, the US is increasing its military footprint in Australia in terms of facilities in the north (mission briefing/intelligence centre and aircraft parking aprons) at RAAF Darwin, fuel storage at Darwin Port, infrastructure at RAAF Tindal near Katherine and logistics storage in both Victoria and Queensland).
- This is on top of the long established top secret signals intelligence base, the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, and Australian support for US naval communications through the very low-frequency receiving and transmission facility at North West Cap. As far as American strategists are concerned, Australia has long been “a suitable piece of real estate”.
But now there’s a new dimension to the alliance with Australian taxpayers are sharing the alliance love by pouring billions into the US submarine industrial base.
US Seventh and a Half Fleet
Of course, it’s hard to fight a conflict in Taiwan Straights with an army. That’s reflected in the distribution of future expenditure outline in the Integrated Investment Program, released alongside the National Defence Strategy.
The Navy will receive almost 40% of all Defence expenditure. The Royal Australian Navy will become the seventh and a half fleet of the US Navy, supported by what are being referred to as the expeditionary air operations by the Royal Australian Air Force.
Again, hidden in plain sight.
Taiwan
Taiwan is a democracy of 22 million people. I might like to think we would come to their aid in the event their democracy was threatened.
But sending our sons and daughters to engage in a northern hemisphere conflict is a matter which should be decided upon by our Parliament at some future time.
We should seek to have a balanced and flexible Defence Force optimised first for Defence of Australia and second for near regional security (a deployment to Taiwan, if approved by our elected members, should draw from an order-of-battle optimised for Defence of Australia).
Sovereignty Stolen
But that’s not what’s happening.
It’s all too tempting to suggest that the sovereignty sell-out started at with AUKUS, announced by Scott Morrison on 16 September 2021 and adopted by Anthony Albanese at the Kabuki show in San Diego on 15 March 2023. But it didn’t.For those astute enough to have picked up and read a copy of Professor Clinton Fernandes’ book “Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena”, they’ll know AUKUS is just natural and obvious. So too is the even greater embedding of the ADF into the US military to serve the needs of Washington that has been announced this week, albeit without announcement.
“The process is almost complete. The Australian Defence Force’s integration into the US military to serve the needs of Washington has been announced, albeit without announcement, this week.”
Arguably the only thing left to do is to adopt American spelling and replace the letter ‘c’ with the letter ‘s’ in ‘Department of Defence’.
History repeats
We have been down this road before.
n the 1920s and 1930s conservative Australian Governments saw Australian security as part of that of the British Empire as a whole. As a consequence, they implemented defence programs that were designed to produce forces, especially the Royal Australian Navy, that were hopelessly unbalanced and only made sense as a subset of British forces. Imperial Defence was prioritised ahead of national defence in a ‘strategy’, if you can call it that, that compromised Australia’s then very new national sovereignty and almost came to disaster in 1942.
Bureaucratic and political self-interest
Australia’s new “National Defence Strategy” really is nothing of the sort. It’s a sub-set of strategic planning made in Washington, not an Australian national perspective.
AUKUS has devoured whatever vestiges of independent strategic thought that might have been lingering in our Defence Department.
But don’t imagine that there’s any dissent about this in Defence Headquarters.
Those in Defence bureaucracy guiding our politicians are be happy, uproariously happy, because they’ll personally benefit from the arrangement.
AUKUS and this latest steerage will serve as a tremendous career and institutional opportunity for them. They’ve cemented their position in an alliance arrangement that involves important meetings and conferences, important decisions, trips overseas, and, for some, exchange postings. For them, they’ve got ringside seats and the opportunity to be occasional players in the big league.
Which brings me back to Defence Minister Marles, who can’t really be blamed for the sell-out.
Marles isn’t, and never was, the sort of political figure that could develop much of an understanding of what is going on around him, let alone be the one to lead with strategic vision and agenda forward. He’s too busy learning the lingo, enjoying the photo opportunities, and impressing upon his ‘sub-ordinates’ in Defence Headquarters that he’s not to be referred to as the Defence Minister, but rather as the Deputy Prime Minister. Surely he deserves that courtesy!
Dutton kicks his own nuclear policy can down the road, amid reports of split in Coalition
ReNeweconomy Giles Parkinson, Apr 22, 2024
Coalition leader Peter Dutton has delayed the release of the opposition’s proposed nuclear power policy, ostensibly because of the Sydney stabbing events and the release of the government’s defence policy last week, but more likely because Coalition MPs realise it makes no sense.
The Coalition has previously insisted that their plans for nuclear, along with their wish to stop the roll out of large scale renewables and keep coal fired power stations open, would be rolled out before the federal government’s budget due on May 14.
That will now not happen.
…………………………………. There appears to be a more fundamental problem, that of support within his own party room – some his own MPs don’t like the policy, and there is no support from the states either, which is crucial if the nuclear ban is to be lifted in Victoria, NSW and Queensland as the Coalition wants.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, citing four senior Coalition sources, the Nationals are also now baulking at the idea of the Liberals deciding which nuclear power plants should be built and where in their seats.
The SMH said National Party leader David Littleproud, who had previously voiced approval for having a nuclear reactor in his electorate – Maranoa hosts two existing coal plants that could host nuclear under the Coalition policy – had told the party room recently that “the last thing we want to do is make announcements before we have done the legwork.”
…………………………………In the interview on Insiders, Dutton talked about Twitter/X and the role of social media. “We won’t post disinformation, or misinformation …, ” he said. In that case, Dutton could start with his own Twitter account, and his own media statements, where he continues to sprout untruths about nuclear and the planned renewable energy transition.
On Sunday he repeated his claim that Australia is the only G20 country not using nuclear. That is simply not true – Germany and Italy have banned it, and Indonesia does not use it. “Dutton is lying,” Bowen noted.
Dutton also repeated his claim that the government is planning 28,000 kms of new transmission lines across the country by 2030, which he said “is equal to the coastline of the whole of Australia.”
Again, not true. The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan models just 5,000 kms by 2030 and 10,000kms by 2050 in its core “step change” scenario.
The 28,000 kms reference applies only to one scenario, the green energy export one, and is an estimate for 2050, not 2030. And, if Australia is to become a green energy exporter at the scale that that scenario suggests, it would likely need more power lines whatever the source of that power.
That 28,000kms claim was repeated on multiple occasions by Littleproud in his Sky News interview, along with his claim that wind turbines “only last 15-20 years (actually closer to 30). He said the Coalition policy is about transitioning from coal to nuclear, with gas and “some” renewables.
“Batteries can’t do it,” Littleproud said. And again, that is not true. As we report here, batteries have been for most of the past week the biggest source of supply in the evening peaks in California, one of the largest state grids in the world. https://reneweconomy.com.au/dutton-kicks-his-own-nuclear-policy-can-down-the-road-amid-reports-of-split-in-coalition/
Israel: the road to Masada
historical Masada is a rationalization for a future Masada —another crazy sect – of Jewish true believers self-destructing—Zionists.
In 73 A.D., legend has it, 960 Jewish rebels under siege in the ancient desert fortress of Masada committed suicide rather than surrender to a Roman legion.
News Forensics JULIAN MACFARLANE, APR 16, 2024
The Iran attack story continues to unfold. Everybody has an opinion – but we still don’t actually know what really happened. As a result, some think the attack was a victory for Iran. Others, even those on the Left, think not. Finian Cunningham calls it “lame retaliation”.
The Iranians say they gave the American 72 hours’ notice.
Pepe Escobar says that the Iranians and Americans met in Oman and the Iranians told the Americans their attack would be on military bases only. And…
THE SHADOWPLAY So this is how it happened. Burns met an Iranian delegation in Oman. He was told the Israeli punishment was inevitable – and if the US got involved then all US bases will be attacked, and the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked. Burns said we do nothing if no civilians are harmed. The Iranians said it will be a military base or an embassy. The CIA said go ahead and do it.
The Americans of course deny this.
So, somebody’s lying.
Over the years the Iranians have shown a tendency to exaggerate – usually about military capability—but they do not usually lie directly.
The US however doesn’t just fib a bit – it likes really really big lies. For America, the truth is whatever is most convenient for its policies, knowing that the media will always propagate Official Doctrine, just as in the Middle Ages the Vatican could be sure it’s pronouncements would be heard in sermons all over Europe, and believers would take them to heart. Those who dissented could be burned at the stake. We don’t do that — we have Belmarsh prison.
As Putin says, the US is the Empire of Lies.
In this case, the Americans keep on changing their story.
At first, the American said there were 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles. They did not mention ballistic missiles.
Now, the number is 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 100 ballistic missiles. T The media are talking up MIRVs and hypersonic weapons.
The US number now is the same as the IDF was claiming in the beginning. but it seems the number is going up.
The IDF insists that its ”David Sling” system intercepted 99% of 120 missiles breaching its airspace.
The Americans and Brits intercepted only drones apparently—47% of the drones— which means that about 80 entered Israeli airspace to add to the other hardware hurtling through Israeli skies.
Israelis say — or at least said — there were only two hits – with an unrealistically high percentage of interception. According to some Western analysts, however, the Iranians achieved a 6% success rate and 9 hits on Israeli targets— with both drones and missiles.
Israeli missile interceptors are impressive in the sky…………………………………………………………………………….
Given 72 hours advance warning, Western media speculate the Israelis should have been able to do a lot better, especially with US support.
Now we hear talk of MIRV missiles (multiple warheads) or hypersonic missiles which neither the Americans nor the Israelis would be able to intercept at all, much less 99%.
The Iranians may have, in fact, experimented with both kinds of sophisticated weaponry – but not in any quantity.
The fact that the Israelis were able to down so many “projectiles” – albeit at a cost of $3 billion suggests that the Iranians were, as I posited before, mostly using old stuff, demonstrating that even with that they could get through.
That said, while American sources are admitting nine hits, there may have been more as Andrei Martynov suggests.
So what happens if shit hits the fan? What if Finian Cunningham is right? What if the Israelis mistake the message and escalate?
The Iranians have promised a gloves off response of a magnitude perhaps 100 times greater.
The Russian Playbook
Netanyahu is Israel’s Zelensky. Israel is America’s Ukraine.
By contrast, Iran seems to be following the Russian playbook.
Their attack was classic Russian tactics. Drones, decoys air defense systems, followed by missiles of different types. Precision targeting. Avoidance of civilian casualties. Restraint
IF Israel mounts a major attack against Iran, it is likely to be vicious – just like Ukrainian attacks in Ukraine. Therefore, you can expect Iranians to apply other successful Russian strategies.
John Helmer has suggested Iran might adopt Russia’s current strategy of attacking critical infrastructure. That means Israel’s offshore oilfields and especially power stations – the electrical grid—which are highly vulnerable— and unlike in the Ukraine, localized……………………………….
Masada
Does history repeat itself? Of course it does.
Everyone thinks it doesn’t.
That’s because no one really knows – or wants to know – what happened in the first place—we mythologize and fictionalize events in the past to correspond to present day realities and needs.
Masada never happened as Israelis think it did – so they have learnt nothing. That thing about history —we don’t want to learn and when it repeats we don’t know what’s happening..
Masada? It wasn’t the Romans that “done it”.
It was a crazy sect of Jewish true believers who self-destructed.
That historical Masada is a rationalization for a future Masada —another crazy sect – of Jewish true believers self-destructing—Zionists.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
30 July – WEBINAR (Free) – Is Nuclear Power the Solution to Climate Change? https://my.acaw.org.au/event/acaw-is-nuclear-power-the-solution-to-climate-change
18:30 – 19:45 ACST
19:00 – 20:15 AEST
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 