War – Page 2

April 24, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

War Crimes – Reposted from PeaceVoice, Original Link Included

By John LaForge, PeaceVoice, 20 April 2026

“It is the plot and the act of aggression which we charge to be crimes.” – Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

With Spain and Austria refusing to allow their airspace to be used for the massive, unprovoked U.S. bombardment of Iran, there is international denunciation of this illegal action; and the initiation of the U.S. carpet bombing of Iran is clearly unlawful in view of the UN Charter, the Kellogg Briand Pact, the Geneva Protocol, and the Nuremberg Charter of 1945.

Yet the charge of “illegality” is weak and papery considering the thundering condemnation of any such war of aggression by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in his opening of the Trial of the Major War Criminals in Germany in late 1945, which stands as one of history’s most significant authorizations of international law and order. Unvarnished facts regarding of thousands of U.S. bombing raids against Iran’s cities, and the resulting thousands of casualties and fatalities, show that the aggression is not just illegal but criminal. Jaywalking is illegal. Bombing schoolgirls is criminal.

In Justice Jackson’s Nov. 21, 1945 opening statement he noted, “A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate, or wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan to do so, is a crime.” He reminded the court that for 20 years, “The Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes … declared that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime.”

Yet Jackson understood the dilemma of the Nuremberg prosecutors, warning that “[T]he ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law.” How else to prevent presidents, chancellors, prime ministers, cabinet secretaries, military commanders, or kings from criminally launching wars than to prosecute the war heads themselves?

So, Justice Jackson explained that the criminalization of wars of aggression must be understood and enforced universally, declaring: “[W]hile this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations including those which sit here now in judgment.”

The criminality of U.S. military actions against Iran, against Venezuela, and against civilian speed boats in international waters may have been foreseen by Secretary Pete Hegseth who today defends troops charged with war crimes as “heroes.” Hegseth has tried for years, according to the Wall St. Journal, to end the military’s use of “stupid rules of engagement” which protect civilians and civilian objects like hospitals, schools, and religious sites. Mr. Trump shares Hegseth’s disdain for the laws of war, having pardoned Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher who was accused by his own troops of a war crime in Iraq for stabbing to death, in front of the platoon, a wounded 17-year-old prisoner, and then taking a selfie with the corpse. (Gallagher found not guilty of murder in a chaotic court martial, only found guilty of posing with the corpse.)

Later in the course of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Justice Jackson explained even more emphatically why Trump, Hegseth, the General Staff, and the military’s field commanders ought to end up in the dock for their massacres in Iran: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

John LaForge, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Co-director of Nukewatch a nuclear power and weapons watchdog group.

March 3, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Withdrawing U.S. nuclear weapons from European bases will bring ‘nuclear sharing’ states partly into compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty

For the 11th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – New York, 27 April – 22 May 2026

Drafted by John LaForge for Nukewatch

The transfer of thermonuclear weapons from the United States to five other States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), known as nuclear sharing, is conducted in direct violation of the Treaty’s object and purpose. Defenders of the practice argue that it was accepted as a ‘reservation’ during the NPT’s negotiation, and further contend that, because host states do not exercise full control over the U.S. nuclear weapons, the transfer is incomplete and therefore lawful. Critics respond that no such ‘reservation’ could be valid under international law and that Articles I and II of the NPT separately and distinctly prohibit both the transfer of nuclear weapons and the transfer of ‘control over’ such weapons.

To comply with the binding requirements of the NPT, the United States must withdraw its nuclear weapons from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, and two in Italy (where they are stationed at two bases).[1] The practice began secretly in September 1954[2] and has continued despite condemnation from UN Member States, non-governmental organizations, legal scholars, and others. (Because the NPT only forbids the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states, U.S. transfers to the U.K. do not technically violate the NPT.)

Nuclear sharing assumed renewed significance when the Russian Federation reportedly copied the NATO model and transferred some of its nuclear weapons to Belarus in 2023[3] — during its war in Ukraine. Russian officials claimed that the transfer complies with the NPT in spite of previously calling U.S. nuclear sharing a violation. In its response to Russia’s, action the United States spoke volumes by not condemning the transfer as a breach of the NPT.

Positive confirmation of U.S. nuclear sharing came from NATO itself in 2019 when one of its Parliamentary Assembly documents was leaked to the press. The document said in part:

‘Within the context of NATO, the United States deploys approximately 150 nuclear weapons in Europe, most notably B61 free-fall bombs…. These bombs are stored in six [U.S.] American and European bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi-Torre in Italy, Volkel in the Netherlands, and Inçirlik in Turkey.’[4]

Approximately 100 U.S. B61 hydrogen bombs are now thought to be stationed at the six bases.[5] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has reported, ‘The new B61-12 H-bombs will begin replacing the older versions in Europe … from early 2024’.[6] The B61-12 thermonuclear bombs can be set to explode with the force of 50-kilotons of TNT, or 3.3 times the force of the U.S. device that killed 140,000 people at Hiroshima.[7] Non-U.S. military pilots flying Belgian, German, Italian, Dutch, and British jet fighters routinely join in nuclear attack exercises including ‘Steadfast Noon.’[8] On January 16, 2025, Jill Hruby of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration said, ‘The new B61-12 gravity bombs are fully forward deployed….’[9] However, the new H-bomb’s full deployment is uncertain due to ongoing infrastructure upgrades and the ‘modernizing [of] the weapon storage and security systems’[10] at several of the nuclear sharing bases.

NPT Articles I and II

The ordinary meaning of the terms in Articles I and II of the NPT is precise and unambiguous. Article I provides:

‘Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly….’ (Emphasis added.)

Article II states:

‘Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly….’ (Emphasis added.)

The United States, Russian Federation, and the six other states that participate in nuclear sharing, contend that the NPT permits nuclear weapons transfers so long as the receiving state does not obtain possession, ownership, or control of the weapons. However, the disjunctive ‘or’ in Articles I and II, separates the prohibition on transferring nuclear weapons from the prohibition on transferring control over them. Thus, the transfer of nuclear weapons alone — regardless of who controls them — is prohibited.

The meaning of ‘transfer’ is central to this issue. The Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor 2022 considers the words ‘transfer’ and ‘control’ as used in the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and defines the terms writing: ‘Transfer’ as transmitting possession or ownership, and ‘control’ as the power to detonate a nuclear weapon.[11] However, the ordinary meaning of ‘transfer’ is broader than the NWBM’s qualified and nuanced definition. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘transfer’ as: ‘to move someone or something from one place, vehicle, person, or group to another.’[12]

The late Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois wrote in 2022: ‘Of course, there was physical “transfer.” These nuclear weapons were physically transferred from the United States to Germany and put on a German military base on sovereign German territory.’[13]

The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is dispositive. Article 31(1) says: ‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’[14] The ordinary meaning of the word ‘transfer’ may not be refashioned arbitrarily in order to make the unlawful appear lawful.

Reservations and ‘Integration’ Claims

Some defenders argue that nuclear sharing agreements are permissible ‘reservations’ to the NPT. However, Article 19 of the VCLT allows reservations only if they are not ‘incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.’

The Germany section of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA Germany), addressed this claim in 2023 stating:

‘In interpreting reservations under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), the wording is decisive, irrespective of what the parties subjectively meant by the formulations used when they concluded the treaty.’[15]

IALANA further concluded that because Germany’s claimed reservation is incompatible with the NPT’s object and purpose, it ‘… cannot be a reservation under international law and is therefore ineffective as a reservation.’[16]

Another defense is that because nuclear sharing predates the NPT, the practice was lawfully ‘integrated’ into the Treaty. Germany’s UN Ambassador Thomas Göbel stated in an official reply letter at the 10th NPT Review Conference, August 4, 2022, writing:

‘NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements … were put in place well before the NPT entered into force in 1970. This resulted in seamless integration of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements into the NPT…’, and ‘fully conforms with Articles I and II of the NPT.’[17]

This flawed reasoning is like a human slaver arguing that because the enslaved persons were lawfully purchased before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, the slaver could lawfully keep them in bondage. Pre-existing conduct does not override treaty obligations once a state becomes bound by them.

A related claim — that the NPT becomes null and void in the event of war — has been rejected by legal scholars, including the New York-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP).

The LCNP’s Senior Analyst Dr. John Burroughs noted without qualification in a May 3, 1999 paper delivered to a preparatory meeting for the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference: ‘The NPT does not provide that it becomes ineffective in time of war. Nor is there any basis in international law for maintaining that it does so.’[18] In 2023, the LCNP explained further:

‘The contention that the NPT would not be legally binding in time of war, qualified as “general war” in testimony before the [U.S.] Senate, is legally wrong, unworkable, and dangerously destabilizing, as explained in non-governmental papers prepared over two decades ago in connection with the question of whether NATO nuclear sharing should be terminated. … the contention was implicitly rebuked by the 2000 NPT [Review Conference] Final Document reaffirmation that “strict observance” of treaty provisions is “central” to “preventing, under any circumstances, the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.”’[19]

Condemnation by NPT States Parties

The People’s Republic of China directly urged an end to nuclear sharing at the 10th Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT. On Aug. 2, 2022, Fu Cong, the head of the Chinese delegation and Director General of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Department of Arms Control, said in opening remarks[20] to the conference:

‘The so-called nuclear sharing arrangements run counter to the provisions of the NPT and increase the risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear conflicts. The United States should withdraw all its nuclear weapons from Europe and refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in any other region.’

The Russian Federation, before transferring nuclear weapons to Belarus, repeatedly called U.S./NATO nuclear sharing a violation of the NPT. In April 2018, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement that said, ‘This is a serious violation of Articles I and II of the NPT.’[21] In April 2015, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that, ‘The Americans are breaching the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons because they have placed their tactical nuclear weapons in the territories of five countries in Europe.’[22]

In 2019, The Non-Aligned Movement, representing 120 NPT States Parties, declared that nuclear weapons sharing ‘constitutes a clear violation of non-proliferation obligations under Articles I and II’, a reiteration of the Movement’s 1998 declaration.[23] Similar criticisms were voiced again by China,[24] the United Arab Emirates, and other States Parties[25] at the August 2022 NPT Review Conference.

Civil Society Opposition

On March 26, 2010, Germany’s Bundestag adopted a joint motion demanding, among other things, the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany, with a vast majority voting in favor. The motion[26] pledged lawmakers ‘to work … to ensure that the nuclear weapons remaining in Germany are withdrawn’, and to ‘press for the withdrawal’.

On Jan. 16, 2020, a resolution in Belgium’s Chamber of Representatives demanding removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from its Kleine Brogel Air Force base was nearly adopted. Although it was approved by the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the full chamber voted it down 74-to-66.[27]

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a July 2023 article by Princeton University researchers Moritz Kütt, Pavel Podvig, and Zia Mian, reported: ‘The NPT prohibits both the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-weapon states and the transfer of nuclear weapons to such countries by the five nuclear weapon states who are parties.’[28] (Emphasis added)

Reaching Critical Will, a program of the Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, states in its ‘2025 NPT Briefing Book’ by Ray Acheson:

‘All other non-nuclear-armed states should … question actions taken by nuclear-armed states that are contrary to the object and purpose of the NPT, including nuclear sharing. … All the countries involved in nuclear alliances are violating the NPT’s spirit and letter. … If these states genuinely consider the NPT to be the “cornerstone” of the non-proliferation and disarmament regime, they need to … remove nuclear bombs stationed on their territories, and end their involvement in nuclear war planning activities.’[29]

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which shared the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, issued a condemnation of nuclear sharing at the 2023 NPT Preparatory Committee in Vienna,[30] stating in part:

‘We condemn all such deployments… Such deployments must be brought to an immediate end. …This practice runs counter to the fundamental tenets of the Treaty and is a threat to the entire regime. … We are eager to hear from those states that engage in the practice: What is your legal justification?’

The International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms, Germany, condemned nuclear sharing without qualification in its November 2023 letter to the United Nations 2nd Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which says in part:

‘As a party to the NPT, the non-nuclear-weapon state Germany is obliged under Art. 2 NPT “not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons…. or of control over such weapons ….” Similarly, under Art. 1 NPT, the U.S. is obligated “not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons….” The NPT does not provide an exception for nuclear sharing…. Germany’s nuclear sharing cannot be justified under any aspects of international law, but is nevertheless practiced.’[31]

Conclusion

The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy in New York submitted to a Preparatory Conference for the 11th NPT Review Conference a July 2023 paper that directly addressed the prohibited status of nuclear sharing, declaring, ‘The incompatibility of nuclear sharing with the NPT is based on a straightforward application of NPT Articles I and II.’[32]

This LCNP 2023 paper refers to a 1999 report by the group’s Senior Analyst Dr. John Burroughs, which 27 years ago presented a legal deconstruction of nuclear sharing that has never been rebutted. In it, Burroughs concluded:

‘[T]here are serious questions about the legality of nuclear sharing. The best way to resolve those questions would be to withdraw U.S. nuclear weapons from deployment in European countries and to terminate nuclear sharing arrangements. The United States should also unequivocally renounce the view that the NPT becomes ineffective in time of war.’[33]

Finally, an end to nuclear sharing and the permanent return to the United States of the nuclear weapons it has transferred to European bases would reduce tension and fear over NATO’ s and Russia’ s implied threats of nuclear attacks in the war in Ukraine, would eliminate the risk of accidents with the ‘shared’ nuclear weapons, would constitute a trust-building gesture and a de-escalating incentive for the reciprocal removal of Russian nuclear weapons from Belarus. ###

Endnotes

[1] Leaked NATO Parliamentary Assembly statement, Ann De Boeck, “Finally in black and white: there are American nuclear weapons in Belgium,” De Morgen, July 16, 2019, https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/eindelijk-zwart-op-wit-er-liggen-amerikaanse-kernwapens-in-belgie~b051dc18/

[2] Bernd Hahnfeld, ‘Nuclear sharing’, Board member, IALANA Germany, updated October 2022, https://www.ialana.info/2022/06/nuclear-sharing/

[3] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘Russia is deploying nuclear weapons in Belarus. NATO shouldn’t take the bait,’ April 24, 2023, https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/russia-is-deploying-nuclear-weapons-in-belarus-nato-shouldnt-take-the-bait/

[4] Ibid, note 1

[5] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘United States nuclear weapons, 2025,’ Jan. 13, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-01/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2025/

[6] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘US nuclear weapons, 2024’, Table 1., note q, May 7, 2024, https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/rbul_a_2339170_t0001_oc.pdf

[7] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘United States nuclear weapons, 2025,’ Jan. 13, 2025, https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-01/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2025/

[8] NATO press release, ‘NATO Annual Nuclear Exercise, Steadfast Noon’, Oct. 20 2025, https://ac.nato.int/archive/2025-2/nato-annual-nuclear-exercise–steadfast-noon; and Hans Kristensen reported April 11, 2022 that‚ ‘There are unconfirmed rumors that many of the weapons at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey have already been withdrawn and moved to other bases in Europe’, https://fas.org/publication/lakenheath-air-base-added-to-nuclear-weapons-storage-site-upgrades/

[9] U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Jill Hruby, remarks at Hudson Institute, Jan. 16, 2025, https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-administrator-jill-hruby-remarks-hudson-institute

[10] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘United States Nuclear Weapons, 2024’, May 7, 2024, http://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2024/

[11] Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor 2022, by Norwegian People’s Aid, March 2023, p.39

[12] Cambridge Dictionary (Cambridge University Press, 2026), https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/transfer

[13] Francis Boyle (The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, 2002 Clarity Press), E-mail to Nukewatch, Aug. 19, 2022

[14] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdh

[15] ‘IALANA Germany recommends joining the TPNW’, paper submitted to the 2nd Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Nov. 14, 2023, p.3, https://docs-library.unoda.org/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons_-SecondMeeting_of_States_Parties_(2023)/TPNW.MSP_.2023.NGO_.15.pdf

[16] Ibid.

[17] ‘Right of Reply by the Federal Republic of Germany’, Amb. Thomas Göbel, General Debate, NPT Review Conference, Aug. 4, 2022, https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/revcon2022/statements/4Aug_Germany_RoR.pdf

[18] John Burroughs, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (The (Il) legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Lit Verlag 1997) ‘Two Legal Issues Confronting NATO and The Non-Proliferation Regime’, May 3, 1999 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603410a4be1db058065ce8d4/t/6075c2fc4fd4650151cc1dec/1618330365176/Two+Legal+Issues+-+NATO.pdf

[19] Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, ‘Three Issues Confronting the Non-Proliferation/Disarmament Regime’, statement to First UN Prep. Com. Meeting for 11th NPT Rev.Con., July 25, 2023, p.9, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603410a4be1db058065ce8d4/t/64c050c279fdc079c3c214f2/1690325186314/LCNPWPNuclearThreatsNSAsSharingNPTPrepCom2023.pdf

[20] People’s Daily online, ‘China calls for rejection of double standards in nuclear non-proliferation,’ Aug. 3, 2022, https://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0803/c90000-10130398.html

[21] CNBC, ‘Russia’s Lavrov Says U.S. Breaching Nuclear Arms Agreement,’ Feb. 28, 2018 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/russias-lavrov-says-us-breaching-nuclear-arms-agreement-ifax.html

[22] Sputnik News, April 22, 2015, ‘U.S. Breaching NPT by Deploying Nuclear Arms in European Countries – Lavrov’, https://sputniknews.com/europe/201504221021239802/

[23] Norwegian People’s Aid, Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor 2022, March 2023, p.67, note 14, ‘Statement of the Delegation of Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement States Parties to the NPT’, May 2019, at https://bit.ly/3lfKxlo; and Project on European Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Press Release, ‘Non-Aligned Movement Demands an End to NATO Nuclear Sharing’, annex, April 28, 1998

[24] Remarks by H.E. Ambassador Fu Cong’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Aug. 2, 2022, at https://bit.ly/3YiHKTD

[25] ‘UAE Statement NPT RevCon 2020 – Cluster I – General Issues’, Permanent Mission of the UAE to the UN, Aug. 4, 2022, at: http://bit.ly/40PS484

[26] German Bundestag, March 24, 2010, ‘Motion: Germany must set clear signs for a world free of nuclear weapons’, https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2010/29155758_kw12_de_abruestung-201446

[27] Brussels Times, Jan. 17, 2020, https://www.brusselstimes.com/90143/removal-of-us-nuclear-weapons-from-belgium-narrowly-rejected-by-lawmakers-nato-kleine-brogel-deterrant-tpnw-un-npt-nuclear-heads

[28] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘Bombs away: Confronting the deployment of nuclear weapons in non-nuclear weapon countries’, July 28, 2023, https://thebulletin.org/2023/07/bombs-away-confronting-the-deployment-of-nuclear-weapons-in-non-nuclear-weapon-countries/

[29] Ray Acheson (Banning the Bomb, Smashing the Patriarchy, Rowman & Littlefield, 2021), 2024 NPT Briefing Book, Reaching Critical Will, WILPF, April 2025

https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/2024-npt-briefing-book.pdf

[30] ICAN statement on nuclear sharing to NPT Prepcom, Aug. 2, 2023

https://www.icanw.org/ican_statement_on_nuclear_sharing_to_npt_prepcom_2023

[31] Ibid, note 15

[32] Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy statement to First UN Prep.Com. For the 11th NPT Rev.Con., ‘Three Issues Confronting the Non-Proliferation/Disarmament Regime,’ July 25, 2023, p.7 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603410a4be1db058065ce8d4/t/64c050c279fdc079c3c214f2/1690325186314/LCNPWPNuclearThreatsNSAsSharingNPTPrepCom2023.pdf

[33] John Burroughs, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, ‘Two Legal Issues Confronting NATO and The Non-Proliferation Regime’, for the 1999 Prep.Com. for the 2000 NPT Rev.Con., May 3, 1999, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603410a4be1db058065ce8d4/t/6075c2fc4fd4650151cc1dec/1618330365176/Two+Legal+Issues+-+NATO.pdf

February 26, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

No rationale for presidential war on Iran

uss gerald r. ford cvn-78 aircraft carrier cvw-8 oslo norway 2025 159

USS Gerald R Ford, the largest air craft carrier in the US Navy, now making bombing raids on Iran. [March 2, 2026]

By John LaForge, February 24, 2026

The president says Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. In his February 24 speech to Congress, he said of Iran’s leaders, “They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’”

This is untrue, as we have heard “those secret words” many times.

For decades Iran has declared that nuclear weapons production would violate principles of the Quran, the government’s holy book, that it is not pursuing a nuclear arsenal, and that its uranium enrichment is strictly for civilian uses. The enrichment of uranium for civil nuclear reactor fuel is permitted by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Iran is a party to this treaty while the openly genocidal government of Israel, which possesses an arsenal of several hundred nuclear weapons, is not.

Speaking in Tehran on January 21, 2025, Ahmadreza Pourkhaghan, the head of Iran’s Armed Forces Judiciary, said, “The late Imam Khomeini did not allow the use of chemical weapons or any illegal and unconventional weapons, even against enemy forces,” and therefore, “it is based on this doctrine that the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] does not permit the armed forces of the Islamic Republic to develop nuclear weapons.”

Dr. Saeid Golkar, at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, reported Feb. 11, 2025 that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi “reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and cited a religious decree, known as a fatwa, by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which bans weapons of mass destruction as evidence of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.”

In October 2003, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued an oral fatwa, or a religious order, declaring that nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islamic law, and condemning nuclear weapons as “haram” (forbidden), and banning the production and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in any form.

Ever since, Khamenei and other officials have repeatedly declared that Iran does not wish to produce nuclear weapons because Islamic law prohibits WMD.

For example, in 2021, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy reported that:

“Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s years-old fatwa banning nuclear weapons is again making headlines. The regime and its supporters, including former nuclear spokesman Hossein Mousavian, have long claimed that the fatwa is permanent and adduced it as proof that Iran is religiously forbidden from acquiring such weapons.”

In 2019, the radio broadcast The World reported that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “said that Iran was not looking to acquire nuclear weapons for a surprising reason — that they were illegal under Islamic law.”

In 2012, Farhad Shahabi Sirjani reported that:

“[A]longside the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, special media attention was paid to a Fatwa (religious decree) issued by Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, banning all weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons in particular.”

With a vast armada of U.S. Navy warships now menacing Iran, the memory of undeclared, unlawful, and unconstitutional U.S. forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to echo in the minds of Pentagon brass and White House advisors. The world knows Iran has no WMD, and no propaganda campaign or ginned-up White Papers have even been unveiled as a pretext for another unprovoked U.S. war of aggression. The bombing of Iran last June, the bombing of Venezuela last January, the ongoing bombing of civilian speed boats may not yet have habituated the public to blindly gratuitous militarism. ### [This comment was first published by PeaceVoice.org]

February 24, 2026 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Illegal Orders and the Criminals Who Give Them

Arizona Senator Mark Kelly with John Stewart on The Daily Show Jan. 6, 2026

by John LaForge

The president and secretary of defense have failed in their effort to see to the execution of six members of Congress after the lawmakers urged members of the U.S. military to obey the law.

The six Democrats — Representatives Jason Crow of Colo., Maggie Goodlander and Chris Deluzio of New Hampshire, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, as well as Senators Mark Kelly of Ariz. and Elissa Slotkin of Mich. — aired a 90-second video last year reminding military personnel that they “must refuse illegal orders.”

When the video aired, President Trump called for the execution of all six. Then, Washington, DC prosecutors sought to charge all six with federal crimes, including treason, sedition, and subversive activities – some of which can carry the death penalty.

Of course, urging the rank and file to obey military law and the laws of war is not a criminal act or a violation of any law, so [on February 10] a grand jury refused to indict the lawmakers.

Senator Kelly is a former astronaut and commander of the Space Shuttle, and a retired Navy Captain with 25 years in the Marine Corps. Sen. Kelly spoke to John Stewart on The Daily Show about the video and reported, “We said, ‘don’t follow illegal orders.’ We stated the law. Donald Trump didn’t like that,” and he “called for me to be hanged.”

The president’s berserker reaction speaks volumes about the administration’s hair-raising criminality and its pursuit of police state impunity. (As when VP Vance claimed falsely that ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who murdered Renee Good in Minneapolis, is “protected by absolute immunity.”) Because the lawmakers’ video message directly implied that certain orders from today’s chain of command (headed by Hegseth and Trump) could be illegal — orders, say, to kill civilians in the open sea, in Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, in Nigeria, Minneapolis, or elsewhere — the two TV stars lost their heads.

At the time of the video’s airing, Hegseth hurried to the press and lied outright about the lawmakers’ message. He said Sen. Kelly had told military personnel “not to follow lawful orders” — knowing full well that his blistering falsehood would go viral and be reported as fact. The Pentagon’s formal Jan. 5 memo attacking Sen. Kelly corrected Hegseth’s lying and noted that the senator had said, “You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.” To John Stewart, Sen. Kelly confirmed, “It’s what we said, and that’s the law.”

Leave it to the twice-impeached, convicted felon and sex predator Trump — and to Hegseth, who once doled out $50,000 to quash a sexual assault accusation — to be politically apoplectic by the video’s insinuation that the administration’s unconstitutional and undeclared acts of war around the world and across the United States might be criminal and require lawful military insubordination.

The gruesome irony of Mr. Trump’s “they should be hanged” outburst is that, after WWII, Nazi war criminals were hanged for following illegal orders. The defendants claimed “superior orders” as justification, but prosecutors at the Nuremberg Tribunals, led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, thundered in response: “Following orders” is no defense.

Legally, the same goes for U.S. military attacks on civilians in Iraq or Caracas, civilians in fast boats, or attacks on sovereign independent states, including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria that have not attacked the U.S. In opening the military tribunals in Germany, Justice Jackson spoke partly to the victorious Allied powers who presided, warning: “While this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and, if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. … [T]he record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

Recent U.S. military aggression in Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and on the High Seas seems to violate the laws of armed conflict and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is partly based on the Nuremberg Judgment. And at least Admiral Alvin Holsey, who was Commander of the U.S. Southern Command and in charge of missile attacks on civilian fast boats, seems to have seen the writing on the wall. Adm. Holsey offered to resign and left last December after reportedly questioning Pete “kill them all” Hegseth about the legality of the attacks. ###

John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, and edits its newsletter. This comment was first published at Counterpunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/02/13/illegal-orders-and-the-criminals-who-give-them/)

War Crimes – Reposted from PeaceVoice, Original Link Included

Withdrawing U.S. nuclear weapons from European bases will bring ‘nuclear sharing’ states partly into compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty

No rationale for presidential war on Iran

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Stay Connected