Archives: Articles

By Vijay Prashad

The Iran–US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) emerged not from reconciliation, but from exhaustion and strategic failure by the United States and its allies. It was the product of a war that had reached its political limits. Washington and Tel Aviv presented their illegal war of aggression as a necessary response to Iran’s nuclear energy programme, missile capabilities, and regional alliances. Yet behind this language of security lay a broader objective: to weaken Iran decisively and restore a regional order centred on unquestioned US and Israeli dominance.

For more than two decades, successive US administrations had sought to contain Iran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations, cyberwarfare, and targeted assassinations. The recent war represented the most intense expression of this strategy. The assumption in Washington and Tel Aviv was that overwhelming force would cripple Iran’s military infrastructure, fracture its state capacity, provoke internal instability, and perhaps open the way for political transformation.

That expectation was not fulfilled. Iran suffered extensive damage to military facilities, infrastructure, and economic assets. Civilian life was severely disrupted. But the Iranian state did not collapse. Its command structures continued to function, its armed forces retained retaliatory capacity, and its leadership preserved enough cohesion to withstand the assault. Despite the murder of several key leaders of the Islamic Republic, it remains in authority and its legitimacy has in fact been strengthened.

Equally important, Iran demonstrated that it could impose costs beyond its own borders. Missile and drone attacks reached Israeli territory and threatened strategic infrastructure across the Gulf Arab states. The conflict imposed by the US and Israel ended up with disrupted shipping routes, raised insurance costs, unsettled energy markets, and reminded governments across the world that instability in the Gulf cannot be contained within the region.

As the war continued, the gap between military power and political achievement became increasingly visible. The United States and Israel possessed overwhelming military superiority, but they could not convert battlefield pressure into decisive political outcomes. Iran remained intact; regime change did not occur. The Axis of Resistance – from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea – was weakened but not eliminated. Continued escalation promised greater destruction, but not strategic victory. Due to this fact, the MoU is not a final peace treaty. It is a provisional framework designed to halt direct hostilities, reopen channels of negotiation, and prevent the conflict from spreading further.

Its first and most immediate provision is a temporary cessation of direct military operations. The framework establishes a 60-day period during which the parties are expected to negotiate the terms of a more durable settlement. This pause does not resolve the underlying conflict, but it creates space to prevent accidental escalation and reduce the immediate risk of a wider regional war.

Second, the MoU centres on the Strait of Hormuz. This is the agreement’s most economically significant feature. Roughly one-fifth of globally traded petroleum passes through this narrow waterway. During the war, threats to shipping demonstrated both Iran’s geographic leverage and the vulnerability of the global economy to instability in the Gulf. The MoU treats maritime deconfliction not as a technical matter, but as a central pillar of regional and global economic stability.

Third, the agreement establishes a process for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear energy programme. Crucially, it does not impose immediate dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Instead, it opens discussions on enrichment levels, inspection mechanisms, monitoring arrangements, and the possible return of international technical oversight. This marks a shift from coercion to bargaining: Iran is not being treated simply as a target, but as a state whose consent is required for any durable nuclear arrangement.

Fourth, the MoU includes discussions on sanctions relief, oil exports, and the possible release or mobilisation of Iranian financial assets. The details remain contested. But the principle is clear: economic strangulation did not produce surrender. A sustainable settlement will require some degree of economic accommodation.

Fifth, the agreement reportedly includes regional deconfliction mechanisms, particularly around Lebanon. This reflects the fact that the conflict was never only bilateral. Iran’s regional alliances, Israel’s military operations, US security commitments, and the fragile balance in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Gulf are all connected. Any agreement that ignores this regional architecture will remain unstable.

The most revealing aspect of the MoU is what it omits. It does not demand regime change, it does not require Iran to abandon its missile programme, and it does not force Tehran to withdraw entirely from regional political and security affairs. In short, the agreement recognises Iran as a regional power whose interests must be negotiated, not simply bombed away.

The MoU exposes important differences between the strategic priorities of the United States and Israel. For Israel, the war was an opportunity to reshape the regional balance of power. Israeli policymakers have long regarded Iran as the principal obstacle to their strategic ambitions in West Asia. The weakening of Hezbollah, the fragmentation of resistance networks, and the isolation of Tehran were seen as necessary steps toward a regional order more favourable to Israel. The United States shared some of these objectives but operated under broader constraints. Washington had to consider not only military outcomes, but also oil markets, global trade, Gulf allies, domestic political pressures, and the risk of wider international involvement. As the costs mounted, US calculations increasingly diverged from Israeli maximalism.

The result is an agreement that many in Israel are likely to regard as insufficient. The war did not eliminate Iran as a strategic actor. It did not produce regime change. It did not destroy Iran’s capacity to influence events beyond its borders. Most importantly, it ended not with capitulation, but with negotiation. This outcome reveals a deeper problem for Israeli strategy. Military superiority can inflict enormous damage, but it cannot by itself produce political legitimacy or regional acceptance. Israel can strike targets across West Asia, but it cannot determine the political future of societies beyond its borders through force alone.

For the United States, the MoU represents the recognition of another reality: military dominance no longer guarantees political obedience. This lesson has been learned repeatedly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and now once again in relation to Iran.

The Gulf Arab monarchies are among the most important observers of this agreement. Throughout the conflict, Gulf governments were caught between competing pressures. They remain dependent on US security guarantees and have expanded overt or covert relations with Israel. At the same time, they understand that any regional war with Iran places their own economic and social stability at risk. The disruption of shipping routes and threats to regional infrastructure made this vulnerability unmistakable. The Gulf states possess immense wealth, but their economies depend on secure maritime trade, stable energy exports, foreign investment, and the confidence of global markets. A prolonged war endangers all of these.

The likely conclusion for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman is pragmatic rather than ideological. They will continue to work with Washington. Some will maintain or deepen relations with Israel. But they will also seek channels with Tehran and avoid becoming direct platforms for escalation. This trend was already visible before the war. The Saudi–Iranian rapprochement facilitated by China in 2023 reflected a growing recognition that regional stability cannot be achieved through permanent confrontation. The war has reinforced that conclusion. The Gulf monarchies have learned that neither Iran nor the United States is going away. Their future depends not on choosing one side permanently against the other, but on managing the contradictions between them while protecting their own interests.

Whether Iran has won depends on how victory is defined. If victory means avoiding destruction, Iran did not win. The country suffered severe economic losses, infrastructure damage, military degradation, and human costs. The burden of the war fell heavily on ordinary Iranians. But strategic outcomes are not measured only by damage suffered. They are also measured by political objectives achieved or prevented.

The central objective of the United States and Israel was not merely to damage Iran. It was to fundamentally weaken Iran as an independent regional actor. On that measure, the campaign fell short. Iran remains sovereign and the government of the Islamic Republic remains in power. Its military capabilities have been reduced but not eliminated. Its diplomatic relevance has been strengthened by the fact that negotiations now revolve around securing Iranian consent rather than imposing foreign dictates. In this sense, Iran achieved what many states facing overwhelming military pressure have sought throughout history: survival. Survival is not romantic. It is often costly, brutal, and incomplete. But in international politics, survival can be the most important measure of strategic success.

The larger significance of the war lies elsewhere. The conflict demonstrated once again that destruction is not the same as power. Military force can demolish infrastructure, kill combatants, and impose suffering. What it cannot always do is produce political transformation. The United States and Israel possessed vastly superior military capabilities, yet they could not secure the political outcome they desired. The Iran–US MoU is therefore not a story of decisive victory by either side. It is the story of a war that revealed the limits of coercion. Iran emerges battered but standing. The United States and Israel emerge powerful but unable to dictate terms. The Gulf states emerge more conscious of their vulnerability. The region enters a new phase in which negotiations, rather than battlefield victories, will determine the next chapter of West Asian politics. That is the deepest political meaning of the MoU: military power can destroy, but it cannot always rule.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa.

24  June 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Michel Chossudovsky & Christine Cotton

She Courageously Confronted Pfizer–May Her Legacy Live!

8 Jun 2026 – It is June 2, 2026. By the time you read these lines, I will have left this world.

For those who do not know me, my name is Christine Cotton.

I am what is known as a whistleblower. I worked for 25 years in the pharmaceutical industry in the management and analysis of clinical data.

As a biostatistician, since December 2020, I have immersed myself in the documents of the COVID vaccine from the Pfizer laboratory. I have written numerous documents and done many broadcasts to share the real results. My conclusions are catastrophic, beyond the invalidity of the results due to errors or even manifest frauds.

The Pfizer vaccine that the population received, that you may have received, is not the one from the clinical trial with the 95% efficacy announced by all the politicians, journalists, and TV doctors. You were administered a product for which there were absolutely no results, neither of efficacy nor of tolerance.

This message is not intended to create sensationalism on social networks but to inform you of one of the biggest manipulations that humanity has ever known.

All the evidence is in the latest version of my work, which I invite you to download and read. For the lazier ones and the very busy, the few pages of the conclusion and the links to the source documents will already enlighten you a great deal.

I fell ill at the very moment I filed a complaint against the health authorities.

For over a year, I have been suffering from excruciating pain starting from the lower back down to my legs, burning sensations in the skin, mainly in the legs and back. I have consulted general practitioners, neurologists, osteopaths, virologists, dermatologists, rheumatologists, psychiatrists, homeopaths… I have swallowed thousands of capsules of dietary supplements, anxiolytics, neuroleptics, painkillers prescribed by the pain center. I have even done bioresonance sessions and seen magnetizers, and this without any result.

I am at the end of what I can bear.

I ask forgiveness from those who love me, you who have followed me on social networks for 4 years, my friends, my parents, and above all to God or whatever his nature or name may be, to end my life—I, who have never ceased to protect it since childhood, whether plant, animal, or human life.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank those who have supported me, encouraged me, and all those who pray or have organized prayer groups. I am going to ask you to pray once more so that my soul may be in the light of the Creator as soon as possible.

***

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has taught as visiting professor in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Latin America.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Richard Falk

4 Jun 2026 – The post below attempts to unravel the problematic relationship between the UN framework of regulating war/peace relations and geopolitical management of global security shaping the design of world order embedded in the post-1945 architecture of world order by the winners of World War II, the five permanent members of the Security Council vested with a right of veto. I am publishing here my edited version of an AI generated summary of my conversations with Pascual Lottaz, founding director of the Institute of Neutrality Studies.

Abstract

Richard Falk, a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, critiques the current state of international law and U.S. militarism, arguing that the unipolar world order established post-1945 is failing. He contends that international law is often ineffective in the realm of global security due to power imbalances, where the most powerful states evade accountability, undermining the law’s legitimacy. Falk emphasizes that the U.S. mismanaged its unipolarity, investing heavily in militarism while neglecting the socio-economic welfare of its citizens. He contrasts this with China’s more cooperative approach to international relations, which prioritizes mutual benefits over militaristic dominance. The discussion also highlights the resurgence of neutrality as a potential counterbalance to aggressive geopolitical maneuvers, particularly in the context of shifting alliances in the Middle East. Falk warns that without a reevaluation of political realism and a commitment to equitable international norms, the world risks further instability and conflict.

Introduction

The contemporary landscape of international relations is marked by an overwhelming sense of turbulence, exacerbated by the persistent militarism of powerful nations. As the geopolitical order shifts, the role of international law becomes increasingly critical yet disappointingly inadequate. Within this context, discussions surrounding the effectiveness of international law, the implications of U.S. militarism, and the prospects for neutrality and shifting alliances emerge as vital considerations for scholars and policymakers alike. A recent conversation sheds light on these pressing issues, articulating a nuanced understanding of the complexities that define the current state of global governance. Note that the inadequacy of international law is not with the normative framework of rules, principles, international institutions, but with the geopolitical control of global security enforcement and accountability mechanisms.

Law Power and Reciprocity

The effectiveness of international law with respect to global security (war/peace agenda and genocide prevention) is profoundly shaped by the dynamics of power and reciprocity. While international law ostensibly serves as a framework for regulating state interactions, its actual performance in the realm of global security has been deeply disappointing. The principles of reciprocity, which are fundamental to the functioning of any legal system, are eroded by the stark inequalities among states. The United Nations (UN) Charter, established in 1945, institutionalized a system that privileges the powerful, allowing them to wield disproportionate influence over global governance, whether through funding leverage or the veto. This structural inequality has resulted in widespread public perceptions that international law operates more as a tool of the strong than as a genuine system of accountability.

The power imbalance has led to a selective application of international law, where the actions of powerful states are often shielded from scrutiny. The conversation highlighted that this selective enforcement creates a crisis of belief in the law itself. When the powerful are not held accountable, the legitimacy of the entire legal framework is called into question. The discourse surrounding international law must therefore grapple with this inherent hypocrisy, recognizing that the laws crafted to govern global relations often reflect the interests of those who designed them. Double standards undermines belief in international law as occurs when considerations of legality are used to criticize or sanction geopolitical rivals and their friends but denied to exonerate their own actions and those allied. It is this duality that makes a mockery of international law as integral to international relations, and relegates it to the role of state propaganda.

US Militarism and Failed Wars

U.S. militarism has significantly shaped the course of international relations, leading to a series of controversial interventions that have often resulted in political failure. The conversation underscored how the U.S. has engaged in numerous military endeavors that, rather than promoting stability or security, have exacerbated tensions and contributed to cycles of violence. The historical context of these interventions reveals a pattern of hubris in shaping foreign policy, revealing the shortcomings of an uncritical belief that military superiority produces victorious endings of wars. The post-1945 record shows that wars not justified by the law governing self-defense have generally led the U.S.to experience catastrophic outcomes or at best stalemates.

The discussion pointed to the Vietnam War as a pivotal example of this phenomenon. The U.S. ultimately did not win in Vietnam, and the lessons from that conflict seem largely unheeded. Instead, the pattern of military engagement continues, with the U.S. investing heavily in a militarized foreign policy that often neglects the nuances of diplomacy and negotiation, and consistently disregards the sovereign rights and national security of other sovereign states. The ramifications of such an approach are far-reaching, extending beyond the immediate geopolitical landscape to have damaging economic, political, and cultural impacts on the very fabric of American society, where militarism diverts resources away from pressing domestic needs.

The conversation also highlighted the economic motivations underpinning U.S. militarism. The intertwining of military expenditures with corporate interests creates a situation where the machinery of war becomes self-perpetuating. This relationship not only undermines the country’s economic health and democratic ethos but also perpetuates a cycle of violence that is difficult to break, as well as creating a militarist bureaucracy that biased policymaking in the governing structure..

Neutrality and Shifting Alliances

The concept of neutrality is experiencing a renaissance as sovereign governments reassess their alliances in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. The conversation illuminated how historical notions of neutrality are being redefined in light of contemporary challenges. Countries are again viewing geopolitical neutrality as a positive strategic option while exhibiting serious concerns about with the implications of aligning with powerful geopolitical actors, pursuing their national goals that jeopardize the stability of alliance relations.

This reassessment is evident in the strategies adopted by nations such as the Gulf states, which are increasingly recognizing that dependence on U.S. security guarantees may not provide the stability or protection that they seek. Instead, these nations are exploring avenues for independent diplomacy, signaling a shift towards a more complex understanding of neutrality or multiple alignments in the face of emerging threats. Such shifts are particularly evident in Europe and the Middle East.

The conversation also pointed to the dangers of abandoning neutrality, as exemplified by Sweden and Finland’s recent NATO membership. This move illustrates a broader trend where nations are compelled to choose sides in an increasingly polarized world, potentially sacrificing their sovereignty in the process. The implications of these shifting and eroding alliances are profound, as they may lead to heightened tensions and conflict rather than the stability that neutrality historically provided. These adjustments in policy have been particularly affected by Trump’s unilateral transnationalism (‘America First’) evident in responding to the Russian attack on Ukraine and the launching of a second Iran War within calendar year 2025, in one case abandoning European security in relation to Russia and in the other proceeding to a major war with heavy costs without consultation with allies or the receipt of any authorization by internal constitutional procedures or the UN Security Council.

Israel Palestine Media and War Propaganda

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a focal point of international law discussions, particularly concerning the media’s role in shaping narratives around war and legality. The conversation emphasized how the framing of conflict in media discourse often obscures the realities on the ground, creating a disconnect between legal principles and lived experiences. The portrayal of the conflict in mainstream media frequently reflects biases that align with the interests of powerful nations, thus perpetuating a narrative that can undermine the pursuit of justice and accountability.

The conversation also highlighted the significance of international law in this context, noting the challenges faced by those who attempt to hold powerful states accountable for violations. The selective application of international law creates a scenario where the powerful can act with impunity, while those on the receiving end of aggression are often left without recourse. This disparity not only delegitimizes the legal framework but also fosters a sense of hopelessness among those affected by conflict, and relying on their right and will to resist encroachments on basic rights. For the Palestinians, their inalienable right of self-determination.

Moreover, the media’s framing of the conflict often fails to address the underlying legal and moral questions that should guide international responses. The discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must therefore evolve to encompass a more robust understanding of international law and its application, recognizing the urgent need for accountability and justice in the face of ongoing violence.

Conclusion

The conversation encapsulates the complexities and challenges facing the international legal order in an era marked by U.S. militarism, shifting alliances, and the urgent need for a reevaluation of neutrality. As the world grapples with the consequences of historical injustices and the failures of powerful states to act responsibly, the role of international law becomes more critical than ever. The discussions surrounding the effectiveness of international law, the implications of unipolarity, geopolitical management of global security, and the necessity for a renewed commitment to neutrality reflect a broader call for a reevaluation of how states engage with one another in an increasingly interconnected world endangered by reckless militarism and multiple forms of inequality.

The future of international law hinges on the recognition that it must serve as a genuine mechanism for the regulation of behavior of governments and the accountability of leaders, corporations, and financial institutions rather than a propaganda tool for the powerful. Only through a commitment to equity, reciprocity, and genuine dialogue can the international community hope to address the pressing challenges of our time and move toward a more just global order. As nations navigate the complexities of their relationships with one another, the lessons learned from past conflicts and the ongoing struggles for justice should inform the path forward.

Prof. Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, of the TRANSCEND Media Service Editorial Committee, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, at Queen Mary University London, Research Associate the Orfalea Center of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Fellow of the Tellus Institute.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Katherine Krueger

How many acts of war must occur before the mainstream media accepts there is no ceasefire between the U.S., Israel, and Iran?

3 Jun 2026 – To any reasonable person, a ceasefire is exactly what it sounds like: It is the total cessation of military attacks to end a war. But to the mainstream American media outlets covering the U.S.–Israel war with Iran, what constitutes a “ceasefire” is a rhetorical exercise.

Today, Iran launched missiles at the international airport in Kuwait. As the New York Times reported: “The barrage was one of the biggest attacks on a Gulf nation since the U.S.-Iran cease-fire took effect in April.” ABC News’s live update coverage ran with the breaking news headline “Iran targets US forces, Kuwait airport amid ceasefire.” Over at CNN, the headline was “Kuwait’s airport attacked as fresh Iran-US strikes strain ceasefire.”

Of course, Iran’s latest campaign didn’t come out of nowhere: It comes two days after the U.S. announced that it had bombed radar and drone sites in the country, and one day after Israel bombarded south Lebanon with airstrikes and artillery yet again, reportedly killing at least four people across two towns.

All that bombing, and all of its attendant death and suffering, sure doesn’t feel like a “ceasefire” in any real sense. Still, the Times, along with other national news outlets, continues to spin the fantasy that the ceasefire is intact — only now it’s increasingly “fragile” or “tested.” The paper of record has gone so far as to say that it “hangs in balance.”

In a piece of news analysis in the Times last week — on the heels of the U.S. bombing Iran for the second time in three days — the paper made the case that “a truce isn’t necessarily doomed if the missiles are still flying.” It also argued that while a ceasefire might sound like an end to the bombing, the geopolitical definition hinges on whether both sides agree that a “ceasefire” remains in effect.

If government officials call it a ceasefire, who is The New York Times to question it?

If government officials call it a ceasefire, who is the New York Times to question it?

For many months, another ceasefire in name only has been touted in Gaza. What that’s looked like in practice is Israel relentlessly bombing the Palestinians on a near-daily basis. Al Jazeera reported that since the “ceasefire” in Gaza was announced in October 2025, Israel has killed at least 922 people and injured 2,786.

To the people of Gaza and of south Lebanon, there is no ceasefire. Continuing to carry water for the idea that we’re no longer at war, or that there’s been any meaningful progress made to end this war, is to provide cover for the U.S. and Israel, the countries that launched this war of aggression and continue to execute it. It also provides President Donald Trump with the political cover he so desperately desires as he realizes that he’s powerless to end the deeply unpopular war he started with Israel, and that no number of testy phone calls will move the needle if our ally won’t agree to a true ceasefire.

The mainstream media is perfectly comfortable spinning the fiction that we’re currently in a gray zone somewhere between war and peace because the stakes are an abstraction. To them, blindly supporting American imperialism and Israeli aggression are baked-in ideological assumptions, not matters of life or death. It’s no coincidence that the New York Times has done more than any other media organization to massage the language around Israel, Gaza, and Iran to an extreme degree.

But words like “ceasefire” matter a great deal, which is why it’s critically important for the media to call out acts of war for exactly what they are. In this way, the brutal fact of war is black and white: Your country is either killing people with the bombs it’s dropping, or it’s not. Failing to acknowledge that reality is worse than dishonest — it is to irrevocably deprive those paying the highest price of their humanity.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Simon Speakman Cordall and Awad Joumaa 

9 Jun 2026 – Former detainees detail systematic torture and sexual violence, including rape, while in Israeli custody.

Warning: This story contains descriptions of sexual assault that some readers may find disturbing.

Muhammad al-Bakri specifically remembers the date of his rape.

TO WATCH FULL VIDEO Go to Original – aljazeera.com

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Nuvpreet Kalra

4 Jun 2026 – Last week, the Cuban Center for Molecular Immunology (CIM) announced a major health breakthrough with VAXIRA, a vaccine treatment for lung cancer. This is a remarkable achievement, made only more impressive by the fact that this is Cuba’s second lung cancer vaccine.

The vaccine stops the progression of cancer by developing the patient’s immune system to fight off cancer cells. This has proven to significantly prolong people’s survival. Since 2013, the vaccine has been monitored, trialled, and tested on more than 1,300 patients. Over a ten-year period, patients survived a median of 76.6 months, with 20% of all patients who were given VAXIRA experiencing unexpected long-term survival. Last year, VAXIRA was awarded the Technological Innovation Prize in Cuba for its contribution to healthcare in Cuba. This is an incredible feat for humanity and the battle against cancer – and it is being done by a country facing the longest and most severe blockade in history.

In 2011, Cuba developed CIMAvax, which remains the world’s only approved lung cancer vaccine. This vaccine works to induce the immune system to stop the growth of cancer cells and slow the progression of tumors. This vaccine has already treated more than 5,000 people across the world and many more thousands in Cuba itself. Given the immense significance of the vaccine, the United States agreed to a special arrangement to trial the vaccine in the US. The Roswell Park Cancer Institute in New York has been running clinical trials with CIM since 2018. They have run the first clinical trials of CIMAvax in the United States. The very same nation that is imposing a genocidal blockade on Cuba is also benefiting from the historic breakthroughs in healthcare.

These major developments in medicine to treat cancer are not Cuba’s only awe-inspiring health achievements.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Cuba produced five vaccines: Ablada, Soberana 01, Soberana 02, Soberana Plus, and Mambisa. Cuba had one of the lowest COVID deaths in the Western Hemisphere – and by 2021, Cuba’s fatality rate was just 0.59% compared to the 2.2% worldwide average. The vaccines were produced without the need for specialist refrigeration, which meant they could be easily transported and also distributed across the world to places where accessing such infrastructure would be impossible. Quickly, Venezuela, Iran, Vietnam, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Mexico all picked up the vaccine to protect their population.

By 2023, Cuba had the third-highest rate of vaccinations per 100,000 people. Despite the fact that the U.S. banned the country from importing the syringes necessary to immunize its own population. In this context, Cuba was the first country in the world to vaccinate toddlers and children, as part of their push to reopen schools safely.

Cuba, like the United States, offered its COVID vaccines to the world. While Cuba donated vaccines to St Vincent and the Grenadines and sold them as cheaply as they could, the U.S. bullied countries into putting up their assets, like embassy buildings and military bases, in order to access vaccines. This was to “protect” against future legal challenges that vaccine recipients might file against the manufacturer of the vaccine. This profit motive was a major cause for the vaccine apartheid in the distribution of COVID protection across the world. As of August 2024, in high-income countries, more than 222 doses had been distributed per 100 people. While in low-income countries, this was less than 46. In 2021, US pharmaceutical companies that produced COVID vaccines (Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson) collected an eye-watering revenue of $31 billion. The concept that companies and shareholders should make money from a pandemic should be utterly outrageous.

Biotechnology

Cuba leads the world in its vaccine breakthroughs. But, how is this all possible? It is not by accident that Cuba is able to develop world-leading health breakthroughs in medicine. Cuba has developed a world-class biotechnological sector that is state-owned and operates in the interests of the people, not profit. There are no profit motives to producing vaccines; research and development are for the collective benefit, and resources are shared to better the process of scientific development. This is quite the opposite situation in capitalist countries, where biotechnology is a major competition dominated by pharmaceutical companies motivated entirely by profits, which often means that when there are major developments in health, they are not accessible to people.

In 1981, Cuba opened the Biological Research Center, despite the blockade stopping the entry of equipment, materials, access to research journals, and medicines. In the first 9 years, the Center produced three products. Between 1990 and 2000, it produced 18, and between 2001 and 2010, it produced more than 40. Today, that figure continues to grow. The Center flourished into a world-class biotechnological sector that has made major health breakthroughs. Cuba produced the world’s first human vaccine to contain a synthetic antigen for Haemophilus influenzae type B.

In 1989, Cuba produced the world’s first Meningitis B vaccine during a severe outbreak of the disease in the country. This was the first ever vaccine produced to protect against Meningitis B and was exported to protect people in countries across Latin America. The U.S. approved its first vaccine for Meningitis B in 2014.

The following year, Cuba produced a vaccine for Hepatitis B. They joined just five other countries as a manufacturer of Hep B vaccines: France, South Korea, the United States, Indonesia, and Britain. As the US blockade made it virtually impossible and far too expensive to import the vaccine, Cuba produced their own and eliminated Hepatitis B in under 15 years.

In 2006, Cuba developed Heberprot-P, the only medicine in the world to reduce the amputation rate of patients with diabetic foot ulcers by 75%. Within 10 years, it was used in 23 countries. It has treated more than 400,000 people with foot ulcers. In 2024, the United States even broke its own blockade and approved it for trials and use. The very thought that Americans who suffer from diabetes might be treated by Cuban medicine while being fed propaganda against Cuba and funding a war against the very Cuban researchers and scientists helping them reveals how inhumane this blockade is.

By 2015, Cuba became the first country in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis. Cuba managed this because of its socialist model, which is the same reason why it is not celebrated in mainstream media and looked to as a center for health advances in the U.S. This world historical achievement came as a result of Cuba’s universal health system that integrated maternal and child health programs with HIV and STI treatment. Cuba has one of the lowest rates of AIDS in the world and the lowest in the Americas, thanks to the free provision of antiretroviral treatment it has been distributing since 2001. Its vaccination programs have eradicated diseases that continue to cause death and suffering around the world, including diphtheria in 1979, measles in 1993, whooping cough in 1994, and rubella in 1995. Cuba has also developed the highest control of blood pressure in the world.

The same principles that led Cuba to produce world-leading medical breakthroughs are similar to its success in eliminating diseases. Cuba’s vaccination model is motivated by protecting its people. The National Immunization Program, which began in 1962, has saved the lives of at least 560,000 children who would have otherwise contracted diseases if it weren’t for the program. This is motivated by four directives: equity of vaccine distribution; integration of vaccination in primary healthcare; the inclusion of active community participation; and providing vaccines free of charge. These guiding principles indicate how central the health of all society is, not corporate interests or greed.

Cuba’s approach to providing healthcare is indicative of the nature of the revolution: to serve Cubans and the oppressed across the world. Before the revolution in 1959, 300 children were paralyzed by polio each year. One of the first measures by the revolutionary government was immunization for Cuban society. In 1962, the polio campaign launched through mobilizing 100,000 members of newly founded revolutionary committees to conduct a population census and vaccinate all children. Within months, polio was eradicated in Cuba, making it one of the first countries in the world to do so. Polio is still a leading cause of paralysis and death across the world.

These health achievements have massively benefited people across the world through access to new treatments and cures, affordable and accessible vaccines and medicines, and models for healthcare. But another awe-inspiring element of Cuba’s healthcare is its international solidarity.

Cuba has restored the eyesight for more than four million people with its joint program with Venezuela, Operation Miracle. They have sent more than 600,000 health workers on medical missions to 160 countries in response to pandemics, epidemics, natural disasters, and other crises where no other country would act. They have and continue to train doctors from the Global South for free so they go back to their home countries to practice medicine.

Cuba makes these miraculous achievements for humanity while facing a blockade that causes shortages of medicines in pharmacies across Cuba, blocks researchers from accessing health journals, and prevents the entry of equipment, spare parts, and laboratory materials that could make it easier and faster to conduct research. The U.S. blockade should be seen as an attack on humanity itself. This is a genocidal act of war against a population that exports doctors across the world by an empire that exports bombs, fighter jets, and invading soldiers.

Cuba once had among the lowest rates of infant mortality in the world. But since 2019, with the increase of more than 250 additional sanctions on Cuba, the rates of infant mortality have risen by 148%. It is estimated that this has cost 1,800 lives of infants. This is the material result of a blockade that intends to kill, punish, and destroy a country for asserting its own sovereignty. Yet, even still, Cuba’s infant mortality rate is lower than that in the United States. The U.S. enforces its blockade on Cuba so that it can try to claim Cuba is a “failed state”, which also means its universal, free healthcare system “fails”; all so it can maintain its abysmal healthcare system that operates purely for profit, despite the level of death, bankruptcy, and suffering it causes to poor Americans.

The truth is that even with this genocidal blockade, Cuba maintains the principles of its revolution and the motivation to better the world.

Like Fidel Castro said in 2003:

“Our country does not drop bombs on other peoples, nor does it send thousands of planes to bomb cities; our country does not possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. Our country’s tens of thousands of scientists and doctors have been educated in the idea of saving lives. It would absolutely contradict this concept to put a scientist or a doctor to work to produce substances, bacteria or viruses to kill other human beings.”

Nuvpreet Kalra is CODEPINK’s Digital Content Producer and co-ordinator for the international Bases off Cyprus campaign.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Nate Bear

9 Jun 2026 – The Soccer World Cup starts this Thursday [11 Jun] and the US regime has already guaranteed that it will be the most racist in history.

FIFA-appointed Somalian referee Omar Artan, voted the best referee in Africa last year and travelling on a diplomatic passport, was denied entry to the US when he landed at Miami and forced to fly back home.

The Iranian national team have been forced to relocate their training base from Arizona to Mexico, and the manager of the team, as well as various technical support staff, have been denied US visas. The US is also demanding that the Iranian playing squad enter and leave the US on the day of their games, a condition clearly meant to harm their ability to perform well in matches. Iran’s fan ticket allocation has also just been withdrawn, meaning there will be no fans from Iran in the stadiums.

Iraqi national team vice-captain Ayman Hussein was detained, searched and interrogated at Chicago’s O’Hare airport for seven hours while Iraq’s national team photographer was denied entry and turned back on landing.

The Senegalese team were treated like criminals on landing, with security not allowing them to enter the terminal and strip-searching them on the tarmac. The Uzbekistan team were similarly searched after stepping off the coach outside the Icahn stadium in New York prior to a friendly match against The Netherlands.

At least 90 fans from two major supporter groups in Morocco have also been denied visas ahead of the tournament, most under a clause citing doubts about their intention to return home, despite their documented travel histories to Russia 2018, Qatar 2022, and the Paris Olympics. Some have lost thousands of dollars in non-refundable hotel bookings.

These refusals followed the initial refusal of a visa for the Moroccan player Zakaria El Ouahdi, who plays in Europe, after US embassy staff flagged him as a risk because his father was deemed to have a suspicious beard.

The South African team waited months for US visas to be issued, leading to a public complaint from the country’s minister of sport who said they’d been “made to look like fools,” and as of this week were still waiting for four visas to be processed.

The International Sports Press Association says that many Iranian and African journalists have been denied visas needed to enter the US and report on the tournament.

All of this is making people compare this World Cup to the 1936 Nazi Olympics, but that’s really unfair. By 1936 Nazi Germany hadn’t attacked any sovereign countries, assassinated any heads of state or committed any holocausts.

Some on Twitter didn’t get this, but I expect my readers understand this as an absurdist quip intended to make a deadly serious point about the barbarity of US empire.

The truth is the US regime has committed all of these criminal acts in just the last few months, from the kidnap of a head of state, to the assassination of a head of state (and his family), to an attack on a sovereign nation because it refused to submit to empire. And the Gaza holocaust, sponsored by the US and committed by its colonial proxy using regime arms and technology, is ongoing.

So yes, the argument is sound. The World Cup is being hosted by a white supremacist regime, a regime that has outright bans on citizens of numerous global south countries whose national teams have qualified for the World Cup, including Iran, Haiti, Senegal, and the Ivory Coast. A regime which has concentration-camp like facilities into which people routinely disappear, or die. A regime which constantly talks in overtly racist terms about the need to save western civilisation from non-white people and is therefore clearly not fit to host one of the world’s most preeminent, multicultural global sporting events.

Yet despite all this, compare the media focus on US crimes in the context of hosting the World Cup with the attention given to Qatar, Russia or Brazil. Where is the reporting about US human rights abuses? Where are the televised news specials about US repression and policies of mass murder? Where are the anguished op-eds about inner city gun violence? Where are the protests by national teams against the politics of the host nation?

The clear hypocrisy on show is just another indictment of valueless liberals and demonstrates how subjects of empire, whether journalists or athletes, give a pass to empire for its crimes. It’s easy to speak out from the guts of the imperial core against outsiders when you know there’ll be no consequences for doing so. It’s much harder to possess genuine principles which put you into conflict with your rulers and paymasters.

But it’s probably in many cases a lot simpler and more horrifying than this. It’s probably more likely that many in the imperial core simply agree with and support imperial violence. For many people, Qatar and Russia having draconian policies against gay people is worse than a holocaust when the victims are Palestinians, the wretched of the Earth, an essentially sub-human population in the eyes of imperialists.

The World Cup is a perfect encapsulation of the impunity with which imperialists are able to commit their crimes.

In 2017, when concerns about the US as a potential host were raised, FIFA president Gianni Infantino said “any team, including the supporters and officials of that team, who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. It’s obvious. The requirements will be clear.” But now, with accredited FIFA referees and team staff being banned from attending, the cowardly Infantino says these issues are all a matter for the host nation.

No consequences or condemnation. Just the pure impunity of empire.

FIFA demanded previous World Cup hosts introduce special laws to bypass all kinds of regulations to ensure the smooth running of past events. South Africa passed a Special Measures Act demanded by FIFA, while Brazil’s parliament in 2013 passed and codified a 900-page General Law of The World Cup covering everything from criminal provisions to visa processes to press freedom. But no such demands were made of the US, with the regime able to ban anyone it wants, including FIFA referees and team staff.

The empire is granted impunity for its actions by other imperialists like Infantino who possess essentially the same politics. In their minds there is no need for white empire to pass special World Cup laws, because the governance is not just already fit-for-purpose, but infinitely superior. When empire executes power and authority, that power and authority, unlike that wielded by the periphery, is, by definition, legitimate.

Perhaps this will all be a wake-up call for the sport, but it’s unlikely, because this isn’t just about FIFA or about football. What we’re seeing with this World Cup cuts to the heart of empire and the value system which underpins it.

What we’re seeing is the racism, hypocrisy and double standards that always surface when professed liberal principles clash with imperial realities.

No, this fiasco won’t change FIFA, but it should be a reminder to us that empire is an illegitimate construct and a bankrupt project that, when ended, will end FIFA by default as well.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Diran Noubar

14 Jun 2026 – In the grand arena of international affairs, where narratives are often more vigorously contested than battlefields themselves, certain outcomes emerge not with fanfare but with the inexorable weight of reality. After more than four years of conflict, the contours of the Russia-Ukraine war have clarified in a manner that many in Western capitals might prefer to obscure with rhetorical flourishes. Russia has, in essence, prevailed against the collective machinery of NATO—not through mythic blitzkrieg, but through strategic resilience, industrial adaptation, and a willingness to endure where others faltered. This is not a declaration of glee, but a sober observation of facts on the ground and in the ledgers of power.

One need not endorse every aspect of the campaign to acknowledge its broader success. Moscow’s forces, despite facing an array of advanced Western weaponry and intelligence support funneled through Kiev, maintain control over approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory, including critical regions in the east and south. Gains may have slowed in the attritional grind of 2026, yet Russian positions have consolidated in key areas like much of Donetsk and Luhansk, with incremental advances continuing amid fierce resistance. Ukrainian counter-efforts, though tactically impressive in places, have not reversed the fundamental territorial and strategic realities established since 2022.

Consider the economic front, where the West wagered heavily on sanctions as a decisive weapon. Here, the irony is particularly piquant. Russia, long caricatured as a gas station masquerading as a nation, reoriented its economy with remarkable agility. Trade pivoted eastward, parallel import networks flourished, and defense production surged despite export controls. European economies, by contrast, grappled with energy shocks, inflation, and deindustrialization—self-inflicted wounds from their own decoupling fervor. The ruble did not collapse; reserves were mobilized; and the “arsenal of democracy” found itself outproduced in shells and drones by a nation supposedly on the brink of ruin. NATO’s proxy strategy, intended to bleed Russia dry, instead highlighted the limits of financial warfare against a determined adversary with vast resources and autarkic tendencies.

Militarily, the mismatch between expectations and outcomes is equally telling. Initial Western predictions of a swift Russian collapse gave way to months, then years, of incremental Russian pressure. Factories in the Urals and beyond churned out materiel at a pace that outstripped Ukraine’s ability to absorb Western aid, however generous. High-tech donations—tanks, HIMARS, Patriots—provided tactical boosts but could not alter the demographic and logistical arithmetic favoring the side fighting on its declared existential terms. Ukraine, for all its valor and innovation in drone warfare, has been hollowed by casualties and manpower shortages, while Russia has sustained a war of attrition that plays to its strengths. The much-vaunted “spring offensives” and counteroffensives have largely settled into a grinding stalemate where Moscow holds the initiative in key sectors.

And then there is the political dimension. NATO expanded its rhetorical and material commitment, welcoming new members eager for a share of the spoils in a putative Russian defeat. Yet the alliance’s unity has frayed under the strain of indefinite support. Billions—hundreds of billions—have flowed into Ukraine, yet victory remains elusive, and fatigue sets in. The spectacle of endless summits and pledges contrasts sharply with battlefield realities, where the “strategic advantage” tilts toward the side that refused to blink.

No figure embodies the Western response more eloquently than French President Emmanuel Macron. With characteristic flair, he has orchestrated diplomatic initiatives, security guarantees, and calls for European “strategic autonomy,” all while championing unwavering support for Kiev. One admires the elegance of the performance: joint statements, reassurance forces, and eloquent appeals to European solidarity. Yet these communication masterstrokes, however artful, cannot conjure away the central truth. They are theater—polished, well-intentioned perhaps, but ultimately insufficient to rewrite the script written in blood and resolve on the steppes.

For amid the cacophony of Western declarations, one stubborn reality persists: it is Russia that has repeatedly signaled openness to peace on terms reflecting the new facts on the ground—neutrality for Ukraine, recognition of territorial realities, and security arrangements addressing Moscow’s longstanding concerns about NATO encroachment. Proposals have been tabled, compromises floated, even as the Kremlin insists on protecting its vital interests. The West, by contrast, has often framed any settlement short of maximalist Ukrainian victory as capitulation, pouring more resources into prolongation rather than resolution. This is not to paint Russia as purely altruistic—great powers pursue interests—but to note the asymmetry: one side seeks an off-ramp calibrated to its achievements; the other risks exhaustion in pursuit of an increasingly distant ideal.

Sarcasm aside, there is tragedy here. The human cost on all sides has been immense, and the European continent bears scars that will linger for generations. The West’s intentions—defending sovereignty and international norms—were noble in principle. Yet the execution, marked by hubris, underestimation of Russian resilience, and over-reliance on narrative control, has yielded a different verdict. Russia has not been broken. It has adapted, advanced where it mattered, and stood firm against a coalition far wealthier and more populous.

History, as ever, favors the patient and the pragmatic over the performative. Whatever elegant communiqués emerge from Paris or Brussels, they cannot eclipse this: the war against NATO’s proxy has reached a point where Russia dictates the tempo, holds the territorial cards, and extends the hand of negotiation—on its terms, to be sure, but a hand nonetheless. True statesmanship would recognize this reality rather than delay it with further illusions. The path to peace lies not in more sophisticated messaging, but in confronting the facts as they stand. Only then can the guns fall silent, and Europe begin the arduous work of reconciliation.

Diran Noubar, an Italian-Armenian born in France, has lived in 11 countries until he moved to Armenia.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Partnership for Civil Justice Fund PCJF

Anti-Zionism Is Not Antisemitism

9 Jun 2026 — In an important victory for free speech, a federal court has dismissed with prejudice all civil rights conspiracy claims brought against The People’s Forum and other individual defendants arising from the April 2024 occupation of Hamilton Hall — Hind’s Hall — at Columbia University.

The ruling is a vindication of the right of The People’s Forum (TPF) and others to engage in political speech condemning U.S.-backed Israeli war crimes and genocide, and to call for support of encamped student activists demanding divestment. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) represented The People’s Forum in the litigation.

In a ruling issued June 1, 2026, Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) and §1986. The now dismissed lawsuit was brought by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Torridon Law on behalf of two Columbia University employees. The Brandeis Center argued that it constituted anti-Semitic hatred for the TPF to engage in free speech to support encamped students, call for divestment from Israel, and condemn Israeli violence. The PCJF argued that the Brandeis Center was conflating anti-Zionism, a protected political viewpoint, with anti-Judaism in an effort to repress and suppress those who oppose Zionism or who condemn Israeli crimes and genocide.

The Court squarely rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments, ruling that they failed to state a claim on every theory advanced against TPF.

Critically, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ central contention that opposition to Zionism or to Israeli government policy constitutes evidence of anti-Semitic animus. Adopting precedent from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge McMahon held that,

“The choice to criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza does not necessarily manifest antisemitism,” and noted that opinions on Israel’s policies differ “even among Jews and Israelis.” The Court aptly noted, even “the Jewish community itself is divided over whether anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic.”

“The conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is a political tactic to shut down and penalize those who, like The Peoples Forum, stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza and Palestine. This ruling makes clear: The TPF is well within its protected rights to stand up for human rights and civil rights and to oppose genocide. This is a ringing victory for freedom of speech,” said PCJF Legal Director Carl Messineo and counsel to TPF.

“The Court’s rejection of this act of ideological lawfare intended to silence pro-Palestine viewpoints is a decisive victory for the freedom of speech. As the Court recognized, criticism of Israel and its war on Gaza is political speech entitled to First Amendment protection. There is no Palestine exception to the First Amendment.” said PCJF Staff Attorney Sarah Taitz and counsel on the litigation.

“This lawsuit is part of an organized ideological attack on the movement for justice for the Palestinian people including opposition to U.S.-backed genocide. We have seen a steady stream of these types of politically driven and meritless lawsuits across the country,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the PCJF and counsel on the litigation. “We are very glad to see that this assault on free speech through the abuse of the court system was ultimately dismissed. We will continue to litigate in defense of the First Amendment and against this politically motivated onslaught.”

The People’s Forum stated:

“We welcome the court’s decision, which affirms a core First Amendment principle: organizations cannot be penalized for engaging in protected free speech activity. Lawsuits like this one are intended to silence organizations like ours by draining the resources of those who speak out, and we hope this ruling discourages others from using the legal system to suppress the movement in solidarity with Palestine. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, and no lawsuit can change that. The People’s Forum is grateful to our legal team and to everyone who stands on the right side of history.”

All claims against The Peoples Forum were dismissed with prejudice, with the Court denying leave to amend as “futile.”

________________________________

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) is a free speech, constitutional rights, and civil rights organization that has represented thousands of individuals and organizations in defense of constitutional rights for more than 30 years across the U.S. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with a West Coast office in Oakland, CA. For more information visit www.justiceonline.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org

By Prof. Jan Oberg

Nuclear weapons are undemocratic, useless, criminal, terrorist, and unethical – they cannot serve deterrence without being used, and their development steals the resources that should be used to solve real problems and secure humanity’s better future.

Here you have the essential arguments that people who cannot or will not think freely never mention.

9 Jun 2026 – Global nuclear weapons spending reached an unprecedented 119 billion USD in 2025, according to the latest analysis by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). This represents a 19 per cent increase over the previous year and continues a five‑year trend of accelerating investment in nuclear arsenals. In total, nuclear‑armed states have spent 471 billion USD on these weapons since 2021.

The United States alone accounted for 69.2 billion USD, more than all other nuclear‑armed states combined. China (13.5 billion USD) and the United Kingdom (12.6 billion USD) followed as the next largest spenders. All nine nuclear‑armed states increased their budgets, many by double‑digit percentages.

These investments are not short‑term. Current modernisation programmes will keep nuclear weapons operational for decades. Several systems now under development or deployment are expected to remain in service into the 2060s, 2090s, or even beyond 2100. These include the US Sentinel ICBM, the UK’s Dreadnought‑class submarines, France’s next‑generation ballistic missile submarines, and China’s JL‑3 submarine‑launched ballistic missile.

Nuclearism – the thinking and tbe weapons – is not fading; it is being entrenched for the next century.

The nuclear weapons industry is a major beneficiary. At least 25 private companies earned 38 billion USD from nuclear weapons–related contracts in 2025 and collectively hold 401 billion USD in outstanding contracts. Lobbying is extensive: 138 million USD in the United States and France, and 226 documented meetings between contractors and senior UK officials. Nuclear weapons are not only political instruments; they are commercial products with powerful institutional defenders.

The opportunity costs are staggering.

The 2025 nuclear total equals 32 years of the UN regular budget. It exceeds the cost of ending world hunger for multiple years. One day of nuclear spending could fund 17,000 solar‑powered home transitions or plant two billion trees. Nuclear weapons do not merely threaten humanity; they drain resources from the very things that could secure its future.

Anti-democracy, Terrorism, Illegality, Deterrence, Accidents and Unethical: The Pillars of the Nuclear Delusion
Nuclear weapons remain humanity’s most destructive and undemocratic curse. No population has ever been asked whether it wants these weapons in its name. Decisions about devices capable of killing millions of civilians are made without public consent, democratic debate, or moral accountability. No opinion polls show that any nation’s majority wants them or would accept their use on their own territory.

The defining feature of nuclear weapons is that they are designed to kill innocent people who are not participants in any conflict. That principle — the deliberate targeting of civilians — is universally condemned in international humanitarian law. It is incompatible with any claim to civilisation, ethics, or responsible statehood.

The core definition of terrorism is the threat or use of violence against civilians to achieve political ends. Nuclear weapons embody this principle completely. Their destructive power is aimed not at military targets but at cities, populations, and the fabric of human life itself. The strategic value of nuclear weapons lies precisely in their ability to inflict mass civilian casualties. This is not a side effect; it is the doctrine.

Nuclear deterrence depends on making entire societies fear annihilation. If non‑state actors used this logic, we would call it terrorism. When states use it, we call it security policy. The moral distinction is nonexistent.

Nuclear weapons are also illegal under international law. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2017, prohibits the development, possession, threat of use, and use of nuclear weapons. It entered into force in January 2021 and is now supported by 93 signatory states and 70 states parties. The treaty expresses the will of the global majority: most of humanity lives in countries that reject nuclear weapons outright. Nuclear‑armed states stand outside this legal and moral framework, isolated from the norms they claim to defend.

Supporters of nuclear weapons often claim that deterrence prevents war because nuclear weapons will never be used. But this argument collapses instantly.

If both sides know the weapons will never be used, there is no deterrence. Deterrence only functions if leaders are willing to carry out the threat — that is, to commit mass murder when the strategy fails. The credibility of deterrence rests on the declared readiness to slaughter civilians on a scale that violates every principle of international humanitarian law. A doctrine that requires the willingness to commit a crime against humanity cannot be defended as a peace strategy.

Nukes are also unethical and illogic. There can be no political goal that legitimises their use and the automatic killing of millions of people, huge cities, and causes irreparable environmental damage. No human being or government anywhere can or should have the power to decide about humanity’s future. No government would use them on their own territory, they are by definition non-defensive is more than one sense. And who could conquer and use a territory after it has been nuked – a nuclear desert for what? They are, therefore, military useless.

Even if one were to accept this perverse-grotesque logic, deterrence still fails on practical grounds. Too many accidents – that you have probably never heard of.

It assumes perfect rationality, perfect information, perfect technology, and perfect political stability — conditions that have never existed in human history. The record of nuclear near‑misses exposes the fragility of the system: false alarms at NORAD, malfunctioning early‑warning satellites, misinterpreted radar signals, lost bombs, accidental arming events, and human errors that brought the world within minutes of catastrophe. The Petrov incident alone — in which a single Soviet officer chose not to report what appeared to be a US nuclear launch — demonstrates that deterrence has survived not because it works, but because individuals have disobeyed it.

A security system that depends on luck, secrecy, and the hope that no one ever makes a mistake is not a security system at all. It is a permanent hostage situation in which the lives of billions depend on the flawless functioning of machines and the flawless judgment of leaders.

No other policy area would tolerate such risk. No society would accept a transportation system, an energy system, or a medical system that fails even once in a century with civilisation‑ending consequences. Yet this is exactly what nuclear deterrence demands.

Nuclear weapons are not stabilising. They are not civilised. They are not compatible with democracy, law, human dignity, not to mention military efficiency.

Nukes are the last great superstition of the modern world — a belief that terror can produce safety. The world has abolished slavery, child labour, rape as a means of war, and absolute monarchy. It can abolish nuclear weapons too.

There is a convention against genocide. Were nuclear weapons to be used, it would not only lead to a genocide, it would be omni- and eco-cide.

The ICAN report shows that nuclear‑armed states are choosing long‑term nuclear rearmament over global public goods. The political argument shows that nuclearism is indistinguishable from the logic of terrorism. The historical record shows that deterrence is a myth sustained by luck and delusion.

Together, these realities point to a single conclusion: nuclear weapons have no place in a civilised world.

Nuclear abolition is not an idealistic dream. It is the only rational, ethical, and human response to a system built on the – unacceptable – threat of mass murder.

We need only one critical mass – explosion: Humanity’s mobilisation for the most important issue:

NUCLEAR ABOLITION NOW!

Prof. Jan Oberg, Ph.D. is director of the independent Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research-TFF in Sweden and a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. CV: https://transnational.live/jan-oberg
https://transnational.live.

15  Jun 2026

Source: transcend.org