Showing posts sorted by date for query PRIVATIZED WAR. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PRIVATIZED WAR. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, September 12, 2026

Germany’s Fascist Party Just Won Control of a State Government


The Alternative for Germany party’s victory in the Saxony-Anhalt state election is an ominous coup for the far right.
September 9, 2026

Supporters of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) cheer at the AfD election evening watch party as initial results show the party with 44 percent in Saxony-Anhalt state elections on September 6, 2026, in Magdeburg, Germany.Sean Gallup / Getty Images


The far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party scored a landslide victory this past Sunday in Germany’s Saxony-Anhalt state election, although it fell short of a majority in its bid to form the first far right state government in the country’s postwar history. It won 43.8 percent of the vote, more than doubling its share of the vote five years ago in the region, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservative Christian Democratic Union slumped to a historic low of 17.2 percent, down from 37.1 percent in 2021.

This shocking result has been a long time in the making. Neofascist ideology has been creeping into Germany’s mainstream political arena for the past few decades even though the country’s domestic intelligence agency has classified the AfD as an “extremist party” because its leaders have espoused far right rhetoric. Indeed, the party, which has grown rapidly since it was formed in 2013, is not hiding its racism and authoritarianism and has been quite blunt in its rejection of a liberal, pluralistic society.

Neofascist ideology has been creeping into Germany’s mainstream political arena for the past few decades.

Unsurprisingly, AfD leaders are exuberant over their party’s election success in Saxony-Anhalt and seem to think that the tide has finally turned to the point that winning in the next national election with at least 40 percent of the vote is now within reach. Meanwhile, the leaders of Spain and Portugal’s largest far right parties rushed to congratulate the AfD for its victory in Saxony-Ahhalt, as well as Hungary’s former prime minister Viktor Orbán. So did Elon Musk, posting a resounding “Well done!” on his social media platform X in response to a post from AfD’s co-leader Alice Weidel.

How realistic is the prospect that Germany may have a far right federal government by 2029? A recent poll indicates that if national elections were held today, the AfD would indeed emerge victorious with 28 percent of the vote. The reasons for this unsettling development are complex and may go beyond pure economics, although the state of the economy figures prominently into the equation, especially in east Germany, where Saxon-Anhalt is located, and where the AfD is particularly strong.

More than three decades after Germany’s 1990 reunification, there is still a wide gap between east and west. As numerous studies have pointed out, “East Germany is still 20% to 25% poorer than West Germany.” People living in East Germany have realized that convergence under neoliberalism has proved to be a mirage. Under the massive privatization scheme that was launched after 1990 by the government agency Treuhandanstalt, East Germany’s entire state-owned economy was privatized while its industrial base was decimated as thousands of publicly owned enterprises were closed or sold, leading to massive unemployment and triggering a demographic crisis as young and educated people moved westward in search of jobs and better living conditions.

Treuhand’s essential role was to organize the looting of East German industry and public wealth. As Hanna Behrend, a leading academic in the former German Democratic Republic wrote in her edited volume German Unification: The Destruction of an Economy,“Within less than three years, Treuhand destroyed or handed over to West German big business for next to nothing national property to the value of at least several hundred billion Deutschmarks … By 1994 … Treuhand had privatized 13,800 industrial enterprises; a further 3,354 had been closed down.”

This experience with “shock therapy,” which essentially converted East Germany into Berlin’s colony, remains firmly embedded in the collective memory of most East Germans. As Federal Commissioner for East Germany Elizabeth Kaiser has pointed out, many young people in what used to be East Germany see West German culture and lifestyles as deeply foreign to them. People living in small towns and rural regions not only earn “below-average incomes,” they also see their infrastructure continue to collapse while public transportation and medical facilities are “no longer comprehensively guaranteed.” Indeed, as Kim Leonie Kellermann at Ruhr University in Bochum has shown, the mass layoffs that resulted in East Germany because of the Treuhand privatization policies had profound effects on political alienation and mistrust of mainstream parties, “even up to 30 years after unification.”

It is within that context, and with the full realization on the part of many of its citizens that the parties of the establishment offer no hope for the future, that East Germany has become a stronghold of the AfD. Accordingly, the AfD has taken full advantage of the situation by promising a return to a “golden age.” The problem is that the AfD has, instead, a dystopian vision for the future, advancing an agenda that can best be described as “neoliberal fascism.”


The party, which has grown rapidly since it was formed in 2013, is not hiding its racism and authoritarianism.

Ahead of the regional election, the AfD put out a government program for the Saxony-Anhalt region. In the Preamble, the draft government program acknowledges real economic problems facing the region, such as collapsing infrastructure, hospitals and schools closing, the rising cost of living, and dwindling pension benefits, but assigns equal weight to the alleged threat posed by immigration and promises “deportation from minute one!” In addition, it wants to exclude children and adults without a permanent residency from attending schools. It also calls for radical changes in asylum rules, while its solution to the chronic shortage of skilled workers facing the country is to encourage Germans who live abroad to come back.

As the icing on the cake, the AfD calls for a thorough identification with German culture and commitment to the so-called traditional way of life, which includes “the marriage of a man to a woman, from which children are born.” The only thing missing in this section is “Heil Hitler.”

The economic doctrine of the AfD diverges from that of other far right parties on the continent in that it is almost exclusively anti-statist. While the economy as such did not play a major role in the evolution of the party until 2022, it has since taken a more central function. But the policies advocated are highly incoherent and quite contradictory. For instance, the AfD rejects regulation of the economy and advocates huge tax cuts, but at the same time defends the debt break and voted against amending the Basic Law to establish a special fund for infrastructure and climate neutrality in 2025.

Like other far right parties globally, the AfD is staunchly against a green transition, as its position is that climate change is a hoax and an ideological component of “globalism.” With regard to energy, the AfD’s stance is to return to reliance on Russian gas and nuclear power plants.

On the question of war and peace, the AfD is against the war in Ukraine but is by no means an anti-military party. In fact, it has argued in favor of massive increases in the military budget and calls for the return of compulsory military service, which ended in 2011 under former chancellor Angela Merkel.

AfD’s social sensitivities are confined to pensioners, and the party has proposed raising pensions by 70 percent of the last net income. But the idea that this proposal could somehow be financially viable alongside the fiscal impacts of the massive tax cuts, increases in defense spending, and fiscal discipline the party also proposes would simply make most economists throw their hands up in frustration.


The threat of German fascism is back.

After all this, the question is why so many voters across different age groups and economic backgrounds have been drawn to the extremist and impractical policy proposals of the AfD. The state of the economy in East Germany can only partly explain AfD’s support, especially since the party has also made noticeable gains with voters in several western states. The failure of the old political parties, especially of the Social Democrats, who have overwhelmingly lost the trust of the working class, in offering a viable vision for the future could form part of the explanation. In addition, it is quite possible that observers have overestimated the extent to which denazification reached ordinary society. It appears that attachment to ultranationalism remains a strong current among a rather sizable segment of the German population.

On the positive side, nearly half of Germans oppose the far right forming a government in Saxony-Anhalt and protests against the AfD erupted across Germany immediately after the election.

Be that as it may, the victory of the far right in a regional election is a turning point for German politics. The AfD has called for collaboration with other parties and may in fact strike a deal with the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), a party of authoritarian tendencies that combines left-leaning economic policies with socially conservative views, particularly on immigration. Its founder and leader, Sahra Wagenknecht, appears eager to talk to the AfD about government options in Saxony-Anhalt.

The threat of German fascism is back.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


C.J. Polychroniou



C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a columnist for Global Policy Journal and a regular contributor to Truthout. He has published scores of books, including Marxist Perspectives on Imperialism: A Theoretical Analysis; Perspectives and Issues in International Political Economy (ed.); and Socialism: Crisis and Renewal (ed.), and over 1,000 articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into a multitude of languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021); Illegitimate Authority: Facing the Challenges of Our Time (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2023); and A Livable Future Is Possible: Confronting the Threats to Our Survival (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2024).


Germany: regional elections in Sachsen-Anhalt

The AfD just short of an absolute majority


Thursday 10 September 2026, by Helmut Born





On 6 September a new Landtag was elected in Saxony-Anhalt. Saxony-Anhalt is the smallest of the territorial Länder by population, with 2.1 million people. It was clear in advance that there would be considerable changes. At the last Landtag election in 2021 the AfD, which the Saxony-Anhalt domestic intelligence service has classified as confirmed right-wing extremist, took over 20 per cent. In the run-up to this election the standing of the federal government of CDU and SPD reached a low point, as the opinion polls had made foreseeable. Accordingly the task for all the other parties was at least to prevent an absolute majority for the AfD, in percentages as well as in seats. [Image: Composition of the Saxony-Anhalt Landtag following the elections (from left to right): BSW: 5 MPs – Die Linke: 8 MPs – Die Grünen: 8 MPs – SPD: 8 MPs – CDU: 15 MPs – AfD: 39 MPs]

When the first projection was published on the evening of 6 September, showing the AfD on 44.2 per cent, the election-night parties of the other parties fell completely silent. The shock the result produced was too great. It looked altogether different at the AfD, which many people call a Nazi party. The party’s leading figures around the [national] co-chairs Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla crowded around the lead candidate Ulrich Siegmund to celebrate together what they called their historic election victory.

The CDU, the large bourgeois party, was punished terribly above all. It lost more than half of its votes and of its deputies. The liberal FDP did not make it into the Landtag at all and goes on wasting away. For the party Die Linke, too, the evening was not a happy one: three weeks before the election it had still been recorded at 13 per cent, and it has now ended up on only 8.4 per cent. The SPD and the Greens, by contrast, were able to improve slightly on their result at the last Landtag election, reaching 9.1 and 8.9 per cent respectively, a little more than Die Linke.

The decisive factor was a massive campaign by influential civil-society organisations which had called for tactical voting, so as to ensure that the SPD and the Greens got back into the Landtag at all. That had been in the balance for a long time. It was certainly a surprise that the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) also entered the Landtag, which it managed with 5.3 per cent.

In the new Landtag, made up of deputies from six parties, forming a new Land government will not be easy. Since the AfD with 39 of 83 seats did not obtain an absolute majority of the seats, it depends on coalition partners or on support from others. All the other parties have refused to form a government with the AfD. The BSW too rejects a coalition with the AfD. Instead, according to the BSW, an independent minister-president should be elected, who would put a government together and would have to win a majority every time. This model existed in the Netherlands as well, at the election before last, when the party of the racist Geert Wilders narrowly missed an absolute majority and nobody wanted him as prime minister. It remains to be seen whether the AfD will agree to it. The SPD and the Greens have already declared themselves in favour.

For Die Linke this election result was a disappointment. It lost 2.4 per cent against the last Landtag election. The party certainly did not have an easy campaign, since it has a good anchoring only in the cities and its results in the countryside are traditionally poor. That showed again at this election. In the two large cities of Halle and Magdeburg it was able to win three direct mandates. All 38 other constituencies went to the AfD.

The party Die Linke has to become clearer and more radical. Many people simply assign it to a red-green camp together with the SPD and the Greens, which the "vote tactically" campaign also showed. It has to become clear that Die Linke stands for clear opposition to existing conditions, that its representatives are not "politicians" like all the others, that it wants to overcome capitalist class society, and that this will not be achieved in parliament alone. However good its parliamentary demands may be, and however much such measures would noticeably improve people’s lives if they could be realised, there will be no majorities for them in the parliaments. What is needed is a party that is both represented in parliament and that is able to change the social balance of forces through pressure on the street, through anchoring in workplaces and neighbourhoods, and through fostering the self-confidence and self-organisation of those below.

9 September 2026

Translated by International Viewpoint from SoZ.

Thursday, September 03, 2026

On the Heuristics of Fear: The Ecological Catastrophe Scenario

If the right decisions are not made in the coming years and drastic systemic changes are not implemented, the destruction of planetary habitats can no longer be stopped.



Volunteers and firefighters work to extinguish a forest fire burning in the mountains of the rural area of Epuyen, in the Patagonian region of Chubut province, Argentina, on February 1, 2026.
(Photo by Gonzalo Keogan / AFP via Getty Images)

Klaus Moegling
Sep 02, 2026
Common Dreams


The escalation of the current crisis-ridden conditions in the areas of climate change, the economy, international security, and the development of democracy—leading to dystopian future scenarios—need not occur in this form. However, there is a real possibility that they could occur if humanity fails to bring about a paradigm shift, makes the wrong decisions, and continues its destructive behavior toward the planet.
Learning from the ‘Anticipated Danger’

The construction of negative scenarios in the sense of an anticipated possibility of dystopian development can certainly serve a constructive purpose.

In his book The Imperative of Responsibility, the philosopher Hans Jonas developed what he called a “heuristics of fear,” by which he meant that potential undesirable developments should be recognized in all their severity and menace and described in drastic terms commensurate with their presumed magnitude. According to Jonas (1979/2015, 7), this enables a society to look the potential risks squarely in the eye and thereby resolve to acknowledge its own responsibility for the planet and the fate of future generations:
What can serve as a compass? The anticipated danger itself! In its flash of lightning from the future, in the foreshadowing of its planetary scope and its human depth, the ethical principles from which the new duties of new power can be derived first become apparent.

Of course, this negative vision must be compatible with the developments already analyzed; it must not, therefore, be plucked out of thin air, even if not all the information needed for an assessment is yet available. Heuristics is a creative thought process based on estimates, assumptions, and calculations.

Immersing oneself in a likely future situation and sensing the potential of a future catastrophe can provide insights for preventive action. It is possible that the fear of a catastrophic planetary scenario could lead to a systemic shift in course and to responsible decisions.

The Inadequacy of the Paris Climate Agreements

From the spectrum of multiple crises—which are certainly interconnected—this article will focus on the disrupted relationship between humanity and nature and heuristically develop it into a negative scenario.

David Spratt and Ian Dunlop (2019, 6) predict that even if the 2015 Paris Climate Agreements were fully implemented, stable climate conditions would still not be expected. In particular, climatic feedback effects would render the Earth largely uninhabitable for human civilization by the end of the century. Even if the Paris climate targets were met, a warming of 5°C would be expected by the year 2100, with devastating consequences for life on Earth.

It must also be taken into account that not all countries have accepted the Paris Agreements or, in some cases—such as the U.S. under Trump—have since withdrawn from them.

Fires, Storms, Overheating, and Floods

A worst-case scenario for such an increasingly hot biosphere must anticipate a rise in wildfires. Vast areas of the Earth will begin to burn. Fire walls driven by massive gusts of wind will devour everything in their path: trees and bushes, houses, animals, and people. Such firestorms are beyond human control and cannot be fought; they depend on heavy rainfall, and it is unclear whether such rain will fall in the burning regions at all due to climate shifts. The result will be the desolation of entire regions, leading to humanitarian, ecological, and financial problems on a global scale. The fires of 2025 and 2026 are already offering a glimpse of what lies ahead for humanity.

Future average temperatures in the Persian Gulf are projected to reach 50-60°C, meaning that for the average person, human life here will no longer be possible—or will only be possible in artificially cooled spaces. Even in the countries of the Global North, mass mortality is beginning due to overheated living environments. Initially, this will affect older people and those who are already ill, and will then spread to people who would otherwise be considered healthy. Circulatory shock, overheating, and dehydration will then also affect younger people.

It is undisputed that sea levels will rise due to the melting of the poles, the warming of seawater, and the accompanying melting of Arctic ice.

However, a potential average rise of 2.5 meters by 2100 does not represent the extreme level of sea-level rise. During storm surges in particular, the rise in sea level can be several times this value and lead to flooding deep into continental areas. This will also affect the Global North.

Islands, coastal regions, and low-lying inland areas will be flooded, destroying living conditions there and, in turn, triggering migration. Not only will island groups disappear, but large parts of countries such as Bangladesh and India will also be flooded, triggering mass exoduses. In this context, the rise in sea level, combined with the monsoon rains in this region—which are already becoming increasingly devastating—will have a particularly dangerous effect.

The thawing of Arctic and Siberian permafrost, through the associated release of carbon dioxide and methane, will lead to a massive increase in global warming and abruptly intensify all related processes.

In other parts of the world, climate shifts are causing air masses with extremely different temperatures to collide, resulting in devastating storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Houses, cars, animals, and people are swept up into the air and smashed to pieces. Skyscrapers collapse, and the infrastructure—including electricity, water, and gas lines, as well as the internet—is irreparably destroyed. Radioactivity is released from destroyed nuclear power plants; it circulates in the Earth’s atmosphere, falls as rain, and will lead to increased rates of cancer and birth defects in humans and animals.

Catastrophic Impact on Social and Political Development on a Global Scale


Massive migration—in the form of mass exoduses or mass migrations—will be triggered by climate change. Migration to date should be viewed, at best, as the tip of the iceberg in this context, as billions of people will set out as refugees if global warming continues unchecked. It is not difficult to imagine the conflicts—including military confrontations—that will arise from these upheavals in the struggle for ecologically intact regions.

Global warming will lead to massive crop failures and associated famines. The global agricultural food system will collapse. The struggle for food and survival will lead to massive price increases, looting, and military conflicts. The call for a heavy hand, for authoritarian leaders, and for police-state methods will grow louder even in democracies.

Far-right governments will attempt, in the interests of their constituencies, to deny climate change and continue to rely on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

The struggle for drinking water will intensify, on the one hand due to increasing periods of drought and, on the other, due to the growing trend toward profit-driven privatization of water sources. Privatized water sources will be guarded by militarized security forces against raids by groups of thirsty people. In drought-stricken areas, people will die of thirst—especially those who no longer have the financial means to purchase water, a scarce and therefore increasingly expensive commodity.

Spratt and Dunlop (2019, 9) describe the societal consequences of climate change even at the 3°C level. States and societies will be overwhelmed and will face extreme collective stress:
The flooding of coastal communities around the world—particularly in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China—has the potential to call regional and even national identities into question. Armed conflicts between nations over resources such as the Nile and its tributaries are likely, and a nuclear war is possible. The societal consequences range from heightened religious zeal to utter chaos. In this scenario, climate change triggers a lasting change in humanity’s relationship with nature.

Furthermore, if a UN in need of strengthening fails to dissuade unscrupulous governments from the generationally selfish destruction of the rainforest for the purposes of livestock ranching, soybean cultivation, the search for mineral resources, or land speculation, then this, too, will not only destroy the Earth’s lungs but also bring about a drastic climate shift.

Wars raging globally and emissions from explosions and fires exacerbate climate change while simultaneously preventing the affected regions from taking effective measures against this climatic dystopia. The military in active service is becoming the largest institutional global destroyer of the climate.

These are just a few of the developments addressed so far. Threats such as temperature changes and the resulting diversion of the Gulf Stream, the narrowing of the temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator—which leads to a weakening of the jet stream—the release of methane trapped in the seabed, insect die-offs due to the increased use of pesticides in agriculture, the destruction of clean drinking water due to overfertilization of fields, as well as plastic pollution in the oceans and the demise of all life in increasingly larger marine regions are likely to represent additional ecological tipping points that will further exacerbate the massive problems already mentioned.

When Will the “Point of No Return” Be Reached?

The question is when the global situation will reach a point from which there will be no return to ecological balance for many generations to come.

The progression of overpopulation, coupled with unchecked economic growth and rampant consumerism, leads to increased ecological exploitation of the Earth system under the conditions of an increasingly overcrowded planet.

However, it is to be expected that population pressure is not primarily responsible for environmental destruction, but rather, in particular, the irresponsible consumption of resources by the wealthier segment of the world’s population (Roettig 2021).

The “point of no return” is likely to be crossed soon. Once the biosphere’s planetary responses develop an uncontrollable momentum of their own that turns against human civilization and the conditions necessary for all life on Earth, it will be too late—both for prevention and for mitigation.

Over the past 20 years, the planet’s resilience has reached its breaking point; in some areas, it has demonstrably been exceeded.

The Doomsday Clock makes this clear. According to the Doomsday Clock—founded and calculated in 1947 by Albert Einstein, among others—we are already 85 seconds away from the destruction of the planet’s foundations as of February 2026. In 1991, we were still 17 minutes away from destruction.

Eco-Imperialist and Systemic Causes


Violent competition over the use of resources is intensifying as more people’s basic needs—and, in particular, their luxury needs—must be met. Not only the struggle for clean drinking water and food, but also the struggle for lithium, cobalt, uranium, etc., is leading to violent conflicts between different groups of people and regions. German political scientist Hans-Jürgen Burchardt criticizes the fact that the rich industrialized nations are the main contributors to climate change, yet the Global South bears the brunt of its consequences.
Thus, following the phase-out of nuclear power, Germany’s energy transition is also made possible by cheap coal imports from Colombia. There, mining takes place in highly environmentally damaging open-pit mines; entire communities are forcibly displaced for this purpose, and human rights violations are commonplace. Even the much-lauded green economy, which relies on electric mobility, would not be possible without the lithium reserves in the Andes. Locally, however, lithium mining robs residents of their livelihoods.

The war in Ukraine, too, must be viewed not only from a geostrategic perspective but also through an eco-imperialist lens, in which Russia and the US are attempting to divide up Ukraine’s natural resource deposits among themselves.


Conclusion: The Need for a Positive Vision of Social Development

The outline presented here of a dystopia of planetary development—based on a negative ecological scenario—should have made it very clear: If the right decisions are not made in the coming years and drastic systemic changes are not implemented, the destruction of planetary habitats can no longer be stopped. If, in addition to a biosphere in decline, further stressors arise—such as potentially runaway generative AI, authoritarian and aggressively acting nation-states at war with one another, and the threat of a nuclear inferno—this will likely spell the end of humanity. No more and no less.

The ecological dystopia outlined here does not have to come to pass. Everything depends on how responsibly and competently the current generation—which is currently active in the global centers of power—will act, and on the corrective influence that civil society resistance can exert in this regard.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Klaus Moegling
Prof. Dr. Klaus Moegling is a political scientist, sociologist, and author of the book "Realignment. A peaceful and sustainably developed world is (still) possible." Which you can read here: https://www.klaus-moegling.de/international-edition/

Wednesday, September 02, 2026

'Pathway to the bomb': Analyst flags glaring problem buried in Trump's new nuclear move

Daniel Hampton
September 2, 2026 
RAW STORY


Donald Trump, Melania Trump and Mohammed bin Salman arrive for a dinner. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

Trump's new nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia could make ending his war with Iran even harder, foreign policy analyst Trita Parsi warned Wednesday, because it opens the door for Tehran's regional rival to enrich uranium, the very capability U.S. bombs are meant to strip from Iran.

The 30-year agreement, sent to Congress for review, would hand U.S. firms the lead role in building the kingdom's civilian nuclear program and, after a two-year study, could permit enrichment at a plant on Saudi soil operated by the United States. Critics note it does not require Riyadh to accept the Additional Protocol, the U.N. nuclear watchdog's most intrusive inspection regime. Enrichment is dual use: the same process that fuels a power reactor can, pushed further, yield the core of a bomb.

Critics have seized on the contradiction that Washington is at war to force zero enrichment on Iran, which insists its program is peaceful, while smoothing the path for the Saudis. Parsi delivered a blunt takedown.

"Washington is providing Riyadh a pathway to the bomb," even as it demands Iran give up enrichment entirely.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said the administration's "hypocrisy is matched only by their recklessness," accusing it of letting Saudi Arabia pursue nuclear weapons technology "under the guise of preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb." Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) warned the deal would "set off a nuclear race in the region."

The move also cuts against decades of policy aimed at denying Iran the very technology now on offer to Riyadh. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as a senator, even co-sponsored a 2019 bill that would have required Saudi Arabia to forgo enrichment.

Trump has insisted the alarm is overblown, shouting on Truth Social, "There will be no enrichment of material!" He added that the pact hinges on Riyadh normalizing ties with Israel through the Abraham Accords. Rubio, for his part, has insisted the deal has "safeguards in place."

The clash comes as the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran, launched in late February, grinds on. Parsi and other analysts say the double standard hands Tehran a fresh grievance and a reason to walk away from talks, raising the odds the fighting drags on. Blocking the Saudi deal, meanwhile, would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers, a bar even critics concede is steep.

The US-Saudi Nuclear Deal: Abandoning The Gold Standard – Analysis


US President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman meet in Riyadh. (SPA)



Key Takeaways:

Energy Secretary Wright signed a U.S.–Saudi 123 nuclear-cooperation deal on July 22 that, reports say, drops the 2009 UAE-style “Gold Standard” ban on enrichment and reprocessing and does not require an IAEA Additional Protocol—despite MBS’s public “if Iran, then we” line.

The pact (not yet before Congress; Trump has mixed messages on enrichment vs. Abraham Accords) includes a two-year enrichment-viability study and possible U.S. reactor buys; the author says that weakens other 123 no-enrichment pledges.

U.S. industry cannot readily deliver: large vessels and steam generators for recent U.S. plants came from Korea and Italy; commercial enrichment is Urenco/European centrifuges, with Centrus, BWX DEUCE, and General Matter still thin—so Riyadh may still shop Russia or China.


(FPRI) — Donald Trump is famous for his love of gold. His agreement with Saudi Arabia, however, has undermined the so-called “Gold Standard” for nuclear nonproliferation: the American insistence, for more than a decade, that countries that reach agreements with Washington for nuclear cooperation forgo domestic uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing. While these technologies are important parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, they are also critical for the development of nuclear weapons.

On July 22, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright signed the 123 Agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Required under Section 123 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, the agreement outlines the types of nuclear cooperation expected between the two countries as well as the security measures and safeguards that Saudi Arabia must apply to any nuclear technology and material it receives from the United States.

The agreement reached by the Trump administration deviates from the established norms of American nonproliferation policy in ways that significantly undermine decades of previous work. Even worse, American industry is ill-equipped to deliver the uranium enrichment technology that Saudi Arabia wants, meaning these diplomatic concessions could produce very little economic benefit.

Negotiations for a Saudi 123 Agreement lasted for more than a decade before making significant progress during the Biden administration and reaching a final agreement this year. While the terms of the agreement are not public yet, they reportedly include a two-year study to determine commercial viability of uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia and a possible commitment to purchase American nuclear reactors. The negotiations were historically held up by Saudi objections to restrictions on its right to enrich uranium and Riyadh’s refusal to adopt the so-called “Gold Standard.” This standard was formalized in 2009 in the US-UAE 123 Agreement, in which the UAE agreed to forgo any future uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing in return for US nuclear assistance. The United States has since sought to incorporate similar requirements into its agreements with other countries, with varying levels of success. While the UAE commitment to not pursue enrichment is legally binding, Vietnam’s 123 Agreement renounces enrichment only in the preamble, which is not legally binding. Vietnam is only legally bound to not enrich material received under the US agreement.


The administration’s ultimate concession to Saudi Arabia on this issue raises significant proliferation concerns. Not only does it open the door for Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium with US approval, it also calls into question the durability of other countries’ agreements to forgo enrichment as part of their 123 Agreements. The US-Saudi agreement has not yet been submitted to Congress for review, the final major hurdle before the agreement enters into force. Developments after the agreement was announced have also raised questions about its viability, with members of Congress questioning its timing and contents, while President Trump has demanded that Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords and claimed that uranium enrichment is not included. Nonetheless, the agreement’s reported contents are worth considering, both for how it reflects on nuclear safeguards and what it means for US industrial capacity.

Safeguards and Standards


International nuclear safeguards are, with few exceptions, the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Traditionally, the application of safeguards in an IAEA member state is governed by a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as outlined in IAEA Information Circular 153 (INFCIRC/153).

The findings in Iraq following the Gulf War in the 1990s underscored the need for reform. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein presided over an admittedly unsuccessful nuclear weapons program that used suboptimal uranium enrichment technologies and undeclared facilities to successfully evade IAEA safeguards. These circumstances demonstrated that the provisions of INFCIRC/153 were insufficient for safeguards inspectors to detect illicit activity in a country determined to develop nuclear weapons. This oversight led to the creation of the Additional Protocol, outlined in INFCIRC/540.


The Additional Protocol is intended to provide IAEA safeguards inspectors with the tools necessary to verify that a country is not engaged in the diversion or weaponization of nuclear material and technology. Since the approval of INFCIRC/540 in 1997, almost all IAEA member states have ratified the Additional Protocol, and its ratification has been a provision of most recent 123 Agreements.

It is thus peculiar that the US-Saudi Arabia 123 Agreement not only does not require the ratification of the Additional Protocol, but also contains provisions allowing Saudi Arabia to acquire uranium enrichment capabilities. In line with long-standing American nuclear nonproliferation goals, US policymakers have historically sought to minimize the spread of uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing technology.

Given Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s stated willingness to respond in kind to any Iranian development of nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia arguably constitutes a significant proliferation risk, and any transfer of nuclear technology or equipment should require the strongest possible safeguards. The decision to consider Saudi uranium enrichment without requiring ratification of the Additional Protocol is thus perplexing.

Checks US Industry Can’t Cash

All of this, however, overlooks a bigger issue: the United States is in no position to deliver what Saudi Arabia wants. While Westinghouse and GE in the United States design reactors, they do not actually manufacture many of the parts. Some of the most important reactor components require specialized manufacturing capabilities that don’t exist domestically. For example, Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4, the most recent power reactors to enter service in the US, use reactor vessels and steam generators made in South Korea and pressurizers made in Italy. The lead times between initial contract and final receipt of these enormous components are often measured in years. The growing small modular reactor (SMR) industry in the US may offer some respite, as domestic manufacturers may be able to produce the smaller reactor vessels and other systems used for SMRs. American manufacturers do produce turbines for generating electricity, but these are, again, long-lead-time items with few manufacturers. Nuclear reactors in particular require different high-pressure turbines than those used in normal fossil fuel plants.

The enrichment situation is even more woeful. The primary uranium enrichment facility operating in the US is part of Urenco, a European company, and uses European centrifuge technology. Centrus, a descendant of the privatized US Enrichment Corporation, has centrifuge manufacturing capabilities, operates a demonstration cascade, and is planning to expand, but has limited commercial operational experience. BWXis working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to scale up the DEUCE centrifuge for defense purposes, but is only just beginning to build manufacturing capacity. Peter Thiel-backed General Matter intends to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, but it’s unclear whether the company has built anything.

Conclusion

The US nuclear industry has struggled for relevance and profitability in the twenty-first century. Nuclear renaissances have repeatedly failed to materialize. The Saudi 123 Agreement, however, does not offer any respite, as US industry is not prepared to supply what Saudi Arabia wants. If Saudi Arabia seeks uranium enrichment capabilities in the near term, they are more likely to turn to cooperation with Russia or China, much as they did when they bought a ballistic missile development and production facility from the Chinese. Instead of a boon to US nuclear industry and diplomacy, Saudi Arabia’s 123 Agreement is a black mark, endangering decades of US nonproliferation policy and diplomatic efforts.


About the author: Michael Duitsman is a Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) and an expert on open source techniques and weapons technology.


Source: This article was published by FPRI


About Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Founded in 1955, FPRI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests and seeks to add perspective to events by fitting them into the larger historical and cultural context of international politics.
View all posts by Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute →





Wednesday, August 12, 2026


Trump’s “National Socialism” Agenda


August 12, 2026

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

For those who might not remember, “National Socialism” was the political ideology of the Nazis movement during the 1933-1945 period.  It was based on a belief in antisemitism, Social Darwinism and that Germany needed to expand by controlling more of eastern Europe.

With regard to the economy, as a recent Columbia University study reports:

“…. once Hitler took power, the National Socialist government privatized rather than nationalized financial, banking, and heavy industries, eviscerated labor organizing, and enabled the formation of goliath corporate monopolies, such as the I.G. Farben and the Krupp works, that operated freely but under the thumb of the Nazi state.”

It adds, “In effect, Nazi leaders put in place a centralized war economy but allowed private enterprise to do its bidding. As a centralized form of capitalism that included both state planning and private enterprise ….”

The White House reports – in an undated post — that total “U.S. and Foreign Investments” are $10.7 trillion to both independent countries (e.g., UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) and private companies (e.g., Apple, Amazon, AT&T and many, many others).

On his Substack post on June 15, 2026, the economist Robert Reich identified Pres. Trump’s economic policies as “national socialism.”  As he wrote, “Trump’s national socialism is concentrating ever more power in Trump’s hands.  A whole new range of decisions is being made about the U.S. economy but without any congressional oversight or public knowledge.”

Reich then added, “Trump’s national socialism is making fortunes for a small group of top executives who were already fabulously wealthy, while the democratic socialists in the Democratic Party want to tax the wealthy to provide funds for better schools, better wages, and healthcare for all.”

The process of corporate nationalization evolved over the last nearly two decades. In 2008, Pres. George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry in the face of what was dubbed the “Great Recession.”

In 2009, the Obama administration directly intervened in the auto industry through the Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP), investing approximately $80 billion into the auto industry, including General Motors and Stellantis (i.e., Chrysler).

Reich stresses that the Trump 2.0 regime has escalated federal investment in – and equity ownership of – traditionally private corporations.  He points out that in 2025 “the U.S. government converted $9 billion in federal grants to Intel into a 10 percent stake in the company, thereby becoming Intel’s single largest shareholder.”

Also in 2025, it signed off on Japan’s Nippon Steel acquisition of U.S. Steel for $15 billion.  Terms of the agreement include a “golden share” arrangement under which the U.S. government is to have certain rights with respect to USS, including those “relating to governance, domestic production and trade matters.”

Reich notes that the U.S. “invested” $400 million in MP Materials in 2025, the only U.S.-based rare earth miner, becoming its largest shareholder.  The U.S. secured 15 percent of preferred stock.

In 2026, the AI chip manufacturer Nvidia got approval from Trump to sell its H200 AI chip to China.  To secure the deal, “after agreeing to two conditions. First, the United States government would get 25 percent of all profits from Nvidia’s sales in China. Second, Nvidia would invest $5 billion in Intel and buy its custom data center chips.”

In April 2026, the Dept. of Defense established the “Economic Defense Unit.”  Its newly appointed leader, Def. Sec. Steve Feinberg, announced the Unit’s role is:

“… to coordinate and deliberate application of economic tools including capital, procurement, policy, trade, tariffs, regulatory authorities, export controls, and other potential economic activities to expand the United States’ economic advantage by deterring, denying, disrupting, and helping to defeat adversaries through economic means.”

And in June, the Dept. of Energy announced the establishment of a $17.5 billion “American Nuclear Supply Chain Loans” program for Westinghouse and local utility and energy companies to build 10 large-scale commercial nuclear reactors across the country.

(Senate Bill S. 4783, National Defense Authorization Act for 2027, is currently stalled in Congress.  However, as Eric Boehm notes, it includes “a provision to create a new slush fund within the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of buying stakes in more private businesses.”)

Arnab Datta, of Employ America, points out, “Not since the Great Depression has the government taken ownership stakes in private corporations at such scale and speed, and in this case, without explicit Congressional authorization.”

The Council on Foreign Relations further clarifies this development. “Since January 2025,” it states, “the U.S. government has announced investments worth $26.7 billion across thirty deals involving direct ownership, broadening a toolkit that has traditionally focused on grants, loans, and tax incentives.”  It detailed 30 federal investments on what it calls “CFR’s U.S. Government Deal Tracker.”  Among the investment methods are equity, warrants, loans and what are identified as “Golden Shares,” “Offtakes” and “Price Floors.”

Charles Wessner, of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, distinguishes the types of investment:

“An equity stake represents ownership in a company and entitlement to the company’s future profits. Unlike loans that must be repaid or grants which in principle are given freely ….”

He also insists:

“… the Trump administration’s decision to take an equity stake in private companies deemed strategic is not a bailout but a proactive investment to secure, or at least support, U.S. capabilities in critical sectors and prevent further reliance on supply chains anchored in China.”

Adding to this, the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), a conservative think tank, identified this development as the “Portfolio State”.  It claims this development “is neither command-and-control nor laissez-faire, but a hybrid architecture: public capital acquiring minority stakes to secure supply chains, shape market outcomes, and anchor domestic capacity.”

Mayer Brown, a New York-based corporate law firm, is far more cautious regrading this development. It warns, “This is not an episodic intervention. It instead reflects a structural shift in how the federal government is managing supply-chain risk—and it has direct consequences for how mining and energy transactions are structured, financed and exited.”

Going further, it points out: “Equity and equity-linked instruments reshape ownership dynamics. Equity investments affect economic terms and governance rights on day one, while dilution from the conversion or exercise of convertible or equity-linked instruments can further alter governance thresholds, supermajority voting mechanics and board composition.”

In conclusion, as Robert Reich warned, “This isn’t capitalism, folks. It’s government becoming the major shareholder of the biggest chip-making in America ….”  Its Trump’s 21st century national socialism.

David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion:  The Transformation of 1950s New York’s Forbidden into America’s New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015).  He can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com