Why Macron fears Iran’s nuclear program is nearing ‘point of no return’
French President Emmanuel Macron warned the world on Monday, Jan. 6, that Iran is nearing “the point of no return” when it comes to procuring potential nuclear weapons. Macron said during his address to French ambassadors that Tehran has enough enriched uranium to power a handful of nuclear warheads, and called Iran the biggest strategic threat that Europe faces.
It’s not just Macron who said Iran is increasing its enriched uranium stockpile. The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in December that Iran was “dramatically” accelerating enrichment, and roughly 90% of its uranium stockpile was at bomb-grade level.
France was part of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which fell apart in 2018 when the first Trump administration withdrew the United States. Under that deal, Iran had agreed to pull back on its nuclear program in exchange for international sanctions being lifted.
As a result of the U.S. backing out, Iran began enriching uranium at higher levels, which reportedly shortened the time needed to make a nuclear device from months to weeks.
President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House on Monday, Jan. 20, is also reportedly raising fresh concerns after he drew a hardline with Tehran during his first term.
Macron said he is still debating whether more sanctions may be the answering to deterring Tehran from further enhancing its nuclear program and will talk with the incoming Trump administration about the “Iranian question.”
Nuclear bunker sales increase amid rising concern of catastrophic events
Have you ever thought about building a private bunker to live through a catastrophic event? A new report shows that sales for survival shelters are on the rise, continuing a trend that’s been a part of history for years.
New numbers from BlueWeave Consulting show the market for U.S. bomb and fallout shelters is expected to grow from $137 million last year to $175 million by 2030.
Recently, people have taken interest in building shelters on their property due to the rising threat of nuclear attacks or civil unrest.
Ron Hubbard, the owner of Atlas Survival Shelters in Sulpher Springs, Texas said he’s continued to see an uptick in sales since the COVID-19 lockdown with his sales more than doubling in March 2020 at the start of the pandemic.
“People are uneasy and they want a safe place to put their family. And they have this attitude that it’s better to have it and not need it than to need it, not have it,” Hubbard told The Associated Press.
However, not everyone is on board with bunkers. Critics said they create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable, arguing those planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real dangers posed by nuclear threats.
Government disaster experts also said bunkers aren’t necessary. FEMA recommends simply staying inside, ideally in a basement and away from outside walls.
History of bunkers
The long past of bunkers started with protecting military members against bombings and nuclear attacks. During World War II, they sheltered troops and civilians, followed by the Cold War era when the fear of nuclear warfare led to building numerous public and private bunkers.
The Sept. 11 attacks then reignited interest in bunkers becoming more modern and providing amenities such as swimming pools, theaters and wine cellars.
There’s been a significant increase in the number of wealthy people investing in elaborate doomsday bunkers, a trend driven by a growing sense of insecurity about the future.
Switzerland to spend nearly $250 million to upgrade nuclear bunkers
With the threat of Russian aggression moving beyond its invasion of Ukraine and NATO telling its members to have a “wartime mindset,” neutral Switzerland is planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to revamp its network of nuclear bunkers. The facilities are part of a law the country passed in 1963 requiring bunker space to be made available for all 9 million of the country’s residents.
The Swiss government will invest nearly $250 million to upgrade the aging spaces. Many of Switzerland’s 370,000 bunkers are now storage rooms or wine cellars. Likewise, many more have fallen into a state of disrepair due to a lack of nuclear threat and general disuse over the years.
Last week, Reuters followed a Swiss crew inspecting an out-of-date bunker. The crew found grass covering the entrance and a tunnel full of cobwebs inside. Local officials noted this is a common issue, as the bunkers have been a low priority for a long time.
However, they also noted that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted Swiss residents to think more about the bunkers.
The Swiss government plans to inspect both private and public bunkers around the country. Under Swiss law, a private bunker owner has a year to fix their facility or pay roughly $900 per person who would need to use a public shelter.
Switzerland is not a member of NATO but is surrounded by NATO members France, Germany, Italy and non-member ally Austria.
Iran’s nuclear program has reached a critical point, with intelligence reports indicating uranium enrichment is nearing weapons-grade levels. Analysts suggest Tehran has accumulated sufficient enriched material for multiple nuclear bombs, should its leadership decide to proceed.
While Iranian officials deny any intention of developing nuclear weapons, U.S. and Israeli authorities are preparing to address the potential threat.
Proposed measures include tightening economic sanctions to further destabilize Tehran’s economy, and providing advanced military support to Israel, such as bunker-busting munitions capable of targeting deeply buried nuclear sites.
Israeli officials, bolstered by recent air superiority gained in Syria and Iran following October airstrikes, view the current situation as a pivotal moment.
Reports suggest the Israeli air force is readying for potential preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, should such actions become necessary.
Recent Israeli airstrikes across Syria have already undermined Iran’s regional influence, targeting weapons stockpiles and air defense systems weakened by the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. These operations are part of a broader strategy to curtail Iran’s military reach and deny advanced weaponry to its proxies.
Despite escalating tensions, diplomatic solutions remain an option.
Iran has signaled a willingness to negotiate but insists on terms that exclude external pressure. Iranian officials have warned that any attack on its nuclear facilities could lead to a withdrawal from international agreements, further heightening the stakes.
Both U.S. and Israeli officials emphasize the urgency of staying ahead in what they describe as a high-stakes race. While neither nation seeks a larger conflict, their shared focus remains on deterring Iran and preventing nuclear weapons from entering the equation.
This is why it would be ‘ludicrous’ for Russia to use nuclear weapons
Stop me if you’ve heard this before. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is threatening to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine gets or uses certain other weapons in certain ways.
In the latest example of nuclear saber-rattling, Moscow changed its protocols for using nuclear weapons. If a non-nuclear country like Ukraine, is allied with a nuclear-armed country like the United States, and puts Russian sovereignty at risk, the Kremlin said it will use nukes.
Over the course of the war in Ukraine, Russia has issued dozens of threats concerning the use of its nuclear weapons, and each time the threat rang hollow. Straight Arrow News Reporter Ryan Robertson spoke with Matt Shoemaker, a former U.S. intelligence officer who spent time on the Russia desk, about whether to take Russia’s threats seriously.
The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You can watch the full interview in the video above.
Ryan Robertson: The last couple of days, the announcement came out that Russia was amending its protocols for nuclear responses to say that if Ukraine, or a nation, attacks Russia with long-range weapons that puts Russian sovereignty at risk, and that nation is being backed by a nuclear power, then Russia can use nuclear weapons.
The announcement was made in September, and went live at the same time Ukraine was using long-range ATACMS outside of Kursk. Is this all just more bluster from Putin?
Matthew Shoemaker: Short answer, yes. There’s been a lot of sensationalism, especially here in the United States, with regards to this usage of ATACMS. If you go on the Drudge Report, for example, the past three days, their main headlines have been essentially, “Nuclear war is about to start. All of these countries are updating their nuclear weapons programs and their nuclear responses.”
This was foreseen, Russia, let’s put it that way, had a good idea that this was going to happen, which is why they announced it back in September. They waited [to implement it] until President Biden announced [his plans]. And let’s be honest, President Putin knows President Biden. They’ve met multiple times. Biden’s got two months left on the clock. Putin knows that. Putin knows that, you know, Trump’s about to come in. Putin is going to have a much better time, from his perspective, negotiating with Trump.
You know, this is all just bluster at this point. No one anticipates, no one expects that President Putin is going to start nuclear war over this with President Biden and two months left. There’s nothing whatsoever in it for President Putin to do this. So this is all just bluster, unfortunately. And, you know, people with their own political axes to grind are using it for their advantage, whether it be bludgeoning the other side over the head with their political comments or just to try and stir up support for themselves. So, you know, there’s a lot of sensationalism going on.
Ryan Robertson: Sure, sure. I mean, it’s 2024, right? You can’t get by without some sensationalism, right? You mentioned something about the ATACMS. You know, President Biden has approved ATACMS. Ukraine probably doesn’t have that many long-range ATACMS at this point, but President Biden has a few billion dollars left of congressionally approved money to spend. If Ukraine suddenly got an influx of ATACMS, you know, long-range missiles, would that be enough to change the course of the war over the next couple of months before President Trump takes office?
Matthew Shoemaker: A short answer, in my professional assessment as a former intelligence officer, is no. None of that is in President Biden’s wheelhouse. Over the past three years of this conflict, effectively, he has slow-walked, at every single opportunity, any chance that the Ukrainians had to get an upper hand with regards to the Russians. President Biden has denied them that. The only thing President Biden has actually done is given the Ukrainians enough to stay in the fight.
And that’s essentially what this is more than anything, because—and not to get too far into the weeds and become too much of a tactician with regards to this—as you mentioned, the Ukrainians don’t have enough of these ATACMS. The ATACMS themselves come in multiple variants. No one really knows which variants the Ukrainians have or how many of those variants they have. The two main variants are–one is a main large warhead itself. And that’s used against, usually, clusters of personnel, for example. That tends to have a shorter range because it’s heavier. You need a bigger warhead for it.
The other variant has a lot of smaller munitions in it and kind of just sprays them out over a wide area. That one, from my understanding, has a little bit of a longer range. We don’t know how many the Ukrainians have. We don’t know how many of the variants they have either. That sort of thing.
On top of it, the Americans have been helping the Ukrainians pay for the development of a Ukrainian-made, essentially ATACMS-style weapon that the Ukrainians have been fielding, and they can produce those themselves. So, you know, the Ukrainians have been lobbing these into Russia, and this doesn’t really change any of the tactics on the field. It is all just bluster. It creates a headline. Because in reality, yes, for the Americans to say you can use these weapons against Russian soil is a new development, if you will.
I would say that, unlike most of the reporting, from my understanding, there actually are quite a lot of restrictions still on the use of ATACMS.
Ryan Robertson: Right. The Ukrainians can only use them around Kursk.
Matthew Shoemaker: Exactly. It’s meant to give the Ukrainians some bargaining chip when Trump does come into office, that the Ukrainians own, essentially, Russian territory that they can negotiate to give back to the Russians under a Trump administration. There’s a lot of gamesmanship, a lot of different tactics going on, a lot of chess being played. But for people to just fly off the handle and assume that nuclear war is coming is irresponsible at best and just ludicrous at worst.
Ryan Robertson: Matt Shoemaker, always a pleasure talking to you.
Russia lowers threshold for using nuclear weapons as war with Ukraine escalates
One-thousand days into its war, Russia claimed that Ukraine is already using American made long-range missiles to fire deep into its country. In response, President Vladimir Putin amended Russia’s nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for using such weapons.
“The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression with the use of conventional weapons against it, or the Republic of Belarus, which creates a critical threat to sovereignty or territorial integrity,” a Kremlin spokesman said, according to CNBC.
The Russian defense ministry said Ukraine fired six U.S. made long-range ballistic missiles into the western part of Russia overnight on Tuesday, Nov. 19. The strike came after the Biden administration granted Ukraine permission to begin using U.S. long-range missiles to fire into Russian territory.
Reuters is now reporting Russia began mass production of mobile bomb shelters that can protect against shockwaves and radiation from a nuclear blast. The Emergency Ministry’s Research Institute said the fortified shelters can offer 48 hours of protection from explosions, dangerous chemicals, fires, falling debris and flying shrapnel.
The shelters look like shipping containers and have room for 54 people. They can be moved by truck, connected to water supplies and be deployed throughout vast portions of Russia.
Israeli airstrike destroys Iran’s active nuclear facility
New details have emerged about an Israeli airstrike last month on Iran’s Parchin Military Complex, reportedly targeting the Taleghan 2 facility, which U.S. and Israeli intelligence say was used for nuclear weapons research. High-resolution satellite images reveal significant damage to the site. Officials claim the strike disrupted Iran’s efforts to resume nuclear weapons development.
Taleghan 2, once part of Iran’s Amad nuclear program, was officially shut down in 2003. However, recent activities at the facility reportedly included explosives testing and computer modeling related to nuclear devices.
The Institute has acquired high-resolution satellite imagery of the Israeli missile strikes on the Parchin Military Complex in Iran. Four buildings were destroyed, including Taleghan 2, a facility formerly involved in nuclear weapons development during Iran's Amad Plan in the… pic.twitter.com/OLwnyKSyEU
The U.S. warned Iran in June to cease such activities, but continued surveillance indicated the research persisted. Officials said the facility was testing plastic explosives critical for detonating nuclear weapons.
The strike has placed Iran in a diplomatic bind. Since Taleghan 2 was not part of Iran’s declared nuclear program, Tehran cannot publicly acknowledge the attack without implicating itself in violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is increasing pressure on Iran. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi met with Iranian officials this week to address compliance issues ahead of a critical Board of Governors vote expected next week.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but Western officials argue the strike and additional intelligence suggest otherwise. Tehran has warned that further pressure could lead to reduced cooperation with the IAEA.
North Korea fires ICBM; US, South Korea respond with simulated strikes
North Korea conducted a significant intercontinental ballistic missile test early Thursday, Oct. 31, with U.S. and South Korea responding swiftly through coordinated air drills, simulating strikes on North Korean missile targets. This marks North Korea’s first long-range missile test in almost a year, a launch that South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff suggest may be a display of strength ahead of the U.S. presidential election.
The missile, launched from near Pyongyang, reached a record altitude of 4,300 miles and stayed airborne for over 80 minutes — one of the longest North Korean missile flights to date.
Fired at a steep angle to avoid neighboring airspace, the missile’s trajectory aligns with North Korea’s recent strategy to showcase range capability without provoking further regional backlash.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversaw the launch, describing it as “appropriate military action” in response to perceived threats, signaling his continued commitment to expanding North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.
This latest test, in clear defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions prohibiting North Korea from conducting such long-range nuclear-capable missile tests, underscores the country’s growing missile advancements.
Japan confirmed the missile’s landing approximately 190 miles from Okushiri Island near Russia’s coast, with Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani calling the launch a direct threat to both Japan and international stability.
In response to the North’s ICBM launch, U.S., South Korean and Japanese forces conducted joint air exercises involving over 100 aircraft, aimed at reinforcing their defense posture and deterring further North Korean provocations.
The drills simulated strikes on mock North Korean missile sites, underscoring the allies’ preparedness and commitment to regional security.
Experts say North Korea’s high-angle missile tests could potentially reach up to 9,300 miles on a standard, flatter trajectory, which would place the U.S. mainland within range. However, uncertainties remain regarding North Korea’s ability to accurately deliver a nuclear warhead over such distances.
Putin oversees nuclear drills, signals readiness for rising threats
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, Oct. 30, supervised a large-scale nuclear exercise, testing intercontinental ballistic missiles and other nuclear capabilities as Russia faces continued tensions with Western nations over the war in Ukraine. The exercise included ballistic missile launches from land-based installations and nuclear submarines in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas, alongside cruise missile exercises by long-range bombers, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.
“Russia confirms its fundamental position that the use of nuclear weapons is an extreme, exceptional measure to ensure state security,” Putin said. “It is the nuclear triad that continues to be a reliable guarantor of the sovereignty and security of our country, allows us to solve the problems of strategic deterrence, as well as maintain nuclear parity and the balance of power in the world as objective factors of global stability.”
Amid geopolitical tensions, Putin added that Russia would continue modernizing its nuclear forces, investing in increased accuracy, reduced launch times, and enhanced defenses.
“We are not going to get involved in a new arms race,” he said, “but we will maintain nuclear forces at the necessary sufficiency level.”
Defense Minister Andrei Belousov described the drills as a simulation of a retaliatory strike. Last month, Putin warned NATO that deeper Ukrainian strikes into Russian territory, enabled by Western-supplied long-range weapons, could escalate the conflict.
Russian officials called the exercises essential to national defense. Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the Russian State Duma’s International Committee, noted that Russia must be prepared for any potential aggression. The drills follow similar exercises earlier this year with Belarus, where Moscow has stationed tactical nuclear weapons.
US expanding NATO airbase to host nuclear-capable fighter jets
The United States is expanding Hungary’s Kecskemét Air Base to host nuclear-capable fighter jets. The expansion will enhance NATO’s ability to quickly respond to regional threats, particularly as the conflict in Ukraine continues.
DVIDS
The U.S. Department of Defense is investing in infrastructure upgrades at the air base, allowing it to accommodate advanced fighter jets such as the F-15 Eagle, which can carry nuclear payloads. This move is part of NATO’s strategy to bolster deterrence along its eastern flank.
The expansion comes as Russia criticizes NATO’s increased presence in Eastern Europe, viewing it as a provocation. NATO, however, emphasized that the expanded capabilities are purely defensive and intended to uphold regional stability.
Located in central Hungary, the Kecskemét Air Base is seen as a key strategic location due to its proximity to NATO’s eastern borders. The base could become part of NATO’s nuclear-sharing framework, where non-nuclear countries host nuclear weapons or aircraft capable of carrying them as part of NATO’s broader deterrence strategy.
This expansion follows other NATO initiatives to reinforce defenses in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with a focus on European countries close to the conflict zone. Military analysts say these moves aim to send a message to Moscow about the alliance’s readiness to defend its member states.
Russian officials have voiced concerns over NATO’s growing military footprint near its borders. They have framed the expansion of bases such as Kecskemét as increasing the risk of confrontation, though NATO maintains that the changes are defensive in nature.
NATO’s tactical nuclear policy has long been a key part of its deterrence posture, with bases like Kecskemét playing a growing role in military exercises aimed at countering potential Russian threats.
