Tag: nuclear weapons

Iran Has Nuclear Energy, Not Nuclear Weapons

Last week, on May 5, 2026, President Trump told a group of young children in the Oval Office that “we have to make a journey down to Iran to take the nuclear weapon. They would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks.”

Trump also told the children, “Iran with a nuclear weapon…maybe we wouldn’t all be here right now… I can tell you, the Middle East would have been gone. Israel would have been gone. And they would have trained their sights on Europe, first, and then us.”

According to the White House website, Trump warned Iran against having nuclear weapons on 74 occasions prior to the war.  Since the war began on February 28, 2026, Trump has discussed Iranian nuclear issues in at least 20 documented public appearances, based on the Senate Democrats’ Trump transcript archive and Roll Call’s Factbase transcript database.

Some of Trump’s more pointed claims:

About six weeks into the current war, on April 16, 2026, Trump said Iran “would have had a nuclear weapon within one month” if the U.S. had not used B-2 bombers to strike Iranian civilian nuclear energy facilities during the June 2025 war on Iran.

About one month after the war began, Trump said on March 27, 2026, “the Iranian lunatics refused to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons” after the June 2025 war.

And on February 24, 2026, just four days before starting the current war in Iran, Trump said that Iran was “warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, and in particular nuclear weapons, yet they continue. They’re starting it all over…”.

Trump’s statements go beyond saying ‘Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.’ He has repeatedly claimed that Iran was weeks away from having one, that U.S. strikes stopped Iran from obtaining one, and that Iran was trying to rebuild or continue a nuclear weapons program.

But Trump’s claims are not supported by the record. In fact, official statements from U.S. intelligence, the State Department, the IAEA, and others state that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, is not currently building one, and does not seek to build one.

Keep reading

Kim Jong Un Creates Ultimate Deadman Switch: North Korea To Auto-Launch Nukes If Assassinated

North Korea just casually revised its constitution to automatically launch a nuclear strike if leader Kim Jong Un is assassinated, or if the country’s nuclear command-and-control system is placed in danger by hostile forces’ attacks. 

The change was adopted during the first session of the 15th Supreme People’s Assembly in Pyongyang on March 22 and was disclosed this week by South Korea’s National Intelligence Service, which briefed senior officials on the details.

The updated Article 3 of North Korea’s nuclear policy law states: “If the command-and-control system over the state’s nuclear forces is placed in danger by hostile forces’ attacks … a nuclear strike shall be launched automatically and immediately.”

South Korean intelligence officials said the revision codifies procedures for retaliatory nuclear attacks in the event that Kim is killed or incapacitated during an attack, Reuters reports.

The policy update comes months after the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials in U.S.-backed Israeli strikes in February 2026. Analysts have described those operations as a “wake-up call” for Pyongyang, highlighting the effectiveness of leadership-targeted strikes.

Professor Andrei Lankov of Kookmin University in Seoul told The Telegraph that the constitutional emphasis gives added weight to what may have been existing policy: “This may have been policy before, but it has added emphasis now it has been enshrined in the constitution. Iran was the wake-up call.”

The nuclear policy revision was adopted alongside broader changes to North Korea’s constitution, also passed in March and revealed earlier this week. Those amendments remove all references to unification with South Korea, add an explicit territorial clause defining the country’s borders (including with the Republic of Korea to the south), and formally state that command authority over nuclear forces rests with Kim Jong Un as chairman of the State Affairs Commission.

Keep reading

Did you know the US and Israel helped create Iran’s nuclear project? Here’s the story

What’s 3,000 people killed in Iran, 2,020 killed in Lebanon, 23 in Israel, and more than a dozen in Gulf states after the US launched its war against Iran? “A little Middle East work” that’s going “very well,” US President Donald Trump said at the White House last week during a state dinner for King Charles. 

Trump’s ‘little work’, which involved significant casualties in the region without a clearly defined objective at the outset, was later framed as serving the purpose of ensuring that “Americans and their children would not be threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Will Charles help Donald make sure there’s nothing – and no one – to allow Iran to work on its nuclear project? It seems like the US will try to level Iran to the ground anyway. According to The Atlantic, the Trump administration began considering strikes aimed not simply at Iran’s military capacity, but at the faction inside the regime that Washington believed was preventing a deal.

Trump even reposted a video by Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen calling for an air campaign along those lines. According to Axios, the military prepared options for a “short and powerful” wave of strikes, which General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed the president on.

The timing is politically delicate. Trump has a state visit to China scheduled for mid-May, a trip that has already been postponed once. If strikes are ordered, they could come before the trip, allowing the president to travel after demonstrating strength. Or they could come immediately afterward, once the diplomatic optics are out of the way.

While Trump supplied the performance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio supplied the doctrine. When Trump spoke of military victory, royal agreement, and Iran never being allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, Rubio framed the same position as strategic necessity: Iran’s government cannot be trusted, its future intentions are already known, and any deal that fails to address the nuclear question is unacceptable.

Keep reading

Nuclear Weapons Didn’t Save Lives in 1945. They Wouldn’t Today Either

False historical narratives abound in our contentious and divided world, as leaders and complicit historians endeavor to use public understanding of the past to push policies and gain control in the present. One of the most egregious cases is the widely accepted account of the decision by U.S. leaders to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 of 1945, respectively.

The generally held view, which is frequently taught in schools across the U.S. and beyond, is that the bombings were necessary to save lives, both American and Japanese; just how many lives were saved has itself been subject to debate, though President Harry Truman claimed half a million U.S. lives in his 1955 memoirs. This assessment is not only disputed by the facts, but it ignores the realities of what the bombings meant for the initiation of the Cold War and the future of humanity, in a world long awash with civilization-ending weapons.

Most importantly, the bombings quite simply were unnecessary. There were at least three ways that Japanese surrender could have been induced without the instantaneous killing of more than a hundred thousand civilians and another several hundred thousand men, women, and children being subjected to third-degree burns, injuries, and radiation exposure that would either end their lives shortly thereafter, or cause health problems in the years and decades following the fateful attacks.

One option was that the U.S. could have altered the surrender terms to make them acceptable to the Japanese. What most Japanese leaders wanted in early August of 1945 was to keep their Emperor and the kokutai or emperor system. The Americans, who knew this from intercepted cables, should have accepted this term; they would eventually agree anyway out of self-interest. Sadly, most of Truman’s top military and political advisors urged this course of action, but Truman, with the support of Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes, refused.

Another possibility was to allow the Soviet Union to proceed with its ground invasion upon declaring a war on Japan at midnight on August 8. The Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted on April 11, “If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.”  As Japan’s Supreme War Council stated in May, “At the present moment when Japan is waging a life-or-death struggle against the U.S. and Britain, Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire.” Japan would have surrendered once it saw that it would be fighting both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Moreover, President Truman knew that the Soviets were about to invade, and wrote at least twice that that would end the war.

The last, albeit arguably the weakest, alternative was to demonstrate the enormous power of the atomic bomb by exploding it, as was done on July 16 in New Mexico, in the presence of foreign leaders, and as was recommended by a group of scientists in the Franck Report. Such a display could have exerted sufficient pressure on the Japanese government, especially in conjunction with the changed surrender terms and a warning about Soviet entry, to precipitate Japanese surrender. In fact, seven of America’s eight five-star admirals and generals in 1945 said the bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Truman’s personal chief of staff Admiral William Leahy, who also chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the use of the atomic bombs put us on the moral level of the ”barbarians of the dark ages.” General Douglas MacArthur wrote that the Japanese would have “gladly” surrendered months earlier if we’d told them they could keep the emperor.

Keep reading

Trump Rules Out Use of Nuclear Weapons in Iran War

President Donald Trump on Thursday ruled out using a nuclear weapon in the war with Iran.

He told reporters in the Oval Office that the United States has already greatly weakened the Islamic Republic with conventional weapons, declaring that “a nuclear weapon should never be allowed to be used by anybody.”

PBS NewsHour correspondent Liz Landers asked the president whether nuclear weapons might be used in the war, which the president said was a “stupid” question. 

“Why would I use a nuclear weapon when we’ve totally and in a very conventional way decimated them without it?” Trump said. “I wouldn’t use it.”

Two days ago, Trump extended a two-week ceasefire with Tehran, calling the Iranian leadership “seriously fractured.” He also cited a request from Pakistan’s prime minister as another reason for extending the ceasefire. 

In an April 17 Truth Social post, Trump said that Iran had agreed to surrender enriched uranium buried by last summer’s strikes on an underground base. 

Keep reading

Who Is General Dan Caine? The Man Who Allegedly Said ‘No’ to Trump’s Nuclear Codes During the Iran Crisis

Now, General Dan Caine — America’s highest-ranking military officer — is at the centre of one of the most explosive and widely-circulated claims of the US-Iran conflict: that he stood up in a White House meeting and told President Donald Trump ‘no’ when the president allegedly moved to invoke nuclear codes.

The allegation, which originated from retired CIA analyst Larry C Johnson on the ‘Judging Freedom‘ podcast on 20 April, has not been confirmed by any official source. A White House spokesperson told Newsweek the claim was false. Yet it has already accumulated nearly two million views on X — and placed Caine squarely in the public eye in a way his relatively quiet rise to the top of the US military never had.

A Fighter Pilot Nobody Saw Coming

John Daniel ‘Raizin‘ Caine was born on 10 August 1968 in Elmira, New York. His father, Steve Caine, is a retired United States Air Force fighter pilot. He followed that path, earning a bachelor’s degree in economics from Virginia Military Institute in 1990 before completing the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Programme and going on to fly F-16s.

A command pilot with more than 2,800 flight hours in the F-16, including over 150 combat hours, his career spans combat aviation, special operations, and senior interagency leadership across the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Intelligence Community. His last government post before becoming Chairman was as Associate Director for Military Affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency, a role he held from 2021 until his retirement in December 2024.

Trump’s Pick Over the Pentagon’s Own

Caine was not well known before his nomination in February 2025. Several officials on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon, granted anonymity as they were not authorised to speak publicly on the matter, said at the time that they had to Google his name.

He is the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who never served at the rank of four-star general or admiral before being nominated, the first to be nominated while in retirement, and the first to have been nominated as a member of a reserve component. Despite the unusual path, Trump backed him publicly. ‘He only knows one thing, how to WIN,’ Trump wrote of Caine in February.

Caine was confirmed on 11 April in a 60-25 vote and was promoted to a four-star general prior to the vote. He was sworn in just days before the Iran ceasefire deadline came into force.

The Claim That Went Viral

It was against this backdrop that Johnson made his allegation on the ‘Judging Freedom’ podcast. Johnson claimed that an emergency White House meeting took place on Saturday night amid escalating tensions with Iran, during which Trump allegedly moved to invoke nuclear codes, and Caine refused, with Johnson describing the exchange as ‘apparently quite a blowup.’

Johnson cited no named sources. Lead Stories searched Google News and Yahoo News for matching reports and found none, concluding that had such a confrontation actually happened and been verified by insiders, major outlets would have covered it heavily. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis said, ‘I’d have to see a couple of source confirmations before I even dignify that question with an answer. I just can’t imagine that that was ever a serious consideration.’

Keep reading

Has Iran Learned the North Korea Lesson: Nukes Are Essential To Deter the US?

Arms control advocates contend that by attacking Iran in the name of preventing the emergence of a “rogue” nuclear state, the United States may have “taken a sledgehammer” to the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime.  Iran could be one of the first technologically capable powers to confirm that fear.  The clerical regime has indicated that the country may withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  Such a move would eliminate any official monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear research and nuclear fuel enrichment.  North Korea took a similar step in 2003, and the move clearly facilitated the growth of Pyongyang’s embryonic nuclear-weapons program.

Foreign policy experts and members of the news media also note that Washington’s responses to the nuclear threat that North Korea, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, allegedly pose to regional and world peace are diverging more sharply than ever before. The United States and its Israeli ally are now waging a major air war against Iran – supposedly to prevent that country from weaponizing its nuclear program.  Their stance toward North Korea is far more subdued.  Although U.S. leaders continue to officially demand that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) commit to adopting a non-nuclear status and relinquish the weapons that it has already built, that demand is widely regarded throughout the international system as ineffectual posturing.  Even more significant, neither the United States nor an ally is taking any military action against the DPRK.

The contrast between Washington’s caution in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea and the flagrant U.S. coercion of Iran, which possesses no such weapons, could hardly be more striking. It has not gone unnoticed.  Pyongyang’s successful defiance of the United States regarding the nuclear issue could well produce an important lesson for Iran’s leaders.  Pyongyang has covertly built a small arsenal of approximately 50 nuclear warheads and an increasingly sophisticated fleet of ballistic missiles to deliver them.  U.S. and other leaders now treat North Korea with caution and restraint, however grudgingly.  Conversely, an Iran without nuclear weapons is being pounded severely.  Iranian leaders would be obtuse not to at least try to acquire (through construction or purchase) a modest deterrent similar to North Korea’s.

Until President Donald Trump’s first administration, Washington sought to prevent through diplomacy either Pyongyang or Tehran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.  That approach apparently achieved some success with respect to Iran in 2015 when the clerical regime signed a multilateral agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed restrictions on its nuclear program to ensure that it remained peaceful.  The document also contained provisions for frequent and intrusive UN inspections.  Trump, however, rescinded U.S. approval of that agreement in May 2018, dismissing it as “a bad deal.”  Thereafter, Israeli officials and their American supporters have repeatedly warned that Tehran was just months or perhaps even weeks away from building a nuclear arsenal.  There has never been compelling evidence supporting those allegations, but such warnings had become ever-present during the months leading up to the current war.

Keep reading

O’Keefe Media Group Releases Undercover Video of US Nuclear Scientist Leaking Sensitive National Security Information to Stranger – Update: Escorted Out of Pentagon

The O’Keefe Media Group on Tuesday released undercover footage of a top nuclear chief leaking sensitive national security information to a stranger.

Andrew Hugg, a Chief of Chemical Nuclear Surety disclosed sensitive information to a date in a public restaurant.

Hugg told an O’Keefe Media Group undercover journalist that the US still possesses nerve agents and a US Army chemist recently died from exposure.

Andrew Hugg also confirmed that Ukrainians have taken US taxpayer money and used it to buy mansions.

At one point, Hugg asked the OMG journalist, “You’re not a spy, right? Your eyes have mesmerized me so much…Almost like you’re an intelligence.”

“The easiest way to get intelligence…send a pretty girl, talk to the guy…I have to resist your eyes,” he said.

Per the O’Keefe Media Group:

Andrew Hugg, a U.S. Chief of Chemical Nuclear Surety, was caught on hidden camera casually revealing sensitive information to a stranger in a public restaurant. Andrew Hugg, Chief of Chemical Nuclear Surety, in charge of nuclear and chemical safety was caught on hidden camera releasing information regarding the U.S. Nuclear Information.

He claims the U.S. still possesses nerve agents and says a U.S. Army chemist recently died from exposure.

He also acknowledges U.S. airstrikes have killed children in Iran, calling it “collateral damage,” and revealed to the journalist how nuclear launch decisions are made in real time.

Hugg described how the United States could assassinate Iran’s next leader if he “doesn’t change,” while admitting the U.S. has no plans to use nuclear weapons: “We’re not going to nuke anybody.”

All of this was casually revealed to an undercover journalist in a restaurant. This raises serious questions about this official’s judgment, security, and what’s really happening behind closed doors.

Keep reading

U.S. Space Command Warns Russia Planning ‘Space Pearl Harbor’ With Nuclear Weapon in Orbit 

Russia is reportedly developing a nuclear weapon designed to be deployed in space that could cripple global communications and cause widespread disruption.

General Stephen Whiting, head of U.S. Space Command, has admitted that Washington is “very concerned” about plans to place a nuclear anti-satellite weapon into orbit.

“They are thinking about placing in orbit a nuclear anti-satellite weapon that would hold at risk everyone’s satellites in low Earth orbit, and that would be an outcome that we just couldn’t tolerate,” Whiting said.

The weapon could be used to destroy large numbers of satellites in low Earth orbit, potentially taking out communications systems, GPS networks and parts of the global internet.

A detonation in orbit could damage or destroy up to 10,000 satellites, roughly 80 percent of those currently in space.

Keep reading

Speculation EXPLODES Following Disappearance Of 10th Expert With UFO and Nuclear Secrets

Following the revelation that yet another government contractor with links to nuclear secrets and suspected dark project UAP information has vanished, speculation as to what exactly is going on has massively intensified.

The case of Steven Garcia, a 48-year-old property custodian at the Kansas City National Security Campus in Albuquerque, New Mexico, marks the latest entry in a disturbing sequence of deaths and vanishings among individuals connected to NASA, nuclear weapons components, and sensitive aerospace research.

Los Angeles Magazine contributor Lauren Conlin joined “Jesse Weber Live” to discuss the case, noting its eerie parallels to prior incidents.

Garcia’s disappearance is being framed as the 10th missing person case in the UFO mystery.

The disturbing pattern of deaths continues to baffle.

Keep reading