Tag: nuclear power

Israel Preparing Possible Preemptive Attack On Iranian Nuclear Facilities: US Intelligence

At a moment it has become very clear that Netanyahu could care less about ‘pressure’ from Western allies the US, UK, and Canada, there are breaking reports Tuesday evening that a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites could be imminent. According to CNN:

The US has obtained new intelligence suggesting that Israel is making preparations to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, even as the Trump administration has been pursuing a diplomatic deal with Tehran, multiple US officials familiar with the latest intelligence told CNN.

Such a strike would be a brazen break with President Donald Trump, US officials said. It could also risk tipping off a broader regional conflict in the Middle East — something the US has sought to avoid since the war in Gaza inflamed tensions beginning in 2023.

The same report underscores that no ‘final decision’ has been made yet, and this is perhaps another ploy by the Israelis to show the West and the Mideast region that it means business, in the wake of “Israel’s 9/11” – the Oct.7, 2023 Hamas terror attacks. 

The late in the day headline resulted in an immediate spike in oil prices… 

The United Kingdom on Tuesday suspended its free-trade agreement negotiations with Israel over the growing Gaza crisis, and after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed disgust at newly expanded Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, also as famine threats at least 500,000 Palestinians.

Starmer described that he and his French and Canadian counterparts are “horrified” by the Netanyahu government’s escalation in Gaza. This also comes as international headlines and warnings grow more dire. For example Al Jazeera has the following new headline: “Starving Palestinians resort to eating animal feed, flour mixed with sand”.

“We repeat our demand for a ceasefire as the only way to free the hostages, we repeat our opposition to settlements in the West Bank, and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance into Gaza,” Starmer told parliament.

Keep reading

‘Zero enrichment’ fantasies will lead us to war

President Donald Trump told reporters Monday that “very good things” are happening in his nuclear diplomacy with Iran, adding, “I think they’re being very reasonable thus far.” His optimistic tone was echoed by Iranian diplomats and Omani mediators, with Iran’s foreign minister describing the talks this weekend as “more serious” and “more detailed” than past meetings. Yet behind the upbeat rhetoric, a more complex and challenging reality is taking shape.

While earlier rounds made progress toward limiting—though not eliminating—Iran’s nuclear enrichment, even prompting parallel technical discussions, the latest round saw a slight reversal. The setback stemmed from the U.S. insistence on the unrealistic demand that Iran abandon domestic enrichment entirely.

Shutting down Iran’s more than 20,600 centrifuges is not required to achieve Trump’s stated goal of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Nonetheless, it remains a long-standing demand of hardliners such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton. Many of them understood that insisting on total Iranian capitulation was the quickest path to derailing diplomacy and laying the groundwork for war.

There are several reasons why Trump should not allow himself to be pushed into pursuing the zero-enrichment fantasy.

First, this goal has not only proven unattainable but also counterproductive, gifting Iran more time to advance its program while delaying the constraints a realistic, verification-based agreement would impose.

In 2003, Iran proposed to the U.S. a comprehensive deal aimed at resolving all major disputes, including limits on its enrichment program. At the time, Tehran had just 164 centrifuges, no stockpile of low-enriched uranium, and no capability to enrich above 3.67 percent—sufficient for civilian fuel but far below the 90 percent required for nuclear weapons.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, the Bush administration not only ignored the proposal but also punished the Swiss ambassador in Tehran for delivering Iran’s diplomatic overture to Washington. For Bush, nothing short of zero enrichment and regime change in Iran was acceptable.

In the absence of a deal, Iran’s nuclear program steadily expanded. By 2006, it was operating over 3,000 centrifuges. The Bush administration reluctantly agreed to support European-led talks but imposed a fatal precondition: Iran had to halt enrichment before negotiations could begin. Predictably, diplomacy stalled—and Iran’s program advanced unchecked.

By the time Barack Obama took office in 2009, Iran was operating 8,000 centrifuges and had stockpiled 1,500 kg of low-enriched uranium—enough for one nuclear weapon if further enriched. Obama’s early diplomatic efforts faltered, but by 2012, secret talks in Oman produced a breakthrough since, for the first time, the U.S. signaled it would accept enrichment in Iran in exchange for strict limits and intrusive inspections.

This breakthrough paved the way for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. By the time it was implemented, Iran had expanded its program to 19,000 centrifuges and amassed over 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium.

Over the past two decades, the persistent demand for zero enrichment—an unachievable goal—has only resulted in a larger and more advanced Iranian nuclear program by postponing realistic, enforceable limits on enrichment.

While these delays were damaging in the past, they pose an even greater risk today amid the looming crisis over potential UN snapback sanctions. This is yet another reason why Trump should avoid falling into the zero-enrichment trap.

Keep reading

Iran Rejects ‘Unacceptable’ US Demand To Dismantle Nuclear Sites

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has thrown cold water on the possibility of dismantling its nuclear facilities, which Tehran maintains are only for peaceful domestic energy purposes.

But top US officials have called for just that. Starting earlier this month Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Iran has to ‘walk away’ from uranium enrichment and long-range missile development, while Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff just days ago went further, asserting that Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities “have to be dismantled” for Washington to trust that it does not want nuclear arms.

Pezeshkian in the fresh comments blasted the demand as “unacceptable” and framed it as a matter of national sovereignty and independent development.

“The discussion that has been raised about dismantling Iran’s entire nuclear facilities is unacceptable to us,” the Iranian president said, adding that “Iran will not give up its peaceful nuclear rights.“

Still, the country’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi acknowledged Sunday that negotiations with the United States in Oman had become “much more serious and frank” – which suggests positive momentum toward restoring a deal or at least an understanding on which to build a working relationship with Washington.

Araqchi in the comments given to Iran’s state-run IRIB TV characterized “forward-moving” talks with the US over an array of complex nuclear-related issues.

This is despite last Thursday’s provocative comments given to Breitbart wherein bluntly stated, “They cannot have centrifuges. They have to downblend all of their fuel that they have there and send it to a far-away place.”

Keep reading

Iran Offers More Nuclear Transparency In Exchange For Lifting Sanctions

Iran says that ready to make its nuclear program more transparent at a moment it is preparing to send representatives for a third round of talks with the United States, set for April 26.

Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said Tuesday that Tehran in return for this greater transparency wants US-led sanctions lifted.

“We will try to create more transparency and more trust [in the nuclear program] in exchange for lifting sanctions. In other words, in exchange for lifting sanctions — I emphasize, in a way that is effective and has a [positive] effect on people’s lives — Iran is ready to create more trust in its nuclear program and more transparency,” Mohajerani told reporters.

Mohajerani made clear that Tehran is ready to reach “good agreement” with the United States on nuclear issue. “We are confident that reaching a good agreement in a short time while respecting our national interests is realistic,” she said, calling the prior two rounds “good” amid a “constructive” atmosphere.

The day prior to these optimistic remarks, Iran’s Foreign Ministry warned that Israel was seeking to “undermine” the ongoing nuclear talks with Washington, amid reports in Israeli media that leaders are mulling a ‘limited’ attack on the Islamic Republic.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Monday that a “kind of coalition is forming… to undermine and disrupt the diplomatic process” and that the “Zionist regime is at the center of this effort.”

Alluding to reports from last week of an internal US administration split on Iran, Baghaei further warned that hawks in the US are also involved in the effort to sabotage the talks. “Alongside it are a series of warmongering currents in the United States and figures from different factions,” he said.

Keep reading

Israel still eyeing a limited attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities

Israel has not ruled out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months despite President Donald Trump telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. was for now unwilling to support such a move, according to an Israeli official and two other people familiar with the matter.

Israeli officials have vowed to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and Netanyahu has insisted that any negotiation with Iran must lead to the complete dismantling of its nuclear program.

U.S. and Iranian negotiators are set for a second round of preliminary nuclear talks in Rome on Saturday.

Over the past months, Israel has proposed to the Trump administration a series of options to attack Iran’s facilities, including some with late spring and summer timelines, the sources said. The plans include a mix of airstrikes and commando operations that vary in severity and could set back Tehran’s ability to weaponize its nuclear program by just months or a year or more, the sources said.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Trump told Netanyahu in a White House meeting earlier this month that Washington wanted to prioritize diplomatic talks with Tehran and that he was unwilling to support a strike on the country’s nuclear facilities in the short term.

But Israeli officials now believe that their military could instead launch a limited strike on Iran that would require less U.S. support. Such an attack would be significantly smaller than those Israel initially proposed.

It is unclear if or when Israel would move forward with such a strike, especially with talks on a nuclear deal getting started. Such a move would likely alienate Trump and could risk broader U.S. support for Israel.

Keep reading

Israel considers ‘limited strike’ on Iran – Reuters

Israel is considering a “limited strike” on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months, despite Washington’s refusal to support military action, Reuters reported on Saturday, citing sources familiar with the matter. The deliberations come as the second round of US-Iran negotiations have concluded in Rome, with expert-level talks expected to continue on April 26 in Oman.

According to Reuters, Israeli officials are weighing a “limited strike” that would require minimal US support – unlike the larger and prolonged bombing campaign previously under consideration.

West Jerusalem reportedly presented Washington with several strike options, “including some with late spring and summer timelines.” A senior Israeli official told the outlet that no final decision had been made.

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump had rejected an Israeli proposal for “extensive” strikes, opting instead to pursue diplomacy.

“I’m not in a rush to do it, because I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death, and I’d like to see that. That’s my first option,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.

Keep reading

Witkoff indicates US seeks to cap Iran uranium enrichment, not dismantle nuclear program

US special envoy to the Mideast Steve Witkoff appeared to use a key component of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal signed during the Obama administration as a reference point for the ongoing talks with Tehran, in comments that seemed to indicate the US is looking to limit rather than dismantle Tehran’s nuclear program.

The deal, which US President Donald Trump abandoned in 2018 and has long criticized, barred Iran from enriching its uranium beyond 3.67 percent as part of a framework intended to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining a weapon.

“The president means what he says, which is: Iran cannot have a bomb,” Witkoff told Fox News in a Monday interview, elaborating that the ongoing “conversation” with Iran would be about enrichment and weaponization, with the imperative to verify any agreed commitments.

“Iran “do[es] not need to enrich past 3.67%. In some circumstances, they’re at 60%, in other circumstances 20%. That cannot be,” he said. “You do not need to run — as they claim — a civil nuclear program where you’re enriching past 3.67%.”

Enriching uranium from 60% to the 90% needed for a weapon is a relatively short technical step.

Keep reading

Russia Warns Against US Strikes On Iran Nuclear Sites: ‘Catastrophic & Illegal’

The Russian Foreign Ministry warned on Thursday that US threats of attack against Iran are “unacceptable” and could result in a “catastrophe”.

“The use of military force by Iran’s opponents in the context of the settlement is illegal and unacceptable. Threats from outside to bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure facilities will inevitably lead to an irreversible global catastrophe. These threats are simply unacceptable,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov also told Life magazine that the “consequences of this, especially if there are strikes on the nuclear infrastructure, could be catastrophic for the entire region.”

Russia and the US have recently held talks on ending the war in Ukraine. Ryabkov said these talks have not resulted in a breakthrough. 

Regarding tension between Tehran and Washington, Ryabkov said Russia “condemns US threats.” The Russian Foreign Ministry comes after US President Donald Trump renewed his threat to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. 

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. But there’s a chance that if they don’t make a deal, that I will do secondary tariffs on them like I did four years ago,” the president said on Sunday. Iran issued a formal complaint to the UN Security Council and said it would respond to any threat.

Trump had sent a letter to Iranian leadership in early March, threatening an attack if Tehran did not come to the negotiating table. Iranian officials said they would not negotiate under threats and economic sanctions, which Trump has imposed with full force as part of his “maximum pressure” policy. 

This week, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran has officially responded to Trump’s letter signaling a willingness for indirect talks, which the US is reportedly considering. 

However, Washington is simultaneously beefing up its forces in the region in preparation for a potential attack. This follows several reports over the past two months that Israel is planning to strike at the Iranian nuclear program. 

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravachi held talks on the nuclear issue with Ryabkov on Wednesday. 

“The sides stressed the illegality and inadmissibility of the use of military force by Iran’s opponents to resolve disagreements and the unacceptability of threats from the outside to bomb Iran’s nuclear energy infrastructure, as this will inevitably lead to large-scale and irreversible radiological and humanitarian consequences for the entire Middle East region and the world as a whole,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said. 

Keep reading

Ukraine has secret nuclear doomsday plan, according to former Zelensky adviser

Ukraine has a secret last-ditch “scorched earth” plan to render its entire territory uninhabitable in the event of a Russian victory in the war – and perhaps the rest of Europe with it.

This is according to Oleksiy Arestovych, a former adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In an interview with a Ukrainian journalist that he gave last month, Arestovych claimed that Ukraine’s current head of military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, has floated a plan to blow up all of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, and possibly some of Russia’s as well, if all other defensive measures fail.

Ukraine currently operates four nuclear power plants with a total of 15 reactors. One of them, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station, is the largest plant in Europe and has been under Russian occupation since March 2022. Russia, for its part, has 37 reactors divided among 11 power plants.

If all or even some of these reactors were attacked and destroyed simultaneously, the destructive impact would be beyond calculation. The Chernobyl nuclear accident that occurred in Ukraine in 1986, and which remains the worst disaster involving nuclear energy in history, killed dozens and led to long-term health problems for thousands of others. It also led to the evacuation of tens of thousands of people and rendered the surrounding area permanently uninhabitable, spreading radioactivity over a large area and even into Western Europe.

Keep reading

Recycling Power: Rethinking Nuclear Waste

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court earlier this month is a reminder that our nation has a 66-year-old nuclear energy problem – and there is a ready and available solution in recycling used nuclear fuel. 

The Problem

Nuclear energy produces nearly 20% of our electricity. The fuel used to run our reactor fleet loses its intensity over time. That used, but not yet depleted, fuel is called Used Nuclear Fuel (“UNF”). There are 90,000 metric tons of UNF currently stored at reactor sites across 39 states in America, including approximately 4,000 metric tons in my home State of Texas.

In 1982, the federal government was made responsible by an act of Congress for removal and disposal of UNF from reactor sites, and has collected over $20 billion from reactor owners to pay for disposal of UNF. To date, the government has not removed any significant quantity of UNF from any site anywhere in America, including Texas, nor is there a current plan to do so.

As Secretary of Energy under President Trump’s first term, it became clear that any plan to move tonnage of UNF required some practical consent of the receiving state and local community, even if legal consent was not required by the 1982 Act.  

The consequence of not solving this problem results in a financial loss to America and leaves the UNF at the numerous reactor sites across America. There have been private efforts to establish UNF interim storage facilities in West Texas and New Mexico. Though there has been some local acceptance of an interim storage facility in Texas or New Mexico, there has also been significant opposition. Resistance to those private interim storage proposals led to the NRC v. Texas case currently before the Supreme Court.

Keep reading