■ More News
"If the president was intentionally trying to help Trump win, what would be the difference between how he's acting now?" asked one observer, who noted how Biden's saber-rattling drove up the price of oil.
After saying Wednesday that he would not back Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday said his administration and Israel are weighing the possibility of an attack on Iran's oil infrastructure in response to this week's missile barrage targeting the key American ally.
Asked by a reporter outside the White House in Washington, D.C. if he supported an Israeli attack on Iran's oil infrastructure following Tuesday's missile attack on Israel, Biden said, "We're discussing that."
"There's nothing that's going to happen today," he added.
The price of crude oil shot up 5% to $77 per barrel on Thursday following Biden's remarks.
Mulling the possible implications of higher oil prices on next month's U.S. presidential election between Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump, Jacobin's Branko Mercetic said on social media Thursday, "If the president was intentionally trying to help Trump win, what would be the difference between how he's acting now?"
Iran's missile strike, in which no Israelis were killed or seriously harmed, came in response to a series of Israeli assassinations of senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Iran and Lebanon.
Responding to the Iranian attack, Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said Tuesday that there will be "consequences" and that Israel would "will act in the time and place that we choose."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Iran "will pay a heavy price" for its attack.
Iran, meanwhile, warned that any Israeli attack on its territory would result in a "stronger response" than Tuesday's strike.
Some Republican members of U.S. Congress are pushing Biden to attack Iran.
"It is not enough to issue statements," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Tuesday.
"The Biden administration has repeatedly threatened Iran with 'severe consequences' for its campaign of terror against Israel and the United States, but failed to impose them," he added. "It has pledged 'ironclad' support for Israel, only to delay and withhold the security assistance that would give this pledge any weight."
Biden's comments came as Israel advised residents of 20 towns and villages in southern Lebanon to evacuate, suggesting that Israeli forces could ramp up their invasion of its northern neighbor, from which Hezbollah has been launching rockets in support of Palestinian resistance against Israel's war on Gaza—for which the key U.S. ally is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
Thousands of Lebanese have been killed or wounded by Israeli attacks. More than 148,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured by Israeli forces in Gaza.
"The same foreign-owned shipping giants that say they can't find the money for fairer wages and treatment of American port workers managed to find billions of dollars to enrich a small group of wealthy investors."
Amid a strike that dockworkers along the East and Gulf Coasts argue is about "corporate greed vs. workers rights," a watchdog group is highlighting how at least one shipping giant on the other side of the labor battle has recently poured billions of dollars into stock buybacks.
Around 45,000 members of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) walked off the job at 12:01 am Tuesday after unsuccessful negotiations with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), a shipping industry group that includes Maersk.
In an analysis released Wednesday, Accountable.US pointed out that as part of Maersk's $12 billion stock buyback program, the Danish shipping company "has spent $6.5 billion buying back nearly 3 million Class A and B shares as of January 2024."
"When the big shipping industry was faced with a choice—share its success with the U.S. workers that delivered it, or go overboard with greed—its executives clearly chose the latter."
When companies pursue stock buybacks—also called share repurchases—they reduce the number of shares available on the market, which inflates earnings per share, enriching shareholders. The practice has fueled calls to hike the U.S. corporate tax rate.
Maersk paused its buybacks in February. CNBCreported at the time that the company "flagged 'high uncertainty' in its 2024 earnings outlook amid Red Sea disruptions and an oversupply of shipping vessels."
Still, Accountable.US framed what Maersk has done so far as proof that the shipping giant and fellow USMX members have the capital to end this strike, as ILA president Harold Daggett asserted this week.
"The same foreign-owned shipping giants that say they can't find the money for fairer wages and treatment of American port workers managed to find billions of dollars to enrich a small group of wealthy investors after riding a wave of record profits," said Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security & Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US, in a statement.
"When the big shipping industry was faced with a choice—share its success with the U.S. workers that delivered it, or go overboard with greed—its executives clearly chose the latter," Zelnick added.
The watchdog also took aim at COSCO Shipping Holdings, which last year "announced plans to buy back up to $101 million of its A shares, with plans for further buybacks, after reporting an 'industry-beating' profit of $2.7 billion in the first half of 2023."
Meanwhile, amid concerns about the economic fallout from the strike, the tens of thousands of striking ILA port workers emphasize that they are eager to return to work, but need a contract with wage increases and protections from automation.
"The action is going to give us a fair contract and we can get back to work to get people the goods they need," Joe Mosquera, a crane operator and union organizer with ILA, Local 1235, told The Guardian Thursday. "This is for our future generations. To keep automation out is to keep our jobs for the future. And if anything becomes automated, we want to make sure that there's a worker to back it up."
The industry's biggest strike since 1977 is already having an impact. Citing Everstream Analytics, Reuters reported Thursday that "at least 45 container vessels that have been unable to unload had anchored up outside the strike-hit East Coast and Gulf Coast ports by Wednesday, up from just three before the strike began on Sunday."
The workers are backed by U.S. President Joe Biden—who is empowered by an anti-union federal law to break the strike but has signaled he won't—and various pro-worker lawmakers, including the congressional Labor Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) Donal Norcross (D-N.J.), and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.).
"We stand in solidarity with the ILA workers in their fight for a fair contract with USMX," the caucus said in a statement shared by the union Wednesday. "We've seen unions secure historic contracts for workers across the country in recent years, and now ILA workers—who kept our economy moving throughout the pandemic—are fighting for their share of the profits they helped create."
"Contract negotiations can be difficult at times, but collective bargaining is the best way for workers and employers to come to a fair agreement," the caucus added. "We encourage all parties to remain at the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith to reach a fair contract that reflects the success of the companies."
In what advocates called a major win for frontline communities and the rule of law, a U.S. district court judge ruled on Monday that the federal government could not move forward with producing plutonium pits—"the heart and trigger of a nuclear bomb"—at two proposed sites in New Mexico and South Carolina.
Instead, Judge Mary Geiger Lewis agreed with a coalition of nonprofit community groups that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to fully consider alternatives to producing the pits at New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory and South Carolina's Savannah River Site (SRS). Now, the federal government must conduct a full environmental impact statement of how pit production would work at sites across the U.S.
"This is a significant victory that will ensure NEPA's goal of public participation is satisfied," attorney for the plaintiffs Ben Cunningham, of the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, said in a statement. "Public scrutiny is especially important because the activities at issue here, by their very nature, result in the production of dangerous weapons and extensive amounts of toxic and radioactive waste. I hope the public will seize the upcoming opportunity to review and comment on the federal agencies' assessment."
"This is a victory for public transparency, and hopefully will result in alternative proposals that are more protective of the environment and affected communities around these sites."
Making plutonium pits means working with "extremely hazardous and radioactive materials," Nuclear Watch New Mexico, one of the groups behind the suit, pointed out. As of 2018, the government had planned to produce at least 80 pits a year by 2030—30 or more in New Mexico and 50 or more in South Carolina.
Yet these pits are not intended to maintain the United States' existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Instead, they would be for future, experimental weapons that could not even be tested without violating the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. What's more, making the pits would cost U.S. taxpayers over $60 billion over the next three decades, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the NNSA has not made reliable cost estimates for production at the two proposed sites.
"The DOE and NNSA have been on the GAO's 'High Risk List' for project mismanagement and cost overruns for more than 30 years," said Jay Coghlan, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico. "Nevertheless, these agencies think they can proceed with their most expensive and complex project ever without required public analyses and credible cost estimates."
Coghlan continued: "Public scrutiny and formal comment under the National Environmental Policy Act have proven time and again to improve public safety and save taxpayers' money. A nationwide programmatic environmental impact statement [PEIS] on expanded plutonium pit production will hold DOE and NNSA accountable for just that."
It will also give local communities a chance to have a say in potentially dangerous projects being implemented near their homes. The plaintiffs were composed mostly of frontline groups: Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs), and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition.
"Native Gullah/Geechees, including the Gullah/Geechee Fishing Association and Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition members, rely on safe and healthy water in order to sustain ourselves and our community," said Gullah Geechee Nation Chieftess Queen Quet. "Therefore, it is critical that the public is fully aware of any and all potential negative impacts that projects will have on critical resources such as our water supplies and water bodies."
If the DOE and NNSA's plans had gone ahead, it would have been the first time that plutonium pits were manufactured at the Savannah River Site, at a facility which could cost between $11 and $25 billion to complete. However, Judge Lewis concluded that the agencies had not updated their plans to account for production at two sites at once and must therefore conduct a PEIS considering production at potential sites across the U.S. as well as the handling and disposal of waste.
"In our comments, it was repeatedly stressed that the agency violated the law by failing to take a hard look at alternatives for this 'two-site' plan," said Scott Yundt, executive director of the Livermore, California-based Tri-Valley CAREs. "Additionally, commenters pointed out the lack of inclusion in the environmental review of the other affected sites involved in the plan, chief among them Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, where the scope of work and the corresponding impacts was largely left out of the analysis and, again, no alternatives were offered or analyzed as required by NEPA. The judge saw these violations clearly and ordered agencies do the analysis that should have been done at the outset. This is a victory for public transparency, and hopefully will result in alternative proposals that are more protective of the environment and affected communities around these sites."
Tom Clements, who directs Savannah River Site Watch and was also an individual plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was "a notable victory for the main argument in our lawsuit—that the NNSA's NEPA analysis on plutonium pit production was inadequate."
In addition, it provides a reprieve for the project's concerned neighbors.
"The design and construction work on the proposed SRS pit plant should be put on hold until the PEIS has been finalized," Clements said.
Dylan Spaulding, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, also applauded the ruling.
"NNSA skirted the rules and now they are being held accountable—this is a victory for transparency," he said.
Spaulding added that he was unsure whether or not this would delay the planned plutonium pit production blitz.
"There are still a lot of environmental hazards and questions that need to be addressed," he said. "We should be pausing and thinking about that before this hugely expensive project goes forward."
This piece has been updated to included comments from Dylan Spaulding of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.