Latest news with #nuclearthreat
Daily Mail
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
French President Emmanuel Macron says Europe's freedom is under its greatest threat since 1945
President Emmanuel Macron has declared Europe's freedom to be under its greatest threat since 1945 in a speech condemning Russia and terrorists. The French leader yesterday announced 6.5 billion euros (5.6 billion pounds) worth of extra military spending for the next two years. Citing 'new and unprecedented threats' in his traditional speech to the military on the eve of the Bastille Day national holiday, Mr Macron proclaimed: 'Since 1945, freedom has never been so threatened, and never so seriously.' He added: 'We are experiencing a return to the fact of a nuclear threat, and a proliferation of major conflicts. 'To be free in this world, we must be feared. To be feared, we must be powerful.' The president laid out his spending plans as he called for intensified efforts to protect Europe and support Ukraine against Russia. He said France would aim to dish out 64 billion euros (55 billion pounds) in annual defence spending in 2027, the last year of his second term. This would amount to double the 32 billion euros in annual spending when he became president in 2017. Mr Macron insisted France could find the money to spend more on the military even as the country tried to bring down massive national debts. It comes as right-leaning parties have supported greater defence spending while left-wing parties accuse the government of sacrificing social welfare benefits in exchange. Mr Macron concluded Europe is in danger because of Russia's war in Ukraine and wars in the Middle East, and because 'the United States has added a form of uncertainty'. Other dangers mentioned included online disinformation campaigns by unnamed foreign governments and propaganda operations targeting children, in 'the screen era.' Mr Macron also ordered France's top military and defence officials to start a 'strategic dialogue' with European partners about the role that the French nuclear arsenal could play in protecting Europe. In an exceptional move, France and Britain have agreed in recent days to cooperate on nuclear defense issues. Mr Macron's speech came as U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to make an announcement about Russia on Monday, and the head of NATO is travelling to Washington for two days of talks. Mr Trump last week announced plans to sell NATO allies weaponry they can then pass on to Ukraine, which has been struggling to repel massive and complex Russian air assaults. The French President recently spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time in three years, but remains a target of widespread criticism in Russia for his vocal support for Ukraine. Mr Putin argues the Ukraine conflict is a consequence of Western countries' decision to ignore Russia's security interests. The head of the French military, Gen. Thierry Burkhard, laid out risks emanating from Russia that stretch beyond Ukraine. Russia is disrupting trajectories of satellites to jam them or spy on them, is involved in undersea infrastructure sabotage, and leads disinformation campaigns in France and Africa, Mr Burkhard said on Friday. He added Russian attack submarines penetrate into the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and Russian military planes interact frequently with other aircraft over the Black Sea, Syria, the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic. French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, in an interview published Sunday in La Tribune Dimanche, urged more French spending on defense technology and better training of engineers and technicians. He said: 'Big powers and certain proliferating countries are working secretly on quantum computers ... that will be capable tomorrow of revolutionizing the battlefield. Do we want to stay in the game?'
News.com.au
06-07-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
Nuclear nightmare that is lurking on Australia's doorstep
Is Australia sleeping on a nuclear nightmare? That's what our leading North Korean experts claim. With all eyes on the Middle East's boiling tensions, there's been a blind spot: the nuclear threat looming much closer to home. North Korea is arming up. Thanks to its new deal with Russia, the rogue state is rapidly modernising its nuclear arsenal. Kim Jong-un now has the power to blow up half the planet. And not so long back, he painted a nuclear target on Australia's back. But is such an attack likely? Even possible? Or just more propaganda? However credible his threat, the Supreme Leader has been knocking back US President Donald Trump's invitation to discuss denuclearisation. And the strikes on Iran haven't helped. It's fuelling fears Australia could be dragged into war with one of the world's largest armies. 'Most likely war' Professor Peter Hayes, the founder of the international Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, believes North Korea is the gravest military threat facing Australia. 'It's the most likely war prospect Australia faces,' Professor Hayes tells 'This is not hypothetical, this is here and now and it's our most dangerous regional military contingency.' 'I don't think we really have any realistic or plausible plans to deal with it.' Professor Hayes has travelled to North Korea seven times to help bring security to the region. While North Korea has missiles that could reach Australia, Professor Hayes says its unlikely to waste its weapons on us when there's limited benefit. Instead, the risk lies with an implosion of inter-Korean tensions. 'All it would take is an incident like a hostage or assassination attempt and they're off to the races,' says Professor Hayes. In such a case, our proximity would mean we're the first one to get the call. 'As part of the UN Command, Australia would be called upon almost certainly from day one to support the efforts.' Australia would be obligated to send air and sea support, pulling us into striking distance of Kim's formidable arsenal of mass destruction. And havoc would be wrought back home. 'One of the first targets of the North would be the South Korean oil refineries where Australia imports about one third of its refined product.' 'This would drive prices extremely high and cut off our supply. We'd feel it very quickly.' 'Korea is much more important than is generally understood by the Australian public and policymakers.' Go the distance Time and again, we've underestimated North Korea. We thought they'd never survive global sanctions. We thought they'd never acquire a nuclear arsenal. And now, we think they don't know how to use it. 'It's one thing having missiles that go up and down, but that's completely different to having deliverables over intercontinental range,' says Professor Hayes. But thanks to an old friend, they may have recently found the missing pieces. In exchange for providing troops in Russia's war against Ukraine, North Korea is believed to be seeking Russian missile and space technology. Professor Hayes says Pyongyang's newly strengthened ties with Moscow are helping 'fill in the blanks' of their capabilities – including warhead delivery. 'If the Russians were helping them address that problem, that would be extremely valuable,' he says. 'However it would also be extremely provocative to do that with regard to Washington and Tokyo and Beijing.' 'None of them would look kindly on Russia doing that, and so for that reason, I think they probably aren't.' 'Legitimate target' Professor Clive Williams is a former Australian Army Military Intelligence officer who now directs Canberra's Terrorism Research Centre. Professor Williams, an expert on North Korea who travelled to the secretive state in 2015, agrees it's unlikely we'll see a scenario where North Korea would bomb Australia directly. But there's at least one reason they would want to. 'The regime has always felt threatened by the US,' Professor Clive tells 'While a direct missile strike on Australian soil is unlikely, North Korea may see US strategic military facilities in Australia such as Pine Gap as a legitimate target.' Pine Gap, a US-Australian defence facility located near Alice Springs, is a critical factor in US wars. Professor Clive believes the recent strikes on Iran's nuclear program would embolden the Kim regime to cling to its nuclear arsenal. 'The bombing of Iran would have underlined to Kim the need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent.' Despite speculation the regime would be starved into submission without access to international trading, North Korea is stronger than ever. It's estimated to now have around 50 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material for as many as 90. This includes new solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). If launched with nuclear warheads, these could cause widespread destruction. The Hwasong-15, North Korea's furthest-reaching ICBM, could travel about 13,000km, putting most of the world within range. Including all of Australia. They have also tested hypersonic missiles, which can fly at several times the speed of sound and at low altitude to escape radar detection. As well as others launched from submarines. That's not to mention boasting the world's fourth-largest military, with nearly 1.3 million. Lastly, this army is becoming more mobile. 'They're more mobile, survivable, and capable,' says Professor Clive. 'We've always underestimated their capacity to innovate under sanctions, especially in areas like nuclear technology.' 'It just goes to show what can be done if a nation's resources are focused on a perceived threat.' Chequered history Australia and North Korea share a hostile history. We're still officially at war with the rogue state, despite most of the fighting ending with the signing of an armistice back in July 1953. And in 2017, things looked like they could fire up again. At the time, the regime threatened nuclear retaliation after we announced North Korea would be subject to further Australian sanctions. North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency quoted a foreign ministry spokesman at the time with the following thinly-veiled threat. 'If Australia persists in following the US moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK and remains a shock brigade of the US master, this will be a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK. However likely such an attack is, there's no reason to think we're no longer a target. Prospect of peace Despite the alarming prospect of war, there's still hope for peace. While Australia has the power to play a key role in the latter outcome, Professor Hayes claims we're not doing enough for diplomacy. 'If you're pitch perfect with perfect timing, you can move the world. That's what middle powers should be doing,' he says. 'We don't seem to want to do that very much, at least not in relation to Korea.' 'This is perhaps the saddest aspect of Australian policy.' Professor Clive believes reunification is in fact in the North's sights. 'The North seems to believe it will eventually reintegrate with the South,' he says. 'But only on the North's terms,' says Professor Clive. Whatever outcome the future holds, Australia will be heavily impacted.
Al Jazeera
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Did God want Trump to bomb Iran?
After ordering the United States military to bomb Iran last month, US President Donald Trump made a brief address at the White House to laud the 'massive precision strike' that had allegedly put a 'stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror'. The speech, which lasted less than four minutes, ended with the invocation of God's name no fewer than five times in a span of seven seconds: 'And I wanna just thank everybody and in particular, God. I wanna just say, 'We love you God, and we love our great military – protect them.' God bless the Middle East, God bless Israel, and God bless America.' Of course, the terminology deployed in the speech was problematic before we even got to the rapid-fire mention of the Almighty by a man who has never been particularly religious. For one thing, Iran simply lacks the credentials to qualify as the world's 'number one state sponsor of terror'; that position is already occupied by the US itself, which, unlike Iran, has spent the entirety of its contemporary history bombing and otherwise antagonising folks in every last corner of the Earth. The US has also continued to serve as the number one state sponsor of Israel, whose longstanding policy of terrorising Palestinians and other Arabs has now culminated in an all-out genocide in the Gaza Strip, as Israel seeks to annihilate the territory and its inhabitants along with it. But anyway, 'God bless Israel.' This, to be sure, was not the first time that Trump relied on God to sign off on worldly events. Back in 2017, during the man's first stint as president, the deity made various appearances in Trump's official statement following a US military strike on Syria. God, it seems, just can't get enough of war. God made a prominent return in January 2025, taking centre stage in Trump's inauguration speech – yet another reminder that the separation of church and state remains one of the more transparently disingenuous pillars of American 'democracy.' In his address, the president revealed the true reason he had survived the widely publicised assassination attempt in Pennsylvania in July 2024: 'I was saved by God to make America great again.' Part of making America great again was supposed to be focusing on ourselves instead of, you know, getting wrapped up in other people's wars abroad. But the beauty of having God on your side means you really don't have to explain too much in the end; after all, it's all divine will. Indeed, Trump's increasing reliance on the Almighty can hardly be interpreted as a come-to-Jesus moment or a sudden embrace of the faith. Rather, God-talk comes in handy in the business of courting white evangelical Christians, many of whom already see Trump himself as a saviour in his own right based on his valiant worldwide war on abortion, among other campaigns to inflict earthly suffering on poor and vulnerable people. The evangelical obsession with Israel means Trump has earned big saviour points in that realm, as well. In 2019, for example, the president took to Twitter to thank Wayne Allyn Root – an American Jewish-turned-evangelical conservative radio host and established conspiracy theorist – for his 'very nice words,' including that Trump was the 'best President for Israel in the history of the world' and that Israeli Jews 'love him like he's the King of Israel'. And not only that: Israelis also 'love him like he is the second coming of God'. Obviously, anyone with an ego as big as Trump's has no problem playing God – especially when he already believes that his every proclamation should spontaneously be made reality, biblical creation story-style. Former Arkansas governor and zealous evangelical Mike Huckabee, who once declared that 'there is no such thing as a Palestinian' and who is now serving as Trump's ambassador to Israel, has done his own part to encourage the president's messiah complex, writing in a text message to Trump that 'I believe you hear from heaven … You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' So it was only fitting that Trump should thank and profess love for God after bombing Iran in accordance with Israel's wishes – not that US and Israeli interests don't align when it comes to sowing regional havoc and ensuring the flow of capital into arms industry coffers. And yet, Trump is not the only US head of state to have enjoyed wartime communications with God. Recall the time in 2003 that then-President and 'war on terror' chief George W Bush informed Palestinian ministers of his 'mission from God'. Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath would go on to quote snippets from Bush's side of the conversation: 'God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did.' Now, Trump doesn't like to take orders from anyone, even if they're from on high. However, he's made it clear that he's not opposed to ingratiating himself with God in the interest of political expediency. Some evangelical adherents see the current upheaval in the Middle East as potentially expediting the so-called 'end times' and the second coming of Jesus – which means the more war, the better. And the more that God can be portrayed as an ally in US and Israeli-inflicted devastation, the better for Trump's delusions of deification. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
What Israel's attack on Iran means for the future of war
In the predawn darkness of June 13, Israel launched a 'preemptive' attack on Iran. Explosions rocked various parts of the country. Among the targets were nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordo, military bases, research labs, and senior military residences. By the end of the operation, Israel had killed at least 974 people while Iranian missile strikes in retaliation had killed 28 people in Israel. Israel described its actions as anticipatory self-defence, claiming Iran was mere weeks away from producing a functional nuclear weapon. Yet intelligence assessment, including by Israeli ally, the United States, and reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed no evidence of Tehran pursuing a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iranian diplomats were in talks with US counterparts for a possible new nuclear deal. But beyond the military and geopolitical analysis, a serious ethical question looms: is it morally justifiable to launch such a devastating strike based not on what a state has done, but on what it might do in the future? What precedent does this set for the rest of the world? And who gets to decide when fear is enough to justify war? A dangerous moral gamble Ethicists and international lawyers draw a critical line between preemptive and preventive war. Pre-emption responds to an imminent threat – an immediate assault. Preventive war strikes against a possible future threat. Only the former meets moral criteria rooted in the philosophical works of thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, and reaffirmed by modern theorists like Michael Walzer — echoing the so-called Caroline formula, which permits preemptive force only when a threat is 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Israel's raid, however, fails this test. Iran's nuclear capability was not weeks from completion. Diplomacy had not been exhausted. And the devastation risked — including radioactive fallout from centrifuge halls — far exceeded military necessity. The law mirrors moral constraints. The UN Charter Article 2(4) bans the use of force, with the sole exception in Article 51, which permits self-defence after an armed attack. Israel's invocation of anticipatory self-defence relies on contested legal custom, not accepted treaty law. UN experts have called Israel's strike 'a blatant act of aggression' violating jus cogens norms. Such costly exceptions risk fracturing the international legal order. If one state can credibly claim pre-emption, others will too — from China reacting to patrols near Taiwan, to Pakistan reacting to perceived Indian posturing — undermining global stability. Israel's defenders respond that existential threats justify drastic action. Iran's leaders have a history of hostile rhetoric towards Israel and have consistently backed armed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently argued that when a state's existence is under threat, international law struggles to provide clear, actionable answers. The historical scars are real. But philosophers warn that words, however hateful, do not equate to act. Rhetoric stands apart from action. If speech alone justified war, any nation could wage preemptive war based on hateful rhetoric. We risk entering a global 'state of nature', where every tense moment becomes cause for war. Technology rewrites the rules Technology tightens the squeeze on moral caution. The drones and F‑35s used in Rising Lion combined to paralyse Iran's defences within minutes. Nations once could rely on time to debate, persuade, and document. Hypersonic missiles and AI-powered drones have eroded that window — delivering a stark choice: act fast or lose your chance. These systems don't just shorten decision time — they dissolve the traditional boundary between wartime and peacetime. As drone surveillance and autonomous systems become embedded in everyday geopolitics, war risks becoming the default condition, and peace the exception. We begin to live not in a world of temporary crisis, but in what philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls a permanent state of exception — a condition where emergency justifies the suspension of norms, not occasionally but perpetually. In such a world, the very idea that states must publicly justify acts of violence begins to erode. Tactical advantage, coined as 'relative superiority', leverages this compressed timeframe — but gains ground at a cost. In an era where classified intelligence triggers near-instant reaction, ethical scrutiny retreats. Future first-move doctrines will reward speed over law, and surprise over proportion. If we lose the distinction between peace and war, we risk losing the principle that violence must always be justified — not assumed. The path back to restraint Without immediate course correction, the world risks a new norm: war before reason, fear before fact. The UN Charter depends on mutual trust that force remains exceptional. Every televised strike chips away at that trust, leading to arms races and reflexive attacks. To prevent this cascade of fear-driven conflict, several steps are essential. There has to be transparent verification: Claims of 'imminent threat' must be assessed by impartial entities — IAEA monitors, independent inquiry commissions — not buried inside secret dossiers. Diplomacy must take precedence: Talks, backchannels, sabotage, sanctions — all must be demonstrably exhausted pre-strike. Not optionally, not retroactively. There must be public assessment of civilian risk: Environmental and health experts must weigh in before military planners pull the trigger. The media, academia, and public must insist that these thresholds are met — and keep governments accountable. Preemptive war may, in rare cases, be morally justified — for instance, missiles poised on launchpads, fleets crossing redlines. But that bar is high by design. Israel's strike on Iran wasn't preventive, it was launched not against an unfolding attack but against a feared possibility. Institutionalising that fear as grounds for war is an invitation to perpetual conflict. If we abandon caution in the name of fear, we abandon the shared moral and legal boundaries that hold humanity together. Just war tradition demands we never view those who may harm us as mere threats — but rather as human beings, each worthy of careful consideration. The Iran–Israel war is more than military drama. It is a test: will the world still hold the line between justified self-defence and unbridled aggression? If the answer is no, then fear will not just kill soldiers. It will kill the fragile hope that restraint can keep us alive. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
The Sun
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Iran was building warheads ‘capable of blitzing London' as twisted regime raced to have world's biggest missile arsenal
IRAN'S twisted regime was attempting to produce a terrifying two-tonne warhead which could obliterate London, Israel has warned. Tehran was said to be trying to build up the world's biggest ballistic missile arsenal to help them launch a global tirade of destruction, according to the Israeli foreign ministry. 7 7 7 Officials in Tel Aviv said they successfully thwarted Iran's plan to become the largest ballistic missile producer on the planet in tactical airstrikes alongside Donald Trump on June 13. The US struck Iran's nuclear programme and hit key nuke sites which were ordered by Trump who said they had "obliterated" the targets. But Israeli officials, who helped to orchestrate the "bunker buster" bombs with the US, have now revealed they also had a second objective in the weekend strikes. Oren Marmorstein, a spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry said: "We actually acted because of two existential threats. "One was nuclear, and we acted when we did because Iran was at the 11th hour of being able to build a bomb. But the other was the ballistic threat." Tehran already boasted a concerning number of ballistic weapons prior to the conflict with US intelligence saying they had around 3,000 at their disposal. The latest Israeli intelligence though had pointed towards a much more dire figure emerging if Iran wasn't stopped. They claimed the regime was actively working on increasing production to over 20,000 ballistic missiles. Some even had a payload of one or two tonnes, Marmorstein said. The spokesman detailed the destruction which one missile could cause saying just last week, prior to the agreed ceasefire, four people were killed in the southern Israeli town of Beersheba in a missile strike. Inside Op Red Wedding – Israel's fierce wave of assassinations killing 30 Iran generals in first MINUTES of 12-day war "Imagine if Tehran sent 10,000 of those," Marmorstein added. "That threat was as existential to us as a nuclear bomb. "They were moving into industrial scale and about to become the number one ballistic missile producer in the world. "Some of these are intercontinental, which are not for us." He claimed these would have been able to reach into Europe with capitals such as London, Berlin and Paris all at risk. "They were getting closer and closer, almost to the point of no return," Marmorstein said. Israel managed to wipe out dozens of missiles with more than half of their 300 missile-launchers also destroyed. A strike also targeted the military facility in Yazd which houses Iran's heaviest missile, known as the Khorramshahr. 7 7 7 The weapon is regarded as a copy of a North Korean missile carrying a two-ton warhead. The war in the Middle East lasted just 12 days as it quickly turned into a major conflict when Trump decided to strike the Iranian nuclear sites. The attacks helped to end the war with both Israel and Iran quickly declaring they had won the fight - despite Iran suffering a major blow to their nuclear capabilities. Despite a ceasefire being agreed, Trump has said he would "absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if it was ever needed. He told reporters in the White House he would "without question" attack the country if US intelligence pointed towards Iran enriching uranium to concerning levels. It comes as Iran held a funeral for the commanders wiped out in the war. The event was severely plagued by "Death to America" chants and the burning of Israeli flags across the day. By Chief Foreign Reporter, Katie Davis BRITAIN will never be safe until Iran's nuclear scheme is completely wiped out, Israel's ambassador told The Sun. Tzipi Hotovely said Israel did the UK a "huge service" by wiping out the rogue state's efforts to create a nuke weapon. The diplomat said: "The Israeli people know they're facing a very radical enemy like the British people were fighting in the Second World War and that they must get to the point where it's being defeated. The Iranians have proven they have no interest in diplomacy. They were just using diplomacy to keep on running their nuclear programme. "And President Trump kind of lost patience with this type of behaviour. He said it clearly, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. "We gave a chance to diplomacy. We backed up the American diplomatic plan - 60 days expired. "They didn't come to the table. That's what the Prime Minister said, they want to blow up the table, not to sit next to it. "And we are now certain that once this military operation is over, the world, the Middle East, Israel, Europe, everyone will have a safer world. "This is a war to end wars, not to begin wars." 7
