Tuesday, April 07, 2026

 

Time for the White (jacket) Men

by  | Apr 7, 2026 | 

If you wanted to indulge in partisan spin you could wax hotly about the Donald’s Easter morning desecration of the office of the presidency. His meld of profanity, blasphemy and bellicose madness all rolled into a single social media post could surely calls forth at least that much: But we don’t think “desecration” is the right word for it. There had been plenty of that before the Donald got there. Say going back to LBJ’s murderous mayhem in Vietnam, to Bill Clinton’s blow jobs in the Oval Office, to Joe Biden’s chronic drooling on the Resolute Desk.

But what’s sui generis about this particular desecration is that it involves the POTUS threatening to commit flat-out WAR CRIMES against Iran and mayhem against the global economy based on a screaming Big Lie. Well, actually, a four-part Big Lie that is so utterly refuted by the facts and reality as to stand among the worst excuses for war-making in recorded history.

To wit, none of the following excuses for Trump’s War on Iran is even remotely true:

  1. Iran has or is on the verge of a nuclear weapon.
  2. Iran has conducted an unprovoked 47-year war of murder against Americans because the mullahs hate our freedom.
  3. Iran is arming itself to the teeth for an eventual attack on the American homeland.
  4. The Iranian government is in the hands of a uniquely Evil Cult of Fanatics determined to bring the world to an Armeggedon-like demise.

Now, we don’t mean that these propositions are arguable wrong or over-wrought exaggerations. Actually, we mean that they are completely, utterly and unequivocally devoid of any truth whatsoever.

Indeed, they are flat out fabrications repeated over and over and over again by the Bibi Netanyahu fifth column on the banks of the Potomac. And they have done so in promotion of a cause – Bibi’s continued tenure in power in Israel—that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Homeland Security of the American people domiciled way over here from sea-to-shinning-sea.

That’s really what makes Trump’s latest rant so horrifically despicable. He is threatening to unleash Armageddon on the 90 million people of Iran and the 7 billion people of the planet who depend for their daily bread upon the fountains of hydrocarbons that ordinarily gush forth into the arteries of global commerce from the Persian Gulf.

We have dealt with the thin gruel of “Iran’s 47-Year War Against America” elsewhere, including the claim that 1,041 Americans have been killed deliberately by the Iranian regime. That is, of course, complete neocon propaganda.

Fully 861 or 83% of these unfortunate deaths occurred in the context of Washington’s misbegotten military deployments in the region – in the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and during the second US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and thereafter.

Both of these deployments were utterly unnecessary and had no bearing on the Homeland Security of America whatsoever. Washington foolishly put lethally armed US soldiers in the midst of an uprising of the local Shiite population in southern Lebanon in 1983 against the brutal Israeli occupation then underway.

Likewise, the Iraq war fatalities were at the hands of local Shiite militia’s in Iraq. Some of them may have been supplied with weapons from Iran, but they were self-evidently returning war to the Yankee invaders of their homeland who should have never ever been sent there.

So, the overwhelming heart of the case essentially begins and ends with the “nuke” that Iran doesn’t have and hasn’t been seeking since a small weaponization research project was abandoned in 2003. That was done on the orders of Ayatollah Khamenei who issued a Fatwa proclaiming that the development, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons is forbidden by Islamic Law.

And, yes, we do adhere to Ronald Reagan’s principle of “trust but verify”. That is to say, the 17 US intelligence agencies – who’s remit, budgets, manpower and big oar in the policy waters on the Potomac have had every incentive to find reasons for exaggerating the threat of Iran getting a nuke – have been saying loudly the opposite for the past 19 years.

That is. Nope. No cigar. No way Jose.

This started with the 2007 NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), which is a consensus product of all the agencies from the CIA to NSA (National Security Agency) to Army Intelligence to the Department of State and the CGI (Coast Guard Intelligence). This NIE stated with “high confidence” that Iran had had a small, secret research program on nuclear weaponization but abandoned it in 2003:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.” — U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” November 2007

In major part, the 2007 NIE was aimed at debunking a 2002 Israeli propaganda offensive suggesting the opposite – that Iran was close to weaponization. But much of that information came from the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group with a long history of providing fabricated or exaggerated claims to Western governments.

This included a major role in providing the false intelligence about what turned out to be Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMDs. Later investigations, in fact, showed that many of the supposed “Iran has a nuke” documents sourced from the MEK were either planted or heavily edited. So the crucial 2007 NIE effectively debunked the most alarmist of these Israeli claims.

In this time period, President George W. Bush–no wallflower when it came to starting foreign wars – terminated a planned neocon inspired US attack on Iran owing to this same 2007 NIE. As he later admitted in his memoir “Decision Points”, he had been ready to order military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites much like the Donald’s bunker buster campaign of this past June, but the NIE had “pulled the rug out from under” any immediate military option:

“… The NIE didn’t just undermine diplomacy. It also tied my hands on the military side. There were many reasons I was concerned about undertaking a military strike on Iran, including its uncertain effectiveness and the serious problems it would create for Iraq’s fragile young democracy. But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

Thereafter, Iran continued uranium enrichment activities that it had started in 2006 in order to produce fuel grades material (< 4% U-235) for its large nuclear power plant at Bushehr. These were levels far below what is needed for a bomb (90%+ purity) and was done in a manner generally consistent with its obligations as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement (NPT). During this period (2007 to 2015) Iran’s enrichment activities included a small volume (360 Kgs) of 20 percent medical grade material, but the stockpile remained small and was under IAEA monitoring all the while.

According to subsequent intelligence community findings there was no credible evidence of any resumed weaponization work at Iranian facilities, either overt or covert after 2007. So diplomatic efforts intensified during the Obama Administration, culminating in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Under the JCPOA Iran agreed to dispose pursuant to IEA supervision more than 98 percent of its enriched uranium stockpile of about 9,000 kilograms, even though the overwhelming bulk of it (@8,630 Kg) was fully legal <4% reactor fuel grade material.

Beyond that, it also agreed to dismantle two-thirds of its centrifuges and convert its Fordow facility to research functions only. In return, economic sanctions were to be lifted and thereafter the IAEA was authorized to conduct the most intrusive inspection regime ever applied to any country.

From 2016 through early 2018, moreover, the IAEA issued 12 consecutive reports verifying that Iran had no diversion of nuclear material and no undeclared activities. Enrichment stayed at 3.67 percent — the level needed for civilian power reactors. Stockpiles remained within agreed limits. Iran kept its side of the bargain.

Nevertheless, on May 8, 2018 Trump 45 withdrew the United States from the JCPOA. He reimposed the full suite of sanctions that had been lifted, plus new ones targeting oil sales, banking, and shipping. This so-called “maximum pressure” campaign aimed to force Iran back to the table on harsher terms.

But here’s the thing. Iran had actually adhered to both the letter and spirit of the Obama deal and thereby had put its civilian enrichment program under a system of airtight international safeguards monitored by the IAEA. That is, they made huge concessions on nearly every issue that makes a difference.

This included the number of permitted centrifuges at Natanz, the status of the Fordow and Arak facilities, the disposition of their enriched uranium stockpiles, the intrusiveness and scope of the inspections regime and on braking mechanisms with respect Iran’s so-called “breakout” capacity.

While every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to civilian enrichment, Iran had agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges by 70% from 20,000 to 6,000 and actually did so after the deal took effect. Moreover, its effective enrichment capacity had been reduced by significantly more than 70% because the remaining Natanz centrifuges consisted exclusively of its most rudimentary, outdated equipment – slow, low-yielding first-generation IR-1 knockoffs of 1970s European models.

The disposition of the heavy water reactor at Arak is even more dispositive. For years, the Netanyahu neocons had falsely waved the bloody shirt of “plutonium” because the civilian nuclear reactor being built there was of Canadian “heavy water” design rather than GE or Westinghouse “light water” model; and, accordingly, when finished it would have generated plutonium as a waste product rather than conventional spent nuclear fuel rods.

In truth, the Iranians couldn’t have bombed a beehive with the Arak plutonium because you need a reprocessing plant to convert it into bomb grade material. Needless to say, Iran had no such plant, no plan to build one, and no prospect for getting the requisite technology and equipment on the international market.

But even that bogeyman was dispatched by the nuke deal. The latter required Iran to destroy or export the heavy water reactor core of its existing plant and replace it with a core that cannot produce material which can be reprocessed into weapons grade plutonium. All of these requirements were subject to rigorous international inspection and, in fact, were complied with before Trump cancelled the deal.

As to its already existing enriched uranium stock piles, including some 20% medical-grade material, 97% of this material was to be disposed of, and that requirement was complied with, too. Iran ended up with only 300 kilograms of fuel-grade material out of its 10,000 kilogram stockpile.

As it happened, that was an amount that could have been readily stored in the Donald’s wine cellar at Mar-o-Lago. And, in fact, that’s all Iran had at the time of Trump’s cancellation of the JCPOA, according to the IAEA reports.

The deal’s real clincher, however, had been Iran’s agreement to what amounted to a 20-year cradle-to-grave inspection regime encompassing the entire nuclear fuel chain. International inspectors were allowed to visit Iran’s uranium mines and milling and fuel preparation operations, its enrichment equipment manufacturing and fabrication plants and the storage facilities for its centrifuge rotors and bellows production.

Beyond that, Iran had also agreed to and had complied with a robust program of inspections to prevent smuggling of materials into the country to illicit sites outside of the framework facilities. That encompassed imports of nuclear fuel cycle equipment and materials, including so-called “dual use” items which are essentially civilian imports that could be repurposed to nuclear uses, even peaceful domestic power generation.

In short, not even a Houdini could have secretly broken-out of the box contained in the JCPOA agreement and then confronted the world with some kind of fait accompli threat to use the bomb. To do so would have required diversion of thousands of tons of domestically produced or imported uranium and the illicit milling and upgrading of such material at secret fuel preparation plants.

It would also have involved the secret construction of new, hidden enrichment operations of such massive scale that they could house more than 10,000 new centrifuges and the building of these massive spinning arrays from components smuggled into the country and transported to remote enrichment operations undetected by the massive complex of spy satellites overhead and covert US and Israeli intelligence agency operatives on the ground in Iran.

Finally, it would have required the activation from scratch of a weaponization program which had been dormant according to the US National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) for more than a decade.

That’s right. Fully dormant for more than a decade. Yet the threat that the Donald supposedly averted by shit-canning the Obama deal was that the Iranian regime – after cobbling together one or two bombs without testing them or their launch vehicles – would nevertheless have been willing to threaten to use them sight unseen.

In short, the case against the JCPOA was rampant hogwash. It’s only purpose was to kill the deal so that Bibi Netanyahu would again be in a position of wave the bloody shirt of an Iranian nuke for purposes of domestic politics and keeping his Washington servitors on a short leash!

The truth is, there never was a plausible or rational basis for the Donald’s bombastic claim that the Obama nuke deal was fatally flawed. So in cancelling the deal, what Trump really did was embrace the immense tissue of lies beneath the unwarranted demonization of Iran that Bibi Netanyahu and the Empire Firsters on the banks of the Potomac had fabricated over the course of three decades.

In any event, subsequent to the Donald’s foolish cancellation of the JCPOA in May 2018 Iran responded by gradually increasing its enriched stockpile levels as self-evident bargaining leverage for an expected new round of negotiations. Even then, it continued to allow IAEA inspectors access and publicly stated it would return to full compliance if the U.S. rejoined the deal.

Accordingly, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates after 2018 continued to assess that Iran was not actively pursuing weaponization. The 2019, 2020, and subsequent NIEs all repeated the core finding: To wit, Iran had not restarted the weaponization program halted in 2003.

The intelligence community’s position remained unchanged even as enrichment levels rose. For instance, an unclassified July 2023 report under the Biden Administration again attested that –

Unclassified ODNI Report on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Capability (July 2023 edition): “Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities that would be necessary to produce a testable nuclear device…”

Finally, as recently as March 2025 Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before Congress that Iran still did not have a nuclear weaponization program. She stated the assessment was based on the latest all-source intelligence and that no new evidence had emerged contradicting the long-standing conclusion. Her testimony was direct and unambiguous.

Weeks later, Gabbard’s deputy, Joe Kent, a former CIA officer, essentially confirmed the same point in a public hearing. He noted that while Iran had accumulated more enriched material, theweaponization infrastructure and design work remained dormant.

Needless to say, even the small 420 kilogram (kg) stockpile of 60% enriched uranium (out of total stocks of about 9,200 kg) that the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran had at the time of the subsequent June bombing had been produced for bargaining chip purposes in the context of the negotiations with the Trump Administration then underway.

As a NPT (nonproliferation treaty) signatory and operator of the aforementioned large civilian nuclear reactor at Bushehr, Iran was allowed to have the 7,582 kilograms of civilian reactor grade enriched uranium that the IAEA also certified last spring, as well as the 1,257 kilograms of medical grade uranium (20%).

What was really up for debate was just the 409 kilograms of 60% enriched material in its possession that could be spun to 90% weapons grade in a relatively short time. But for crying out loud, it is goddamn obvious to anyone not looking for an excuse for war that Iran had produced this material as of last June as trading bait for a new nuke and sanctions lifting deal.

That is, in order to get a new nuke deal with Washington to replace the one the Donald himself unilaterally cancelled in 2018, and thereby pave the way for lifting the brutal and demented economic sanctions that Washington has again imposed on Iran.

The proof of the bargaining chip pudding could not be more evident in the graph below. During the 10-year run-up to the 2015 nuke deal with the Obama Administration, the Iranians increased their enriched uranium stockpiles to just slightly below the current level, to about 9,000 kilograms.

But in an almost mirror image of the present, fully 96% of that amount was fuel-grade material at <4%, with about 350 kilograms of that material enriched to the 20% purity level for medical grade uses. That is to say, most of the 2015 stockpile was generated as a bargaining chip, and that was exactly its fate.

Upon activation of the JCPOA in 2015, all of the 20% material was destroyed as certified by the IAEA. At the same time, the total stockpile of fuel-grade material was also reduced by 97% to de minimis working levels, as further certified by the IAEA.

Indeed, Iran ended up retaining only 300 kilograms of its 9,000 kilogram stockpile. As mentioned above, however, the Donald had recklessly canceled the deal in May 2018 on the grounds that it had to be a bad deal by definition because he didn’t negotiate it!

Of course, that foolish move only caused the Iranians to restart the stockpiling process yet again, as is so explicitly depicted by the green line in the graph below. The irony, therefore, is that after the Donald’s feckless June 2025 bombing campaign the Iranians likely had close to 100% of the 9,248 kilograms (including the 409 Kg of 60% material) held before June still in tact.

That’s based on pretty convincing satellite photos showing that all of the Donald’s amateur “art of the deal” head fakery last June about “two weeks to decide” before the actual the bombing runs enabled the Iranians to drive trucks up to the Nantanz and Fordow facilities and remove the stockpiles to safe sites elsewhere.

Stated differently, Obama negotiated the Iran enriched stockpile to down by about 97%, while the Donald bombed roughly the same level of stockpile from 9,248+ kilograms to, well @ 9,248 Kg.

And yet and yet. The “obliterated” material was neither illegal, even remotely anything like a real nuke and likely not obliterated, either. Yet the 9,247 Kg of enriched uranium, and especially the 409 Kg of 60% material has became just the latest iteration of the flat-out Big Lie that Netanyahu has been telling for decades.

Indeed, the Netanyahu’s “imminent bomb” lie never stops reincarnating. In the days before the Trump/Netanyahu Feb. 28 attacks, the US and Iran were in productive discussion – during which the Iranian negotiator had explained to Ambassador Witcoff and Jared Kushner that the 409 Kg of 60% material could be made into approximately 10 nukes based on the math of bomb engineering.

Their point, of course, is that like in 2015 they were willing to give up the entirely of the 409 Kg plus most of the 8,838 Kg of fuel grade and medical grade material in return for a comprehensive deal and the lifting of the harsh economic sanctions. That Iranian offer, in fact, has been verified by both British and IAEA representative in the meetings, as well as the Oman foreign minister who had been the chief intermediary.

Unfortunately, the Donald’s negotiators in the persons of his crooked son-in-law and a thoroughly ignorant NYC real estate developer apparently missed the point entirely. They construed it as a threat to make 10 bombs within a matter of weeks, which is absolute baloney that anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge would recognize.

The fact is, enrichment from 60% to 90% is the easy part – it just requires running the centrifuges for another few weeks. The hard part is the engineering steps need to build a functional nuclear weapon from this 90% material, which requires sophisticated design work, precise machining of the core, reliable detonators, and a delivery system that can survive extreme re-entry heat and other stresses.

Stated differently, the dog that hasn’t barked with respect to the “two weeks to a nuke” lie is something called the “physics package” in the trade, which is the sine qua non to make a workable nuke.

The latter requires a precisely engineered device that can achieve supercriticality in a fraction of a microsecond. That is what actually initiates an uncontrolled chain reaction.

In practical terms, this means the fissile material (90% enriched U-235) must be compressed so rapidly, powerfully and uniformly that the number of neutrons produced by fission exceeds those lost to escape or absorption, causing the chain reaction to multiply exponentially in an uncontrollable burst. The entire nuclear explosion unfolds in roughly one millionth of a second — releasing energy equivalent to thousands of tons of TNT before the device physically blows itself apart.

Historically, there have been two basic designs for the physics package: The simpler gun-type device (used only once, on Hiroshima) and the far more efficient implosion-type design (used on Nagasaki and in virtually all modern weapons). According to US intelligence, Iran has never demonstrated mastery of either approach in a deliverable configuration. And that is something anyone can look up via Grok 4 or any similar AI.

In any event, the implosion design favored by all proliferators to date is excruciatingly demanding. It can be envisioned as having a hollow sphere or “pit” of weapons-grade uranium, roughly the size of a grapefruit, at the center of the device. This “pit” is then surrounded by a tamper/reflector and finally around the outside of the latter lies a precisely synchronized shell of conventional high explosives.

The functions of each of these two outer layers, which wrap around the U-235 “pit” of the bomb, are crucial to actually triggering a nuclear chain reaction explosion. And they also involve no mean feats of physics-based engineering and extreme precision during the manufacturing and assembly process.

In this context, the tamper/reflector is made of heavy metal (usually beryllium or depleted uranium) and consists of a precisely machined spherical shell typically 5–10 cm thick, surrounding the uranium pit like an eggshell. It thus sits directly between the high-explosive lenses grafted to the inside of the bomb’s outer wall and the U-235 pit at the center.

The tamper/reflector therefore essentially encases the fissile core and performs two vital roles. First, when the high explosives on the outside shell detonate (see below), the tamper’s mass and inertia resist the outward expansion of the exploding pit for a few crucial microseconds. This “holds the pit together” long enough for many more generations of fission to occur before the entire device blows itself apart. Without a perfectly functioning tamper, the pit would expand too quickly and the chain reaction would fizzle out prematurely.

Secondly, this layer also operates as a reflector much like a basketball backboard, causing any neutrons escaping from the pit to rebound back into the hoop, so to speak. This happens because the beryllium or depleted uranium in this layer is very effective at reflecting neutrons back into the pit rather than allowing them to escape. By bouncing neutrons back into the fissile material, it greatly increases the efficiency of the explosion, meaning less uranium is needed to achieve a full yield.

Finally, the bomb’s outer shell is comprised of a steel, aluminum or plastic sphere, which houses the “high-explosive lens” that are fused to the inside of this outer case. These so-called explosive lenses are essentially the ignition propellants that initially slam into the pit at incredible speeds, pressures and uniformity of impact. So in order for the bomb to work, these high-explosive lenses must be machined to tolerances measured in fractions of a millimeter.

These propellant lenses are manufactured from two different types of conventional military grade explosives with deliberately different detonation velocities. The faster explosive is typically HMX and TNT-based, while the slower explosive is usually Baratol. These two explosives are cast and machined into complex lens-shaped components. The precise difference in their detonation speeds allows the lenses to reshape multiple detonation waves into a single, perfectly symmetrical spherical shock wave that compresses the uranium pit uniformly.

Again, precision design and manufacturing are of the essence. Accordingly, the high-explosive lenses are carefully bonded and fastened to the inside surface of the outer shell. They are not loose but form a precise, three-dimensional mosaic that completely fills the space between the rigid outer case and the tamper layer.

The entire purpose of these precision-engineered components and the manner in which they are configured within the device is to facilitate incredible levels of simultaneity. That is, at the instant of detonation, these explosives must ignite simultaneously to within nanoseconds, generating a perfectly spherical shock wave that compresses the pit of weapons grade uranium inward. Indeed, the necessary implosion needs to be so powerful that the uranium is squeezed to densities two to three times that of lead.

In turn, squeezing the pit to the requisite densities requires pressures reaching tens of millions of atmospheres. For purposes of comprehension these extreme pressures might be compared to the pressures in a standard automobile tire, which are generally at 2 to 3 atmospheres, not millions.

At the same time, the material is heated to millions of degrees in a fleeting instant. Yet any asymmetry in either the pressures or heating, even on the scale of a human hair, can distort the shock wave, thereby causing the “pit” to squirt out unevenly, and the device to “fizzle,” producing at best a low-yield dud or nothing at all.

The entire process must be timed with sub-microsecond precision, while the device must also remain safe and stable during transport, storage, and launch.

Moreover, even if Iran possessed the necessary high-explosive components and pit metallurgy today, it would still face yet another weaponization hurdle: To wit, the neutron-initiator problem.

The latter sits inside the hollow center of the spherical fissile pit. It is completely surrounded by the weapons-grade uranium. A reliable neutron initiator must flood the compressed pit with neutrons at the precise moment of maximum compression, which would be coming at the pit from the explosive detonators on the outer rim of the bomb.

Producing and integrating these components at industrial scale while maintaining safety and reliability is a non-trivial enterprise, obviously. In this context, US intelligence believes that Iran has conducted some modeling and small-scale experiments, but scaling to a functional warhead requires years of iterative design, subcritical hydrodynamic testing, and computer simulation validated against real data.

Miniaturization and survivability add another layer of difficulty. A crude device weighing hundreds of kilograms might be transportable by truck or ship. But a deliverable weapon that can be mated to a ballistic missile, survive re-entry heating and vibration, and detonate reliably at the intended altitude—usually 1,500 to 2,500 feet for anti-city applications – requires dramatic size and weight reduction and configuration.

And lest there be any confusion here – we are talking about an anti-city weapon designed to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. After all, that’s what the supposed Iranian nuke threat is all about. In this regard, the only other nuclear attacks on cities were –

  • the Little Boy bomb detonated at Hiroshima at 1,900 feet.
  • the Fat Man bomb detonated at Nagasaki at 1,650 feet.

In any event, the problems of bomb/missile mating and sufficient miniaturization of the former are not trivial. North Korea’s first nuclear devices were too large for its missiles. So it took them years of additional work to miniaturize and compact their warheads to usable scale.

In this context, even Iran’s best current missiles are not fit for purpose. Thus, Iran’s Shahab-3 and Sejjil missiles have significant payload limitations that make them poorly suited for delivering a nuclear weapon. The Shahab-3, Iran’s longest-range operational ballistic missile, has a payload capacity of only about 700–1,000 kg, while the more advanced solid-fueled Sejjil offers roughly 700–1,200 kg.

By contrast, a first-generation nuclear warhead — including the heavy physics package, tamper, explosives, arming and fuzing systems, and re-entry vehicle protection — would likely weigh upwards of 1,500 kg. This means Iran would need to significantly miniaturize any nuclear device before it could be realistically mated to these missiles, which is a complex engineering challenge that has so far eluded them, as well.

In addition, the re-entry vehicle must protect delicate electronics and explosives from extreme thermal and mechanical stresses. Integrating the physics package into such a vehicle while preserving the precise timing required for an implosion is a separate engineering discipline that Iran has never demonstrated, either.

Perhaps the greatest single barrier, however, is testing and confidence. No nuclear weapon state has ever fielded an operational arsenal without some form of full-yield or near-full-yield testing.

That’s because the empirical data from actual detonations are irreplaceable. Computer models and subcritical experiments can only approximate reality. Accordingly, here is the applicable historical record:

  • United States: 1,054 nuclear tests (1945–1992)
  • Soviet Union/Russia: 715 nuclear tests (1949–1990)
  • France: 210 nuclear tests (1960–1996)
  • United Kingdom: 45 nuclear tests (1952–1991)
  • China: 45 nuclear tests (1964–1996)
  • India: 6 announced tests (1974 and 1998)
  • Pakistan: 6 announced tests (1998)
  • North Korea: 6 announced tests (2006–2017)
  • South Africa: 0 tests (it built six gun-type devices in the 1980s but dismantled the program without ever detonating one).

Iran, by contrast, has perforce conducted zero nuclear tests because it has never even weaponized a bomb!

The alternative of proxy testing – using conventional explosives to mimic implosion dynamics – can provide useful data, but it cannot replicate the extreme pressures and neutron fluxes of an actual nuclear detonation.

Needless to say, therefore, the absence of any detected full-scale test or credible proxy program since 2003 remains a central pillar of the U.S. intelligence community’s long-standing judgment that Iran has conducted no weaponization activities.

Tulsi Gabbard’s aforementioned March 25–26, 2025, testimony to the House and Senate intelligence committees reaffirmed this crucial consensus in explicit terms. As Director of National Intelligence, she stated that

“the IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

She noted the unprecedented size of Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile but drew a clear line between material production and weaponization. Gabbard’s remarks aligned with the unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, which highlighted Iran’s enrichment progress while underscoring the absence of resumed weapons-design activities.

In short, the 409 kilograms of 60 percent material that has so alarmed the warmongers because it could be upgraded to weapons-grade in weeks was the Ultimate False Flag.

There was never, ever any prospect of an “imminent” nuclear attack on US territory. Full Stop.

The truth is, when the Donald recklessly launched an all-out war on Iran it had no weaponized nuclear device; it had no long-range missile with a heavy payload (over 1,000 Kg) that could get even one-fifth of the way to Washington DC; and had no capability to marry a bomb, which it didn’t have, to a 5,000 kilometer range ICBM, which it didn’t have, either.

The implications of this discussion are uncomfortable in the extreme. They mean that Bibi, the Donald and his war cabinet of neocons, know-nothings and gym rats are operating on the basis of a blatant False Flag that makes all others that have gone before pale in significance.

At the end of the day, the conflation of enrichment processes with bomb-making capacitydefies even the working knowledge of the Washing War Machine itself.

Given the military mayhem it has already engendered and the far worse impending catastrophes of the ground force invasion just around the corner, it can therefore be well and truly said: Donald Trump is fixing to blow-up the global economy based on a Big Lie that anyone actually capable of making a nuclear bomb would recognize as utterly bogus, and instantly so.

The truth of the matter is this: We doubt whether the Donald—who does no homework and reads no briefs on even the daily trivia of governance to say nothing about subjects as complex and information deep as the Iranian nuke matter – has any clue that he has launched a devastating war for no good reason of Homeland Security whatsoever.

But there are a lot of people in Washington – and most especially denizens of the War Machine – who surely do. But the man has become so irrationally obsessed with his own ego-driven need to prevail at any cost that he is single-handedly ignoring all the contrary knowledge on the banks of the Potomac and is thereby stumbling into the worst kind of reckless belligerence ever contemplated by a US president.

In the next 24 hours, yet another Trumpian lapse into TACO man may save the day. But enough is enough. It’s time to call in the men in white coats and trigger the 25th Amendment, which was enacted to cope with the very circumstance at hand.

In this context, we are reminded of the fable about the mice who concluded that if they could just put a bell around the cat’s neck, they would all be henceforth safe. Alas, no mouse volunteered for the task, but in this case the gods of history are calling out the order quite clearly: JD Vance – you’ve got the Conn.

Stop Pretending Military Spending Is About ‘Defense’




by  | Apr 7, 2026 |

$1.5 trillion.

With a “t.”

That’s how much US president Donald Trump wants Congress to appropriate for military (falsely called “defense”) spending in 2027.

And that number — there’s no other way to put this — is insane. The only proper date for such a spending request, followed by a winking grin emoji, is April 1.

Let’s compare.

At the height of the US war in Vietnam, in 1969, the US government spent about $85.5 billion ($761 billion in inflated 2026 dollars) on “defense.”

In 1991, when the US deployed hundreds of thousands of troops for Desert Storm, the US government spent about $313 billion, or $750 billion accounting for inflation.

In 2004, while fighting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that number was about $450 billion, or $780 billion in 2026 dollars.

Yes, it’s wartime again.

As usual, the war — this time with Iran — is entirely illegal/unconstitutional (only Congress can declare war, and it hasn’t).

And, as usual, the war is entirely optional and serves no defensive purpose whatsoever.

The president keeps telling us THIS war will be over Real Soon Now, and he started talking about a $1.5 trillion military budget months before he launched Operation Epic Fail, so the 40% bump clearly isn’t about Iran.

In what universe does the already bloated US military need nearly half again as much money next year as this year, and twice as much as it needed during previous wars?

I’m not one of those people who waxes sentimental over what the US government COULD spend money on rather than fake “defense.”

That money SHOULD be left in the wallets of taxpayers rather than being taxed from them or borrowed in their names.

But I guess it’s worth mentioning that Trump wants to partially “pay for” Operation Epic Dumb Idea with a 10% cut (less than $75 billion) to “nondefense spending” programs that he considers “woke.”

If the current US “defense” budget was cut by 90%, a country that’s geographically isolated from credible enemies by two oceans, hasn’t been invaded since the War of 1812, and never really gets in a fight unless its government actively seeks one out, would still have far more actual “defense” than it needs.

Everything beyond that $100 billion (at most) falls into one or more of three categories: Waste, fraud, and abuse.

Perhaps congressional pushback will trim Trump’s demands… but don’t bet on it. Congress usually ends up giving the Department of Defense MORE than the president asks for as Representatives and Senators advocate for military contracts that pad the bottom lines of campaign contributors’ businesses in their districts and states.

If Congress won’t cut off Pete Hegseth and take away his car keys, American taxpayers should cut off Congress and take theirs. Type “National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee” into your favorite search engine for more information.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, publisher of Rational Review News Digest, and moderator of Antiwar.com’s commenting/discussion community.




How To Stop the War Against Iran

Tell Your Member of Congress, House and Senate, to "Vote NO $$$$$ for War!"

by  | Apr 7, 2026 | 

Included at the end of this article is a simple guide to lobbying your Members of Congress including contact info and a basic script. – Please contact them today!

Up to 15,000 of the 50,000 American troops in the Middle East region are being positioned to participate in an assault on Kharg Island, Iran’s critical oil export hub, with the aspiration that America, once in control of Kharg, will turn the tables and assume dominance, opening the Strait of Hormuz for the U.S. and allies, while cutting off Iran from its major source of oil revenue.

Marines and paratroopers, with air and naval support, are poised to invade Kharg’s heavily defended 25-mile coast which features rocky terrain, cliffs and in some places, flat limestone surfaces, each presenting its own strategic calculus and hazards. Special Operations may be tasked with the mission of capturing Iran’s enriched uranium, an equally perilous task.

The U.S. cannot invade and/or hold Kharg Island without taking heavy casualties. Iran has been preparing more than 20 years for an assault on the island and U.S. troops could face potential annihilation with counter-attack coming from all directions, air, land and sea, giving new meaning to Kharg Island’s nickname, ‘The Forbidden Island.’

Our political leaders and their military advisors, unless they have been so infected with the virus of war that they have gone mad, must know our troops are facing slaughter.

We could be witnessing the tragic unfolding of a 21st century version of Custer’s Last Stand, where, at the Battle of Little Big Horn in June of 1876, General George Custer and 215 troops in his command were killed, thoroughly routed by the spiritual and strategic wisdom of native Indian leaders, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse and their followers.

Custer’s troops had been sent by the U.S. government to reclaim Dakota Sioux land in the Black Hills after the discovery of gold in 1874.

Hubris is not limited to time and space. Underestimation of the strength of the opposition, an aggressive battle doctrine which ignored risk to life, overconfidence and cultural bias were operative at Little Big Horn and are abundantly present today among the Trump Administration’s advisors.

There should be no ground invasion of Kharg or other Iranian islands. There should be no further bombing runs or missile attacks on Iran. It is time to de-escalate, and quickly, to avoid further loss of life, and the world-wide collapse of food, fertilizer, fuel and other basic necessities.

I am not new to the hazards of malignant U.S. foreign policy. As a Member of Congress, I led the effort against the Iraq. War. Over several years, I made 155 speeches in the House of Representatives, specifically cautioning against an attack on Iran, and urging diplomacy.

President Trump has fumbled for explanations for this war. It was for Israel, for regime change, to get rid of enriched uranium, to get rid of Iran’s missiles, and yesterday, according to the Financial Times, the naked reason is blood for oil.

Quoting the President: “to be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran, but some stupid people back in the U.S. say: ‘Why are you doing that?’ But they’re stupid people.”

Donald Trump meet Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does.” (Like cancelling the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018 and then complaining the Iranians are not abiding by it, or killing Iran’s chief negotiator, Ali Larijani , and then grousing there is no one with whom to negotiate).

In the alternative, perhaps the President and his cronies having recently seized control of $150 billion of oil in Venezuela, are criminal masterminds, using the U.S. military as enforcers for private gain.

The President explained his ‘Rule of (liquid) Gold to the New York Times: “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking (Venezuela’s) oil.”

Favored Administration insiders make billions through stock manipulations, with advance knowledge of president’s market-pacing blurbs, underscoring war as a gigantic grift.

During my service as a member of Congress, I challenged bipartisan knavery and duplicity.

I sued three Presidents for violating the Constitution’s war powers, Democrat and Republican alike: Bill Clinton over Serbia, George W. Bush over Iraq, and Barack Obama over Libya.

I presented Articles of Impeachment charging both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney with violations of the Constitution. I did so as both parties repeatedly enabled war, not only through the vainglorious, corrupt actions of the Executive branch, but through Congressional nonfeasance.

Congress has failed to exercise its fundamental Constitutional responsibilities relating to the War Power, as well as abandoned its preeminent role to curtail war through using the appropriations process.

Here is what I have witnessed as a Member of Congress: The Democratic Party, aware of the public’s fatigue over the war in Iraq, ran its 2006 campaign on a promise to end that war. The second the Democrats returned to power, leaders pledged to continue to fund the war, the very war they promised to end.

The bait and switch of the Democratic Party in the 2006 campaign, promising peace and delivering war, led me to run for president a second time, on a platform of Strength through Peace.

In 2024, Donald Trump promised peace. It was the cornerstone of his campaign. He excited a crossover vote, won the election and he, too, gave us the opposite, under the slogan “Peace through Strength,” followed by heavy military spending and imperial policies which either provoke or initiate war.

If you want to see this war brought to an end, remember this: An appropriations vote is a vote for war. If your congressional representative votes for the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), they vote for war. This is not about disarming. It is about Congress deciding, on our behalf, limitations on aggression. If Congress votes for a supplemental appropriation to replenish missile stocks, and other armaments, they vote for war.

The power of the purse is the surest means by which Congress can stop the Iran war, or any war. If Congress funds war, Congress authorizes it. If Congress cuts off funds, this war will be brought to an end.

The Democratic leader of the House, Hakeem Jeffries, has kept open the possibility of support for an additional $200 billion for the Iran War. This in advance of the 2027 annual war appropriation which the president has doubled, requesting $1.5 trillion, (about 80% of current discretionary spending).

The use of the power of the purse is the only means by which Congress can stop this war.

Members of Congress supporting a ground attack on Iran have failed to fulfill one of the most important Constitutional responsibilities: Only Congress can legally take the American people from peace to a state of war and put America’s sons and daughters in harm’s way. Since Congress will not formally vote on a declaration of war, it enables war to be pursued through appropriations.

The economic costs of war against Iran, already approaching $40 billion, pale in consideration to the moral costs. The murder of 168 girls by a U.S. Tomahawk missile which struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school, in Minab, Iran on February 28th, will forever be a blot on our nation’s conscience.

The assassination of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s chief of state and religious leader as horrifying as it was illegal. The ongoing loss of thousands of Iranian civilian lives due to U.S. and Israeli bombing similarly violates international law, as well as the U.S.’ own laws and cries out for justice. And we must never forget the price which American military families have already paid in loss of life or injury to their loved ones.

The wanton devastation our own government inflicts upon others in distant lands, our detachment from the carnage visited upon innocent people abroad, will return home in more coffins, more fractured families and pile misery upon misery in other, incalculable ways.

We cannot escape the consequences of the wrongful decisions of our leaders who disregard the U.S. Constitution, violate international and humanitarian law and capriciously kill civilians in other nations, ultimately placing American lives, both military and civilian, at risk.

The Iran war is, much like the attacks against the people of Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, a crime against humanity, compounded by every bomb and missile strike paid for with our tax dollars. President Trump’s repeated threats to obliterate civilian Iranian energy and water infrastructure are textbook war crimes.

Throughout my career I had no hesitation to challenge the unconstitutional abuse of the war power. Federal courts have consistently declined to intervene in disputes between Congress and the President over war powers. An appropriations vote is the prime political mechanism to start, continue, or to end a war. A “Yes” vote for a Pentagon appropriation is a vote for war. Period.

Exercising the power of the purse, voting “No” on appropriations which enable war, is the only means by which Congress can stop this war and any other war. If Congress funds war, Congress authorizes war.

Congress also has the War Powers Resolution, which can set a deadline for ending hostilities. Recently, Democratic leadership declined to force a War Powers vote, even as there was bipartisan support.

Ultimately, the financial support for war is not about Democrat versus Republican. Both parties have been captured by foreign and domestic interests that profit from endless war.

Our present leaders will continue search for false justification was the Iran war, seeking to justify the unjustifiable profligate arms spending. The cost of the Iran War will felt across the country, at the gas pump, and at the supermarket, while our government quibbles over feeding Americans through the SNAP program, as our farmers are go bankrupt. Is there any clearer demonstration that America has lost its way when its way is war?

A nation weakens itself, not through a single decision, but through a pattern of choices that place wars of choice above the well-being of its own people.

We the People also face a choice. Continued militarization of the budget brings militarization of thought, word and deed, precipitating more conflict, more wars and fewer resources for the needs of the American people, for jobs, wages, health care, education, and retirement security.

It is time for America to come home from the wars.

The midterm elections are approaching. Democrats and Republicans alike must be held accountable.

You, dear reader, have a voice, and it must be heard. Tell your member of Congress, clearly and without ambiguity, that spending more money for war is not acceptable.

It is time for a new path, and that path begins with you.

Get involved in the elections. Show up. Organize. Support candidates who respect the Constitution, who understand the cost of war, and who will not vote to fund war.

Help ensure that those candidates who stand up for the Constitution and who believe in diplomacy and peace are the ones who prevail.

Only an active citizenry can change the outcome. A constitutional republic endures only when its citizens remain vigilant.

That responsibility now rests with you. With us. With We the People.

A Guide to Lobbying:

Find your Member of Congress and both your Senators:

House: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Senate: https://www.senate.gov/general/resources/pdf/senators_phone_list.pdf

Call their office directly (websites are linked from the directory above) or phone the Capitol Switchboard and politely ask to be transferred: 1 (202) 224-3121

Ask for your representative’s office. Politely speak to staff. They are usually very young so be nice to them. They are likely as intimidated as you may feel if this is your first time to lobby like this.

Say something like, “My name is XXX. I am a constituent and a primary voter. Please ensure that our representative votes NO on any WAR APPROPRIATIONS BILL.

Please also write to your representatives. Contact makes a difference. You can also go to their District or DC offices in person. Schedule ahead of time if you want to have an official meeting. Bring your friends, family and community with you! Your engagement makes a difference.

Be respectful, polite and confident in what you are asking for.

Dennis J. Kucinich served sixteen years in the United States Congress and twice ran for President of the United States on a platform of peace, truth, and constitutional integrity. He led the opposition to the Iraq War and introduced Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for misleading the nation into war.

Worse Than John McCain?

by  | Apr 7, 2026 |

Following President Trump’s address to the nation on Wednesday about the Iran War, stock markets suffered losses while oil prices rose. The decline in stocks and increase in oil prices reflected disappointment over President Trump’s failure to articulate a plan to end the Iran War and the related restraint of shipping through of the Strait of Hormuz.

The average gas price in America has risen to over four dollars per gallon since the US and Israel launched their war against Iran at the end of February. The increased cost of gas is raising prices at the pump and, by increasing shipping costs, resulting in higher prices at grocery stores and even on Amazon.

According to media reports, President Trump and his advisers dismissed the possibility that Iran would use its ability to limit or even cease oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz in order to drive up fuel prices. They dismissed the possibility even though disrupting oil shipments is the best way Iran can damage the US economy and make even America’s staunchest allies unwilling to take any action that could be seen as supporting the war. Fear of Iranian retribution may be why NATO countries rejected the president’s request that they send military support to the Strait of Hormuz to protect the free transport of oil.

President Trump’s contradictory statements regarding how close the US is to victory (and what victory will consist of) as well as whether he intends to establish a military presence at the Strait of Hormuz reflect the dilemma President Trump is facing when it comes to Iran. If the president sends troops to protect the Strait of Hormuz or sends troops into Iran, then he will lose more support from those who voted for him because he promised to be a peacemaker, not a warmonger.

Continuing to ignore the damage the increase in fuel costs is causing Americans will hurt Republicans in November’s midterm elections. This could result in President Trump facing a Democrat-controlled Congress in his final two years in office.

President Trump recently stated the federal government cannot afford to pay for daycare and other social programs because it has to spend so much money on the military and war. Of course, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to run either a welfare state or a global empire.

The massive federal expenditure on militarism deprives the American people of the resources needed to create an effective private “safety net” for those in need. Yet, President Trump wants to increase the military budget to 1.5 trillion dollars — a 40 percent increase — even though the United States already spends more on “defense” than the combined defense budgets of the next nine biggest spending countries!

This spending will be paid for via the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax. This will further increase costs for Americans. The inflation tax hits middle and lower income Americans the hardest.

A saying among some antiwar libertarians and progressives, coined by Tom Woods, expresses the idea that whoever is elected president you end up with the militaristic foreign policy of the late Senator John McCain. President Trump’s commitment to continuing and expanding intervention in the Middle East and beyond, as well as to dramatically increasing spending to accomplish this task, suggests an exception to the rule: President Trump might be worse than John McCain.

Ron PaulRon Paul is a former Republican congressman from Texas. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president.
'Free and on ​their ‌way ⁠to France': Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris released by Iran, says Macron


French ​nationals Cécile Kohler ​and Jacques Paris are "free and on ​their ‌way ⁠to France, after ‌three and a half ⁠years of detention in ​Iran", President Emmanuel ‌Macron said Tuesday ‌in a post ​on social media platform X. The two former detainees were released in November after more than three years in prison on espionage charges.


Issued on: 07/04/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

Portraits of French nationals Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, imprisoned in Iran for more than three years, displayed in front of the National Assembly. © Aurelien Morissard, AP

Iran has allowed two French former detainees, Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, to leave the country, French President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday. They had been holed up in French diplomatic premises there since their release from prison.


“Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris are free and on route toward French territory, after three and a half years of detention in Iran,” Macron tweeted.

The green light for them to leave Iran, long sought by France, signaled how Iran is differentiating between nations, treating some favorably and others as foes, in the context of the Iran war. Macron has distanced France from the conflict, saying his country wasn’t consulted in advance about the US-Israel strikes and didn’t want the war.

Macron thanked Oman for playing a mediation role in the release of Kohler and Paris. “It’s a relief for us all and obviously for their families,” Macron wrote.

Iranian authorities freed them from prison in November but didn't let them leave the country. They'd been held for more than three years in detention on spying charges, which Paris said were unfounded.

French officials said they were then being kept safe at the French Embassy in Tehran.
Political prisoners

Kohler, a 40-year-old literature teacher from eastern France and her partner Paris, in his 70s, were arrested on May 7, 2022, on the last day of a tourist trip to Iran.

They were held in section 209, seen as reserved for political prisoners, at Tehran's Evin Prison.

A source at the French foreign ministry said they left Iran Tuesday at dawn in a diplomatic convoy with the French ambassador and "are currently in Azerbaijan".

Lawmakers greeted Macron's ​announcement with ​a standing ​ovation at the National ​Assembly.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP and AP)

Two French nationals released from prison in Iran as part of swap deal


President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday called for the "full and complete release" of French citizens Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, who were freed from an Iranian prison because of "Islamic clemency" and are still in the country. Iran's foreign ministry stated that the two teachers would remain under surveillance pending the next phase of judicial proceedings.



Issued on: 05/11/2025 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Emerald MAXWELLMark OWEN


The portraits of French nationals Cecile Kohler, 40, left, and Jacques Paris, 72, imprisoned for more than 3 years in Iran are seen set up in front of the French National Assembly, in Paris, July 3, 2025. © Aurelien Morissard, AP
02:08


President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday asked his Iranian counterpart for the "full and complete release" of Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, a French pair freed from an Iranian prison because of "Islamic clemency" a day earlier.

Kohler and Paris, who are currently at the French embassy in Iran, were imprisoned for more than three years and sentenced to lengthy jail sentences on espionage charges, which their families have always rejected.

In a telephone conversation with Massoud Pezeshkian, Macron welcomed the pair's release "as a first step" and called "for their full and complete release, which should take place as soon as possible."

Kohler, 41, and Paris, 72 were arrested in May 2022 at the end of a trip to Iran that their families say was purely touristic in nature.

They are both teachers, although Paris is retired. They were among a number of Europeans caught up in what activists and some Western governments, including France, describe as a deliberate strategy of hostage-taking by Iran to extract concessions from the West.

Expressing "immense relief", Macron said on X that the pair had been released from the notorious Evin prison in northern Tehran and were on their way to the French embassy.

In Tehran, the foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said they had been granted "conditional release" on bail by the judge in charge of the case and "will be placed under surveillance until the next stage of the judicial proceedings".

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told France 2 TV they were in "good health" at the residence of the French ambassador, but declined to give details on when they would be allowed to leave Iran.

"We will not spare any effort. It's a first step towards their definitive release," he said, adding he had already spoken to Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi.

Their Paris-based legal team said in a statement that the release had "ended their arbitrary detention which lasted 1,277 days".


'Political analysts are speculating on whether this could be an exchange'
© France 24
01:03


'State hostages'


The release comes at a time of acute sensitivity in dealings between Tehran and the West in the wake of Israel's 12-day June war against the Islamic republic and the reimposition of UN sanctions in the standoff over the Iranian nuclear drive.

Kohler and Paris were the last two French citizens officially known to be held by Tehran after several other French nationals were released over the last months.

France has described them as "state hostages".

Their sentences on charges of spying for France and Israel issued last month after a closed-door trial amounted to 17 years in prison for Paris and 20 years for Kohler.

Concern grew over their health after they were moved from Evin following an Israeli strike on the prison during the June war.

Kohler was shown in October 2022 on Iranian television in what activists described as a "forced confession", a practice relatively common for detainees in Iran which rights groups say is equivalent to torture.

Her parents Pascal and Mireille told AFP in a statement that they felt "immense relief" that the pair were now in a "little corner of France" even if "all we know for now is that they are out of prison".

'Fruit of French diplomacy'


Iran has said Kohler and Paris could be freed as part of a swap deal with France for Iranian Mahdieh Esfandiari.

Esfandiari, who was arrested in France in February, accused of promoting terrorism on social media, has been transferred to its embassy in Paris, according to Iran's foreign ministry.

"Our citizen in France, Ms Esfandiari, is now free, she is at our embassy, and hopefully, she will return once her trial is over," said Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

She is to go on trial in Paris from January 13, but was released last month on bail by the French judicial authorities in a move welcomed by Tehran.

Asked by France 2 if there had been a deal with Tehran, Barrot declined to comment, saying their release had come about "as the fruit of the work of French diplomacy".

France had filed a case with the Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the detention of Kohler and Paris, saying they were held under a policy that "targets French nationals travelling in or visiting Iran".

However, in September, the ICJ suddenly dropped the case at Paris's request, sparking speculation that closed-door talks were under way between France and Iran for their release.

Among the Europeans still jailed by Iran is Swedish-Iranian academic Ahmad Reza Djalali, who was sentenced to death in 2017 on espionage charges his family vehemently rejects.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)