nuclear

EXPLAINER

Iran and the US clash over nuclear inspections and Hormuz as negotiators push for a final deal within 60 days.

Iran and the United States have offered conflicting accounts of key issues as negotiators work towards a final agreement within a 60-day window. Differences remain over nuclear oversight and the implementation of any deal, underscoring the challenges facing both sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran would not be allowed to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz under a final agreement, stressing that the strategic waterway must remain open to international shipping.

Meanwhile, Iran rejected US claims that it had agreed to allow nuclear inspectors back into the country after President Donald Trump said Tehran had accepted the “highest level” of monitoring. The conflicting statements highlight the gaps that negotiators are still trying to bridge.

Here is what has happened:

In Iran

• Iran’s military shifts to ‘offensive doctrine’: General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, head of Iran’s Army Strategic Studies and Research Center, said Tehran has moved away from a purely defensive posture and now includes preemptive operations in its military strategy. Quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency, Pourdastan said Iran could “severely surprise the enemy” if national interests required it and added that much of the country’s military capability has yet to be used.
• Iran says no IAEA inspections planned: Tohid Asadi, reporting from the Strait of Hormuz, says the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has denied reports of a meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi and said there are currently no plans for visits or inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog. Baghaei said Iran’s dealings with the IAEA would be governed by existing procedures, its safeguards obligations, parliamentary legislation and decisions by the Supreme National Security Council. Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA after US and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025, and while diplomacy continues under a 60-day framework, Tehran says it has not granted permission for inspectors to return.

War diplomacy:

• ‘No way’ US and Iran can finalise deal in 60 days, analyst says: Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera there is “no way” Washington and Tehran can complete a final agreement within the 60-day timeframe repeatedly cited by President Donald Trump. “I think we’re talking about at least into the next calendar year,” he said, adding that he would not be surprised if both sides simply “run out the clock” by continuing negotiations and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open without reaching a final deal before the end of Trump’s presidency.
• Qatar says LNG production could return to normal within weeks: Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani told the Financial Times that Qatar is preparing to restore normal liquefied natural gas (LNG) production after the interim US-Iran deal. Qatar, the world’s second-largest LNG producer, halted output in March following an Iranian drone attack on the Ras Laffan facility. Sheikh Mohammed said most production could resume within weeks, except at the damaged site, adding that QatarEnergy would only lift its force majeure declaration once it is satisfied that all safety and operational concerns have been addressed.

In the Gulf:

• Rubio ‘trying to sell the deal’ with Iran on Gulf tour: Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, DC, said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is visiting the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, three Gulf countries seen as having been among the most affected by the war with Iran. Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security adviser, is expected to reassure regional allies that US security commitments remain intact. He will also address the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain, where he is “really trying to sell the deal”, amid concerns over Washington’s response to Iranian attacks.

In the US

• US Senate approves resolution to curb Trump’s war powers on Iran: The Senate voted 50-48 to pass a measure requiring congressional approval for further US military action against Iran, marking the first time a war powers resolution on the conflict has cleared both chambers of Congress. Four Republicans – Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Rand Paul – joined nearly all Democrats in backing the measure, while Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted against it. The resolution is expected to face a veto from President Trump.

In Israel

• US ‘very naive’ on Iran, Ben-Gvir says: Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the US would be “very naive” if it believed Iran would abandon its nuclear programme, and hinted that Israel may act independently against Tehran. “It is Israel’s responsibility to confront this Iranian threat and act against it alone,” he told Israel’s Channel 7, adding that “no circumstances” could force Israel to act “according to the dictates of a friend, even if that friend is truly great”. His remarks come amid reported tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv over Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and ongoing US-Iran negotiations. Last week, US Vice President JD Vance publicly criticised Israeli cabinet ministers for “attacking” Washington, calling the US Israel’s “only powerful ally” left in the world.

In Lebanon

• UN says ceasefire ‘largely holding’ in southern Lebanon: The United Nations said the ceasefire in southern Lebanon appears to be “largely holding”, although peacekeepers continue to observe Israeli military ground and air activity. UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL troops witnessed “heavy” machine-gun fire and three tank rounds fired by Israeli forces near Biyyada on Monday, while drones were also seen “apparently to monitor UNIFIL peacekeepers”. The incident came a day after peacekeepers reported the first day without exchanges of fire since fighting escalated on March 2. The UN urged all sides to “adhere fully to the ceasefire and refrain from any escalation, particularly during this delicate period of ongoing negotiations”.

Several key issues remain as sticking points in US-Iran talks, including maritime security and nuclear oversight.

SEOUL, June 23 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un called for accelerating the expansion of North Korea’s nuclear forces, citing increasingly hostile military cooperation between Seoul and Washington and an unstable global security environment, state media reported Monday.

Kim led a plenary meeting of the Ninth Central Committee of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea from Saturday through Monday to review progress on national goals for the first half of the year and outline priorities for the remainder of 2026, according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

The meeting reaffirmed Pyongyang’s commitment to strengthening and expanding its nuclear forces, describing them as “the core of the military sovereignty of the country” and the foundation of its war deterrent.

“To thoroughly exercise the position of a nuclear weapons state is the most correct and unique way to actively and confidently cope with the unpredictable international military and political situation,” KCNA said.

North Korea passed a law declaring itself a nuclear-armed state in 2022. Kim later amended the country’s constitution to enshrine the permanent growth of its nuclear arsenal, calling the status “irreversible.”

The remarks come weeks after Kim toured a newly inaugurated nuclear fuel production facility and vowed to continue expanding the country’s fissile material at an “exponential rate.”

In an address to the meeting, Kim said it was necessary to bolster North Korea’s defense capabilities in response to an increasingly volatile international environment.

“Wars, bloodshed and political and economic instabilities are becoming a daily occurrence in the world due to the gangster-like and unlimited geopolitical greed and misuse of strength,” Kim said, according to KCNA.

The North Korean leader criticized the U.S.-South Korea military alliance, citing regular joint military exercises and Seoul’s pursuit of a nuclear-powered submarine.

Kim also singled out the allies’ Nuclear Consultative Group, which met in Seoul earlier this month, calling it a “nuclear war body” and accusing Washington and Seoul of developing plans for a nuclear strike against North Korea.

He further accused Japan of transforming itself into a “war state” and warned that military buildups in Northeast Asia were heightening regional tensions.

In addition to expanding the country’s nuclear program, Kim outlined broader military modernization goals, including construction of a 10,000-ton strategic guided missile cruiser, expansion of munitions production and the development of new naval facilities. He also called for completing ongoing efforts to harden the border with South Korea.

The remarks come as North Korea continues extensive fortification work near the Military Demarcation Line inside the DMZ, including the installation of barbed-wire fencing and preparations for mine-laying operations.

South Korea’s Defense Ministry on Monday called the activity a violation of the armistice agreement that ended fighting in the 1950-53 Korean War.

North Korea has revised its constitution to remove all references to reunification with South Korea, formalizing Kim’s push to redefine inter-Korean ties as relations between two separate states.

“In particular, it is essential to thoroughly adhere to the principle of struggle against the enemy set forth by our party which defined the ROK as the most hostile state,” Kim said, using the official acronym for South Korea.

The remarks underlined Pyongyang’s continued rejection of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung’s outreach efforts since taking office last year.

Last week, Lee said he discussed North Korea with U.S. President Donald Trump during the Group of Seven summit in France, arguing that sanctions had failed to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear development and suggesting a more phased approach.

Trump met Kim three times during his first term and has repeatedly said he would be open to meeting the North Korean leader again since returning to office.

“President Trump said it was time to pay attention to the North Korea issue again,” Lee said.

June 19 (UPI) — Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, or KHNP, said Thursday that its CEO Kim Hoe-chun has traveled to the Czech Republic to review progress on the construction of two nuclear reactors in the European country.

The state-backed utility noted that Kim took part in a meeting of the Dukovany Steering Committee in Prague alongside South Korea’s Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources Kim Jung-kwan and Czech Deputy Prime Minister Karel Havlicek.

Kim’s visit is timed with the first anniversary of the signing of an $18 billion contract to build two 1,000-megawatt reactors in Dukovany, located around 120 miles southeast of the Czech capital.

Groundbreaking is targeted for 2029, with commercial completion expected by 2037. The South Korean consortium includes such industrial partners as Daewoo E&C and Doosan Enerbility.

The two sides also discussed ways to strengthen bilateral nuclear cooperation, while companies from the two countries signed an engineering support agreement related to the project, according to KHNP.

Kim also toured the manufacturing facilities of Doosan Skoda Power in Plzen, situated roughly 55 miles west of Prague. The Czech turbine manufacturer owned by the Doosan Group is expected to play a key role in the Dukovany program.

“The Dukovany project is a monumental endeavor that symbolizes the strategic partnership between South Korea and the Czech Republic,” Kim said in a statement.

“We will work closely with the Czech government, the project owner, local communities, and Czech companies to make this project a model for the safest and most successful nuclear power plant construction in the world,” he added.

Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane explains that the EU won’t lift crucial sanctions on Iran until a formal nuclear agreement is reached. The bloc’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also clarified that human rights-related sanctions will continue regardless.

June 18 (UPI) — Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power said Thursday that it has selected two sites in the country’s southeastern region for the construction of three new nuclear reactors over the next decade.

The state-backed utility noted that its committee, comprising outside experts, chose Yeongdeok County, located about 185 miles southeast of Seoul, and Gijang County, roughly 200 miles southeast of the capital, after a year-long evaluation process.

Yeongdeok County will host two 1.4-gigawatt large-scale nuclear reactors, while Gijang County will be home to a 0.7-gigawatt small modular reactor, or SMR, according to KHNP. Two local governments competed for each project.

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment said that it aims to secure construction approval for the three reactors in the early 2030s and bring them online by 2037 and 2038.

The incumbent administration was initially skeptical about building additional nuclear plants but later changed its stance as electricity demand surged amid the AI boom and the rapid expansion of data centers.

As of the end of last year, KHNP operated 26 nuclear reactors across South Korea and was building four additional units. Currently, nuclear power accounts for around one-third of the nation’s energy mix.

“We extend our gratitude to all local governments and residents who showed such passionate interest in hosting the projects, and we express our sincere regret to the regions that were not selected,” KHNP said in a statement.

The utility added that residents’ opinions gathered during the selection process, including both support for and opposition to nuclear development, would be reflected in future cooperation plans with local communities.

KHNP is not publicly listed.

US President Donald Trump has accused his predecessor Barack Obama of ‘bribing’ Iran to agree to the 2015 nuclear agreement, by referring to a $1.7B settlement of a decades-old lawsuit. He used profanity in his brief comments to the media alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

US President Donald Trump says Iran has agreed to not acquire nuclear weapons and will ‘suffer unbelievable consequences’ if they do. His remarks came during a meeting with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim at the G7 summit in France.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran-US nuclear talks were in a ‘complicated phase’ and dialogue with Iran ‘broken’ as Iran and Israel traded fire on Monday, the worst escalation since a ceasefire was reached in April.

June 5 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s presidential office said Friday there has been no major change in the plan to build nuclear-powered submarines in South Korea as Seoul and Washington resume talks on nuclear cooperation and wartime operational control.

A senior Cheong Wa Dae official told reporters that recent security talks between South Korea and the United States were “very productive and useful.”

“There has been no major change in the position that nuclear-powered submarines will be built in South Korea,” the official said.

The official said the two sides discussed uranium enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing and nuclear-powered submarines. The talks also included what the official described as an “umbrella” consultation framework.

“We have not set a target deadline, but we will move quickly and try to produce concrete results by the end of the year,” the official said.

South Korea and the United States held formal talks in Seoul this week on follow-up discussions related to Seoul’s push for nuclear-powered submarines and expanded rights for uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing. The talks followed earlier bilateral agreements on nuclear cooperation and submarine development.

On enrichment and reprocessing, the senior official said Seoul and Washington need “several new frameworks of agreement.”

“We intend to make progress, including by revising what needs to be revised,” the official said.

The official said talks on enrichment and reprocessing are now moving into a full-fledged phase.

“These discussions are based on trust in South Korea’s denuclearization, so there are no additional denuclearization conditions,” the official said.

Asked about coordination between Seoul and Washington on the timing of South Korea’s recovery of wartime operational control, the official said the two allies do not have a significant difference of opinion.

“Efforts to meet the conditions have continued for more than 10 years, and several years ago there was even an assessment that the conditions had been more than 90% met,” the official said. “Because there is little difference in views on the conditions, we can coordinate and align them.”

The official said the two sides also do not differ sharply on the timing of the transfer.

“There is a gap of a little over a year, about one year-plus,” the official said. “We do not see that gap as something that cannot be adjusted.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260605010001877

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that he is optimistic about the potential for a resumption in nuclear talks with Iran despite a shaky ceasefire in the war that is looking increasingly in doubt.

Rubio defended the Trump administration’s approach to Iran and other global hot spots in back-to-back hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a House Appropriations subcommittee. He was briefly disrupted by protesters at each session.

In his first public testimony since the Iran war began at the end of February, Rubio said the Iranians have agreed to negotiate on nuclear points that they had not been willing to address in the past but would not offer an assessment on what those talks might produce.

“They have agreed to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that just a month ago, just a year ago, they were refusing to even mention,” Rubio told the Senate. He noted, however, that there was no guarantee “it will lead to a deal that’s acceptable” and that negotiations have been made difficult by the instability of Iran’s leadership.

Rubio’s optimism ran counter to pessimistic reports from two semiofficial Iranian news agencies that Iran has stopped communicating with mediators after Israel threatened to bomb Beirut as it fights the Hezbollah militant group. President Trump disputed that Iran has cut off communication with mediators, calling Iranian reports of a cessation in talks “false and erroneous.”

Democrats criticize Trump administration’s approach to Iran, and Rubio defends it

Rubio’s wide-ranging testimony was met with fierce objections from Democrats, including tough questions about the status of U.S. foreign assistance to respond to diseases such as the Ebola outbreak in Africa. Rubio insisted that the dismantlement of the U.S. Agency for International Development had not affected Washington’s ability to assist with global humanitarian responses.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) blasted Rubio and Trump for foreign aid cuts and overseas intervention. Van Hollen specifically took aim at the U.S. and Israeli decision to strike Iran, accusing the Republican president of entering the war on behalf of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “said he’s been waiting 40 years to do this,” Van Hollen said. “It turns out he finally found a president who was both stupid and reckless enough to join him. Let’s face it, Mr. Secretary, the Trump foreign policy has become a dumpster fire.”

Rubio’s testimony, which was taking place as Israel and Lebanon began a new round of political talks at the State Department with the situation between Israel and Hezbollah still uncertain, did not provide definitive answers on any of the main questions of the day.

He said Iran is not guaranteed a massive payout for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial waterway for global oil shipments, and would have to commit to further concessions on its nuclear program to get significant sanctions relief.

“The more they give, the more they would get,” he said, later adding, “They’re not going to get it as a signing bonus.”

Rubio also said there are indications that Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is taking a bigger part in the discussions despite not being seen publicly since the war began.

“I think there are indications out there that he is increasingly engaging at some level, although all of his communications have been in writing and through intermediaries,” he said.

Democratic senator says drugs being on boats isn’t a targeting criterion for U.S. strikes

On other issues, Rubio dismissed questions about the legality of Pentagon strikes against dozens of alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, which have killed more than 200 people since early September.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said the military’s targeting criteria for those strikes does not include drugs being present on the boat. He called it “odd” but said he could not share much more because the criteria are classified.

Rubio pushed back, saying every strike has a legal officer who makes a determination on whether a strike is legal. He also said the U.S. military has “walked away from strikes” multiple times because they did not meet the targeting criteria.

The Trump administration says the U.S. is at war with drug cartels, while many Democrats have questioned the legality and effectiveness of the strikes.

The Republican former senator faces a second congressional hearing Tuesday and a pair of others Wednesday about the State Department’s annual budget request, though questions have mostly focused on top foreign policy issues.

Rubio wades into Taiwan arms sales opposed by China

Rubio acknowledged that the Trump administration is holding up a new potential $14-billion arms sale to Taiwan but said it remained under consideration and would not be canceled. He noted that the U.S. recently sold arms to Taiwan in December worth $11 billion.

He said the deal is not under review because of pressure from China, although he said the Chinese bring up the issue in discussions with the United States. Trump also has described it as a great negotiating chip.

“They are constantly talking about Taiwan arms sales, but that in no way is what is holding up our decision-making or the White House’s decision-making,” Rubio said. “It is something the president will have to decide on the timing of when and how that is executed on.”

Protesters chant at Rubio about Cuba

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, also was questioned about the Trump administration’s escalatory behavior toward Cuba, as Trump has hinted that the small island country could be the next U.S. target after operations in Iran are wrapped up.

He faced chants from protesters who urged him to “stop killing Cubans” when he entered the Senate briefing room. The protesters were quickly pulled from the room. Their chants also included “Let Cuba live!”

Rubio defended the administration’s approach to Cuba and said it would remain focused on changing the Cuban government’s policies.

“I really don’t believe this system is capable of reform unless new people take over or a new mindset takes hold,” he said.

Despite a series of meetings between U.S. and Cuban officials, Trump and Rubio have renewed threats against the island’s government, which take on greater weight following the administration’s announcement of criminal charges against former President Raúl Castro.

Over his congressional career and now as America’s top diplomat, Rubio has maintained that Cuba is a national security threat due to its ties to U.S. adversaries, and that Trump is intent on addressing it.

Amiri, Lee and Finley write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from New York.

June 2 (UPI) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Senate on Tuesday morning that Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz and commit to future talks on its nuclear program before the United States will make concessions.

He testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before a scheduled afternoon meeting with a House panel on State Department spending. Both sessions were planned so that Rubio could defend the department’s nearly $36 million budget request for the 2027 fiscal year.

Rubio is also President Donald Trump‘s national security adviser.

The Washington Post reported that Rubio’s testimony with lawmakers has been mostly friendly. He served in the Senate for 14 years and in the House for 8, representing Florida.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have expressed frustration with the cost and potential political fallout from the war with Iran.

“This war and the administration’s decision to blockade has now held the entire world economy, and the U.S. economy, hostage to the ability to negotiate an agreement with Iran,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, The Post reported.

The Strait of Hormuz, which has been closed by Iran since late February, must reopen, Rubio stressed. The strait is a critical waterway for shipping of much of the world’s oil, gas and fertilizer. The closure has caused gas prices to rise, causing anxiety as Republicans fear losing House and Senate seats in November.

Rubio said Trump demands that Iran enter into negotiating “severe and long-term limitations” on its nuclear program, including disposing of enriched uranium, and those talks could take months.

But he said he’s optimistic that Iran is more willing to negotiate on nukes.

“They have agreed to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that just a month ago, just a year ago, they were refusing to even mention,” The Guardian reported Rubio said. He warned that it’s “not a guarantee that ultimately it will lead to a deal that’s acceptable,” and Iran’s leadership instability has made the negotiations more difficult.

Rubio said Iran had intended to use its conventional weapons capabilities as a “shield” to protect its nuclear program, The Guardian reported.

“What they tried to do is, they were going to try to build a conventional shield and hide behind that conventional shield,” he said, explaining why Trump wanted to start the war.

He also admitted, after questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that another sticking point for Trump was that Iran stop supporting terrorist proxy groups. He said Trump is not willing to ease sanctions just for opening the strait.

Rubio said that Iranian Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei is believed to be alive.

“I would imagine, given what’s happened to multiple leaders in that system, being very public is probably not something that’s recommended for them internally,” he said. “But that said, I think there are indications out there that he is increasingly engaging at some level, although all of his communications have been in writing and through intermediaries.”

Along with Iran, lawmakers were expected to ask Rubio about the president’s comments about Cuba and Taiwan.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi says the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is no longer a workable model. Iran’s nuclear technology and capabilities have advanced significantly, and any future agreement must reflect today’s realities, including the impact of the recent conflict.

South Korea has confirmed plans to develop a new class of nuclear-powered submarines under the Jang Bogo N Project. These will put South Korea in an exclusive class of nations operating nuclear-powered subs, with currently only China, France, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States having them in active service. The move has larger implications than providing the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) with just more capable submarines.

South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) today published a document, the Basic Plan for the Development of Nuclear-Powered Submarines in the Republic of Korea, that sets out its ambition for a major advance in the country’s naval capabilities. The name of the program alludes to South Korea’s first submarine, the Jang Bogo class.

The MND has presented the thinking behind its nuclear-powered sub plans, noting that the vessels will offer “dramatically enhanced operational capabilities” compared to the ROKN’s existing diesel submarines. As well as their functionally unlimited range, the MND says the new nuclear-powered submarines will offer “higher mobility” than their predecessors, which pairs with nuclear submarines’ abilities to travel farther, and do so faster, as well as their underwater agility, at least in certain performance envelope areas.

The ministry also outlines that the new submarines “will play a core role in responding to threats such as North Korea’s submarine-launched nuclear and missile threats.”

“The Republic of Korea will transparently and firmly fulfill its nuclear non-proliferation obligations based on the trust of the international community,” the MND adds.

Clearly, this is a long-term program, with it being Seoul’s first venture into nuclear propulsion for a military application, although it does develop reactors for civilian purposes, which could be leveraged for such work.

The defense ministry expects that the construction process will take up to 10 years, after which the boats will be operated for more than 30 years.

A precise timeline has not been released, and it is also unclear how many hulls are expected to be built.

Back in October last year, TWZ reported on a key milestone toward the program launch, when U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he’d signed off on the plan.

“Our Military Alliance is stronger than ever before and, based on that, I have given them approval to build a Nuclear Powered Submarine, rather than the old fashioned, and far less nimble diesel powered submarines that they have now,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

The U.S. leader also claimed that at least some of the boats would be built in the United States. The MND hasn’t mentioned this possibility, and the wording of its announcement stresses the sovereign nature of the program and local industrial participation. However, with South Korean firms already building ships in Philadelphia and the United States needing more nuclear shipbuilding capacity, this dynamic could also come into play as a result of the Jang Bogo N Project.

Collapse of U.S. shipbuilding poses national and economic security risks | 60 Minutes

Before Trump’s remarks, South Korea had been open about its nuclear-powered submarine ambitions for years. In fact, related discussions date back to at least around 2003.

However, the plans long faced pushback, including from the United States, especially over nuclear proliferation concerns.

The ROKN already operates a sizable diesel-electric submarine force made up of 12 Jang Bogo class boats, nine Sohn Won-yil class submarines, and three Dosan Ahn Changho class vessels — these are also referred to under the Korean Submarine (KSS) nomenclature, being the KSS-I, KSS-II, and KSS-III, respectively.

The Jang Bogo and Sohn Won-yil classes are based on the German Type 209 and Type 214 designs, respectively, while the Dosan Ahn Changho class is a fully South Korean design.

Last year, South Korea also launched the first of three planned Jang Yeongsil class (KSS-III Batch II) submarines, the nation’s largest and most technologically advanced submarine class so far. You can read more about them here.

Whatever Seoul’s plan is for the production of the new boats, it is still possible, indeed likely, that the United States will provide assistance at least in relation to their propulsion systems.

Last year, South Korea’s defense minister said that South Korea would build its own submarines and modular reactors, but would receive a supply of enriched uranium fuel from the United States. Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), meanwhile, said that the country was already working on developing small nuclear reactors.

This fuel issue is interesting, bearing in mind that one of the hurdles for the program is a bilateral agreement that prevents it from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel without Washington’s approval. Today’s announcement would suggest that the U.S. government has given the program the green light.

When it comes to the nuclear issue, it’s worth noting that, as it now stands, all nations operating nuclear-powered submarines also field nuclear weapons. Already, however, Australia is moving to acquire nuclear-powered submarines through the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement. Canberra has no plans for fielding nuclear weapons.

For South Korea, however, there remains a possibility that it may seek to develop a nuclear deterrent, something South Korean officials have talked about in the past, and that we have discussed on many occasions. The primary driver for this is the fact that neighboring North Korea possesses a ballooning nuclear arsenal and a growing number of delivery systems to convey it. Furthermore, it may now be pursuing its own nuclear-powered submarines with assistance from Russia. The degree to which Moscow is providing assistance is unclear, but it may well be propelling the program forward significantly. There is also the factor that, at least in some cases, the United States is not seen globally as the strategic partner it once was. In a South Korean context, Trump has reportedly talked about pulling some U.S. troops out of South Korea.

As a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), this would also stand in the way of South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons. Indeed, separate from weapons, the process of building enrichment or other nuclear facilities, or otherwise acquiring the highly enriched fissile material to power the submarines, would be an issue for the NPT.

The Jang Bogo N Project is certainly ambitious, and not just in terms of constructing the boats and securing the fuel required for them.

There will also be enormous investments required to develop suitable infrastructure to sustain a fleet of nuclear-powered subs, as well as training personnel in the operational and maintenance of naval reactors.

Beyond that, there is the question about the degree to which Seoul even needs nuclear-powered submarines. South Korea is already developing conventionally-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) that can be fired from some of its more modern diesel submarines. These would already offer a conventional second-strike capability to help deter North Korea. The ranges involved in striking North Korean targets hardly need a launch platform with nuclear propulsion.

At the same time, South Korean diesel-electric submarine technology already outstrips North Korea’s limited anti-submarine warfare capabilities.

South Korea Test Launches Ballistic Missile From Submarine

On the other hand, while South Korea’s new diesel-electric subs offer a conventional quasi-second strike capability, it is not anywhere comparable to a true strategic nuclear second-strike deterrent of the kind that highly survivable nuclear-powered boats could provide, if South Korea one day chooses to go nuclear. Even with just conventional ballistic missiles aboard, the ability of a nuclear submarine to disappear out to sea for long periods is unmatched, which would enhance the survivability of the boats and their missiles, and help the credibility of a far more limited conventional second strike deterrent.

Beyond the North Korean threat, the nuclear-powered submarine program promises boats with extreme endurance and a higher level of underwater performance that can range much farther afield, reflecting Seoul’s growing focus on a broader regional security picture. With this in mind, it’s clear that the Jang Bogo N Project is also directed against the threat posed by China. Beijing’s military capabilities are a growing concern for South Korea, a fact reflected in Seoul looking increasingly toward security challenges beyond the peninsula. 

In an underwater warfare context, China maintains a very large submarine force that includes diesel-electric and nuclear-powered types, and which it continues to expand in both size and capability.

The Chinese government has also previously spoken out against South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarine plans, calling for Seoul and the U.S. “to fulfill their nuclear non-proliferation obligations and do things to promote regional peace and stability, and not the other way around,” according to Reuters.

South Korea’s burgeoning submarine plans underscore how quickly its naval ambitions in general are evolving from coastal defense to a far more capable regional deterrent force, and one that will increasingly be able to undertake long-duration bluewater operations.

With the Jang Bogo N Project now underway, the ROKN can look forward to fielding its most advanced vessels yet. Depending on final plans for the production of these boats, it may well also cement its position as one of the few countries capable of designing and building nuclear-powered vessels. At the very least, it should put yet another piece in place should South Korea decide it needs a true second-strike strategic nuclear deterrent.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

May 29 (Asia Today) — South Korea and the United States will hold their first meeting in Seoul next week to discuss security issues agreed to at last year’s bilateral summit, including South Korea’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.

South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said Friday the two sides will hold a launch meeting June 2-3 in Seoul for follow-up consultations on the security provisions of the joint fact sheet issued after the summit.

The meeting will come eight months after the two leaders announced agreements in the security section of the joint fact sheet in October.

The two sides are expected to discuss specific measures related to South Korea’s construction of nuclear-powered submarines, as well as expanded authority over uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.

With U.S. midterm elections scheduled for November, negotiations in individual areas are expected to gain momentum.

South Korea will send an interagency delegation led by First Vice Foreign Minister Park Yoon-joo. Officials from the presidential National Security Office, Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry, Ministry of Climate and Energy, Ministry of Science and ICT, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources and Nuclear Safety and Security Commission will also attend.

The U.S. delegation will be led by Allison Hooker, under secretary of state for political affairs. Officials from the White House National Security Council, State Department, Energy Department and War Department are expected to travel to Seoul for the talks.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260529010008720

Iran is ready to reassure the international community that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons or instability in the region, President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday, Anadolu reports.

“Prior to the martyrdom of Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei, Iran’s late Leader, we declared — and we reiterate now — that we are ready to assure the world we do not seek nuclear weapons,” Pezeshkian said in remarks carried by state-run news agency IRNA.

“It is rather Tel Aviv that is driving regional instability,” he said, accusing Israel of pursuing a vision of “Greater Israel.”

Iranian negotiators will never compromise on the country’s “honor and dignity,” added Pezeshkian.

His remarks came a day after US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.

Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely.

READ: Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone in country’s south: Report

Unification Minister Chung Dong-young will face a prosecution investigation over allegations that he leaked classified information related to North Korea‘s nuclear facilities.

The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors Office said Thursday that it received the case from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office on May 21 and assigned it. Chung is accused of violating laws governing the disclosure of official secrets.

During a parliamentary committee session on March 6, Chung said North Korea is operating another uranium enrichment facility in the northwestern region of Kusong, along with previously reported ones in Yongbyon and Kangson.

The government has previously officially identified Yongbyon and Kangson as the main locations hosting the North’s uranium enrichment facilities, with Kusong being identified as a site for the first time.

At the time, the United States was reportedly said to have conveyed its concerns through South Korean diplomatic, security and intelligence agencies.

The unification ministry responded that Chung’s remarks were based on comments by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and reports and analyses released by research institutions, as well as media outlets.

The ministry said Thursday the prosecution’s assignment of the case was merely a procedural step following the complaint and should not be interpreted as the formal launch of an investigation.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

May 24 (UPI) — The United States on Sunday blamed the collapse of a U.N. nuclear nonproliferation conference on what it called some countries’ inability to take Iran’s threat to global nonproliferation seriously.

The nearly monthlong Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons ended Friday without consensus on an outcome document, which reviews implementation of the Cold War-era pact and sets recommendations and commitments for its 191 state parities.

Conference President Do Hung Viet of Vietnam said Friday, following weeks of work and four versions of an outcome document, that he would not put it forward for adoption as “the conference is not in a position to achieve agreement on its substantive work.”

The failure came amid mounting global insecurity, including the war in Iran, the modernization and expansion of nuclear arsenals and other geopolitical tensions, which complicated efforts to reach consensus.

The U.S. State Department on Sunday faulted on other NPT member states.

“The inability of some NPT States Parties to take Iran’s threat to global nonproliferation seriously will be addressed by the United States in our continuing engagements,” State Department spokesperson Thomas Pigott said in a statement.

He said the failure to adopt a document was made worse by what he described as Iran’s continued noncompliance with NPT-required safeguards and “its escalating nuclear activities.”

Pigott did not specify in the statement which activities he was referring to. The United States attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, with President Donald Trump repeatedly claiming they were “obliterated.”

“For the NPT Review Conference to uphold its founding mandate, States Parties cannot turn a blind eye to Iran’s noncompliance, nor can violators be allowed to undermine the enforcement and accountability mechanisms at the core of the NPT,” he said.

Iran was quick to blame the United States, saying Washington’s “excessive demands” were at fault.

The United States was seeking to include language in the document concerning Iran, which accused the United States during the meeting of violating the treaty by attacking its nuclear facilities.

“The NPT Review Conference failed for the third consecutive time due to obstructionism by the United States and its allies,” Iran’s mission to the U.N. said in a social media statement.

Following the collapse of the conference, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed his “disappointment.”

“The current international environment, marked by deep tensions and an elevated risk posed by nuclear weapons, demands urgent action,” his spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, said in a statement.

“The secretary-general appeals to all states to make full use of all available avenues of dialogue, diplomacy and negotiation to reduce tensions, lower nuclear risks and, ultimately, eliminate the nuclear threat.”

It is the 11th meeting of the treaty states parties and the third in consecutive review conference to end without an agreement.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the failure of the conference to call for “urgently needed” concrete actions to avert a new nuclear arms race was due to the five nuclear-armed states’ use of “aggressive diplomatic intimidation tactics against non-nuclear weapons states.”

He also said U.S. leadership as “sorely lacking.”

“The foundations of the NPT, the cornerstone of global efforts to reduce and eliminate the world’s greatest danger, are cracking due to inattention, intransigence and ineptitude,” Kimball said in a statement.

This summer, the U.S. Navy will demonstrate the ability of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, with its two A1B nuclear reactors, to power a base on land. The test at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia is part of a larger effort to ensure facilities can remain up and running even if existing power sources are lost due to attacks and other contingencies. Using ships to provide electricity ashore is not new, but being able to use a Ford class aircraft carrier in this way might open up additional operational possibilities, as well as help in future disaster relief scenarios.

Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao briefly mentioned the planned test at a hearing before members of the House Armed Services Committee on May 14.

“This summer, Norfolk Naval Base [sic] is going to be powered from an aircraft carrier,” Cao said on May 14. “We’re going to export the energy from the aircraft carrier to the base.”

“The Department of the Navy is executing a multi-pronged strategy to ensure the delivery of firm, baseload power to our installations for energy resilience and mission assurance,” a Navy spokesperson subsequently told TWZ directly when we reached out for more information. “One line of effort in the strategy is to deliver power from a Ford class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to a compatible shore installation, to demonstrate the capability to meet emergent, mission critical needs. An initial test of this capability is being planned for later this year at Naval Station Norfolk.”

This statement refers to the Ford class generically, but the USS Gerald R. Ford is currently the only ship of its kind to have been commissioned into service. It is also homeported in Norfolk and just recently returned from a marathon 326-day deployment. That is the longest an American carrier has been at sea since the Vietnam War, and included supporting the mission to capture Venezuela’s dictatorial former President Nicolas Maduro and combat operations against Iran.

USS Ford returns home after 11-month deployment for Iran war and Maduro’s capture

Supercarriers like Ford are already very much floating cities, with typical crew complements ranging from roughly 4,000 to 5,000 individuals, including members of the embarked air wing. They have immense power-generation requirements.

As noted, each Ford class carrier has two A1B nuclear reactors, the exact power output of which is classified. However, they are said to offer a 25 percent increase in “reactor energy” compared to the A4Ws used on Nimitz class aircraft carriers, as well as be simpler to operate. Based on that, the A1B is generally assessed to be rated at some 700 MWt. Two of them would then have a combined rating of 1,400 MWt. This is a fraction of what is offered by typical commercial power-generating reactors in the United States today. At the same time, those reactors are also designed to provide electricity across entire regions rather than just to a single military base.

Being able to use the Ford and other future carriers as floating power plants for major bases like Norfolk could offer a useful backup option for providing electricity if established power sources suddenly become unavailable for any reason. American officials have been increasingly sounding the alarm that many areas previously considered inaccessible sanctuaries, including in the U.S. homeland, could now be at risk during future conflicts. The scale and scope of long-range threats, as well as options for carrying out near-field attacks, only continue to grow. The proliferation of longer-range one-way attack drones, something where the barrier to entry is also low, has had a particularly pronounced impact on this threat ecosystem.

Demonstrating the ability of a Ford class aircraft carrier to provide power ashore might open up other operational possibilities. The U.S. military, as a whole, is increasingly focused on new distributed concepts of operations involving widely dispersed forces, many of which could be forward-deployed at operating locations with limited established infrastructure.

Turning an aircraft carrier into a floating powerplant could be valuable in a wide array of non-combat scenarios abroad and at home, including during disaster relief missions. Getting the power back on is often a critical component of those operations, which in turn can help restore access to medical care and other essential services.

Many critical U.S. military facilities are themselves in areas prone to natural disasters, the impacts of which can be severe and have significant second-order ramifications. Bases provide epicenters for recovery, too, routinely providing essential services after disasters. They could do so after attacks or in other contingencies. Making sure they have uninterrupted power in any of those scenarios would be critical. There are also long-standing concerns about the resiliency of America’s aging power grids, which could also be an indirect threat vector, including from cyberattacks.

During his testimony, Acting Secretary Cao highlighted how a carrier serving as a powerplant could also provide other support in a non-combat scenario.

“The energy that’s produced from these, we can … use it for a four-stage distiller making water, fresh potable water,” he said. “On a carrier, we’re pumping millions of gallons over the side every day of fresh potable water that tests at pH 7 [neutral pH], right, that we can now export in places like California, where you have a drought.”

As noted, none of this is entirely new. The U.S. military has a long history of using ships, including conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, to provide power ashore. One of America’s very first carriers, the USS Lexington (CV-2), helped provide electricity to Tacoma, Washington, between December 1929 and January 1930. At the time, the city’s grid relied on hydroelectric power sources, the output from which had dropped severely due to a mix of environmental factors. In 1931, Lexington also brought medical personnel and humanitarian aid to Nicaragua following an earthquake, an early example of the general value of carriers in the disaster relief role.

During World War II, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom collectively utilized at least seven Buckley class destroyer escorts as floating power plants. The Buckley class was well suited for this use given its propulsion system, which consisted of steam turbines powering electric motors. At least one of these ships, the USS Donnell, was converted to this role after suffering severe damage during combat operations in the North Atlantic. It was deemed to be too expensive to repair the ship to return to service in its original role.

An especially relevant past example is that of the MH-1A. This was a floating nuclear power plant converted from a World War II Liberty ship, originally named the SS Charles H. Cugle and later renamed Sturgis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operated MH-1A, which had a power rating of 10 MW, and used it to provide electricity in the Panama Canal Zone between 1968 and 1975. The ship and its reactor were subsequently returned to the contiguous United States. MH-1A was defueled in 1977. It remained in storage for decades before the decision was finally made to decommission it, a lengthy process that was only completed in 2018. Sturgis was subsequently scrapped.

At the time of writing, it is unclear if the Navy has any ships or barges in inventory that are explicitly capable of providing power ashore. Electricity is routinely provided to naval vessels in port from grids ashore, and the ability to send power the other way, at least in an ad hoc manner, has come up in the past. For instance, in 1982, the Navy considered sending the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Indianapolis to Hawaii to serve as a floating nuclear power station in the wake of Hurricane Iwa. Indianapolis was not ultimately deployed for this purpose in that case.

As an aside, the Navy has also long used decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines as floating schoolhouses for sailors learning how to operate and maintain nuclear reactors.

There are examples of ship-to-shore power generation elsewhere globally. Currently, Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov is the only purpose-built floating nuclear power plant in operation today, and you can read more about it here. However, South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries is actively working on a new floating nuclear power station design, and similar developments could be on the horizon elsewhere. There are also non-nuclear floating power plant designs in service, notably with commercial firm Karpowership in Turkey, and in development today.

Floating Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) “Akademik Lomonosov”

Powership Video

There are still questions about the viability of employing Navy carriers like Ford in this way today. For one, ships sitting in port are inherently more vulnerable than ones at sea. Carriers are high-value assets that would be top targets in any major conflict, to begin with. Using a carrier as a replacement for traditional power sources, especially for a base that may have already have been or still be under attack, could come along with substantial additional force protection requirements. At the same time, carriers are inherently well-protected and relatively hardened platforms, especially against lower-end, smaller-scale threats.

There is also an operational capacity question. The Navy is currently struggling to meet operational demands with the 11 carriers it has available now. Between continued delays in the construction of new Ford class carriers and the schedule for retiring aging Nimitz class ships, there is a possibility that the force could shrink further in the near term. The Navy just extended the service life of the USS Nimitz to bring its impending inactivation in line with the expected delivery date of the second member of the Ford class, the future USS John F. Kennedy.

Around the Yard at NNS: John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) Builder’s Sea Trials

Pulling any of the Navy’s heavily in-demand aircraft carriers, which provide unique power projection capabilities, out of rotation to sit in port generating power could be a tough sell. That being said, carriers that are in between deployments could be used in this way, in some cases with relatively minimal disruption to other aspects of the force generation cycle. The seriousness of the contingency in question would also factor into the Navy’s assessment of its general force requirements and priorities.

It is worth noting here that the U.S. military has already been making investments in other forms of energy resiliency at established bases, as well as the ability to provide significant amounts of power at forward locations, in recent years. Acting Secretary Cao’s comments last week about the upcoming test at Naval Station Norfolk were prompted by a question about ongoing work on new small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, to help power U.S. military bases. The U.S. Army is currently the lead service for those efforts, as you can read more about here. The U.S. Air Force has also been heavily involved.

“We’ve got to have an overall programmatic champion for the SMR program,” Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Caudle, the service’s top officer, who also testified at the hearing alongside Cao, said. “So I think we’re dithering a bit there, and not really landing on the pilot, and laying out the program of record.”

“While the Army may be tapped to be the overall lead for it [SMR], I see no world in which the Navy is not going to be part of that discussion and bring our expertise through our long-established Naval Reactors [office], deep understanding of reactor physics, and understanding [of] safe operation.”

As an aside, the Navy just recently announced its intention to expand its nuclear-powered fleets by using this method of propulsion on the future Trump class battleships. This, in turn, has raised new questions about the outlook for those ships, which you can read more about here.

When it comes to using Ford class aircraft carriers as floating nuclear power plants, the test this summer will help in determining whether this could be another mission to add to the repertoire of these ships.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The Los Angeles city attorney is often described as the most powerful elected official almost no one’s ever heard of.

The office prosecutes most misdemeanor crimes, defends the city against costly lawsuits and serves as the public’s chief lawyer at a time when L.A. faces frequent attacks from a hostile White House. Races for the office tend to be sleepy affairs, but this year’s contest has featured last-minute entrants, a whopping influx of cash and defections among the incumbent’s key supporters.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s first term was marked by an explosion in costly litigation against the city and allegations of misconduct and mistreatment of employees. She has denied wrongdoing and defended her record, but now two well-funded opponents are flanking her from different sides of the political spectrum.

The race began to heat up last month after a data breach that saw a massive trove of LAPD records leaked onto the internet. That spurred the city’s police union to withdraw its endorsement of Feldstein Soto and tell its members to vote instead for John McKinney, a Los Angeles County prosecutor who has received a massive influx of corporate cash to support his campaign in recent weeks.

The progressive challenger is Marissa Roy, a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice. Roy, 34, has said she would run the office as a sprawling “public interest law firm” that sues to fight wage theft and renter harassment, champions a care-first approach to homelessness and stands as a legal bulwark against the Trump administration.

Roy Behr, a veteran political consultant in the city, said Roy and McKinney have clear brands and target audiences, whereas Feldstein Soto may now be a candidate without a constituency.

“It wouldn’t surprise me at all if she didn’t make the runoff. What she’s facing are two people with pretty clear critiques from different directions,” he said of the incumbent. “All she’s left with is ‘I did an OK job in an office that people don’t really understand.’”

Feldstein Soto, 67, says she’s the steady hand the city needs as it faces a budget crisis and gears up to host the Olympics in two years. She scoffed at her opponents’ lack of experience in a recent interview, dismissing Roy’s campaign promises as “insane,” and noting that McKinney’s history as a felony trial prosecutor has little overlap with the city attorney’s job.

“This is not the time for on-the-job training,” she said.

A former corporate lawyer, Feldstein Soto squeaked through the primary before sailing to victory in her bid for the position in 2022. She has since taken heat for defending aggressive LAPD crowd control tactics, and also for her refusal to prosecute hundreds involved in 2024 campus protests against the war in Gaza.

Although Feldstein Soto has received endorsements from Mayor Karen Bass and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), critics say frequent personality clashes have alienated her from the city’s Democratic kingmakers. McKinney called her a “bully” in a recent interview and said her behavior has demoralized her staff.

Feldstein Soto pushed back on those criticisms, touting steps she has taken to modernize the office and enhance public safety. She argued many of the allegations against her stem from a 2024 lawsuit filed by a disgruntled employee, who claimed they were subjected to a “barrage of retaliatory actions” after reporting issues within the office, including mishandling of grant funds, discriminatory treatment of co-workers and “inappropriate alcohol consumption” in the workplace. The case remains pending. Feldstein Soto said the employee was fired for having improper outside employment.

Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto hosts a May 12 news conference to discuss the recent prosecution and conviction of a UCLA early childhood teacher charged with sexual abuse.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Explaining her decision to drop most charges in the campus protest cases, Feldstein Soto pointed out many lacked enough evidence for prosecution.

The city’s legal payouts have exploded under her watch — jumping from $64 million in the mid-2010s to $294 million in the last fiscal year. Feldstein Soto said the rising costs reflect an increase in “nuclear verdicts” in civil courts nationwide.

Feldstein Soto noted the city’s payouts were inflated by a “cascade of horrible” cases that were pending when she took office. She said she could only mitigate the damages, citing as examples cases that involved the city’s misuse of federal housing grants and a massive sewage spill.

“I’ve protected the city at every turn,” she said. “I’m the only candidate in my race who has the receipts to prove that I can do this.”

Roy said the biggest challenge may be convincing Angelenos to cast a vote at all in what has historically been a low-turnout, down-ballot contest.

“It’s where we always start, to be honest,” she said. “It is one of the most important, least understood positions.”

In a city where 60% of residents are renters and many feel under siege by the Trump administration, Roy has campaigned as a civil rights avenger ready to spar with landlords or the White House on behalf of working-class Angelenos.

She recently hit the streets sporting a crisp purple blazer, violet chrome manicure and a battered pair of black Rothy’s flats, evidence of the shoe-leather she and her army of volunteers have already invested in the race.

Roy typically starts her pitch by explaining what the city attorney actually does, then delivers her vision for the post.

“Of course it’s the lawyer for the city, but what people don’t realize is it’s also the lawyer for the people,” she said to one would-be voter in Silver Lake.

John McKinney, a county prosecutor running for L.A. city attorney, speaks at a May 5 news conference where he received endorsements from Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for rank-and-file LAPD officers.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

McKinney, 58, said he wants more “aggressive” prosecutions for misdemeanor gun crimes, and believes the city attorney has the power to “leverage” homeless people into mental health or addiction treatment after they’ve been arrested.

Despite having no experience as a civil litigator, the deputy L.A. County district attorney also thinks he can help drive down lawsuit costs for the city.

McKinney told The Times he envisions himself as “a protector, as the local prosecutor, and a defender, as the general counsel of the city.”

“I think public safety is the number one priority, or should be, of all elected officials,” he said.

While Feldstein Soto and Roy have raised considerable war chests, McKinney has received just $72,000 in direct contributions, according to campaign finance records. But independent expenditures supporting his bid have supercharged his finances in the last two weeks, pouring $1.7 million into the race.

The vast majority of those funds have come from a political action committee backed by Airbnb, which Feldstein Soto sued last year for violating price-gouging laws in the wake of the wildfires. The city attorney has aggressively prosecuted and sued those seeking to profit off wildfire victims, winning a $1.2-million settlement against another rental company in a price-gouging suit this week.

Feldstein Soto said both of her challengers are financially beholden to special interests, pointing to McKinney’s Airbnb windfall money Roy has taken from a political action committee bankrolled by an organization whose attorneys often sue the city.

“They’re not investing millions of dollars for fun and for free because they think these candidates are going to be great city attorneys … they are expecting a return on investment,” Feldstein Soto said.

McKinney said Airbnb simply believes in his campaign to clean up the city, which would improve tourism and the company’s profits in the city.

Roy said she has received broad support from across the legal profession and is committed to reducing lawsuit payouts that have “spiraled out of control.”

Dan Schnur, a USC professor and former advisor to Republican politicians in California, said Feldstein Soto’s biggest obstacle might not be her opponents, but voters themselves fed up with elected officials citywide.

“The challenges she faces are very similar to what Bass is going on in the mayor’s race,” he said. “This is a very impatient and angry electorate that wants change now.”

A drone attack that caused a fire close to the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates has raised further concerns about nuclear security and military escalation in the Gulf as discussions of peace between Iran and the United States hang in the balance.

Barakah was the first nuclear power station to be built on the Arabian Peninsula. Here is what we know about it:

What is the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant?

Barakah is a nuclear energy plant located in Al Dhafra, the largest municipal region of the emirate of Abu Dhabi. It is the UAE’s only nuclear power plant.

Construction of the plant began in 2012, and its first reactor became commercially operational in 2021.

The plant is located close to the border with Saudi Arabia, about 225km (140 miles) west of the UAE’s capital city, Abu Dhabi.

The facility features four pressurised water reactors, the most common type of nuclear power reactor. The model used here is the advanced power reactor 1400, a pressurised water reactor design developed in South Korea. Each reactor of this type has the capacity to produce 1,400 megawatts (MW), which is enough to power roughly 1 million homes.

According to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), the plant’s reactors produce 40 terawatt-hours (TWh) each year, which is equivalent to about 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs. The website for the London-based World Nuclear Association also confirmed that Barakah, when fully operational, meets 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs.

According to a September report by the Abu Dhabi media office, Barakah had produced 40TWh of clean energy over “the past 12 months”.

Since nuclear power plants produce a lower amount of carbon dioxide emissions than conventional power plants, the ENEC said Barakah saves up to 22.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads.

What happened in the attack on Sunday, and how has the UAE responded?

Authorities in Abu Dhabi said a single drone strike caused a blaze to break out at an electrical generator outside the Barakah plant’s inner perimeter in the Al Dhafra region on Sunday. No injuries were reported, and officials said radiation levels remained normal.

The UAE’s nuclear regulator said operations at the Barakah facility had not been affected. “All units are operating as normal,” it said in a social media post.

In a statement, the UAE’s Ministry of Defence said two more drones had been “successfully” intercepted and the drones had been launched from the “western border”. It did not give more details.

The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a statement on X on Sunday saying the country condemned “the unprovoked terrorist attack” in “the strongest terms”.

The statement added: “The UAE emphasised that it will not tolerate any threat to its security and sovereignty under any circumstances, and that it reserves its full, sovereign, legitimate, diplomatic, and military rights to respond to any threats, allegations, or hostilities in a manner that ensures the protection of its sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity, and the safety of its citizens, residents, and visitors, in accordance with international law.”

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, and the statements by the ministries did not publicly blame any country.

But Anwar Gargash, an adviser to the UAE’s president, wrote in an X post on Sunday: “The terrorist targeting of the Barakah clean nuclear power plant, whether carried out by the principal perpetrator or through one of its agents, represents a dangerous escalation and a dark scene that violates all international laws and norms, in criminal disregard for the lives of civilians in the UAE and its surroundings.”

Gargash’s post appeared to blame Iran and its proxy network of allied armed groups in the region, which Tehran calls the “axis of resistance”.

The launch point of the drones remained unclear, but on Sunday, Saudi Arabia also reported it had intercepted three drones that had been launched from Iraq, where some Iran-allied groups operate. If Iranian Shahed-136 drones, which have an estimated range of 2,000km to 2,500km (1,240 to 1,550 miles), were fired from Iraqi territory, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE would fall well within their reach.

Other reactions

Neighbouring Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar condemned the attack on the Barakah plant.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kuwait also issued a statement denouncing the attack, which it called “heinous”.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs condemned the attack, calling it “unacceptable”, saying it represented “a dangerous escalation” and urging a return to diplomacy.

Has Iran responded to the incident?

Iran has not claimed responsibility for the drone attacks, and there has been no public statement from Iran about the incident at Barakah.

However, in the aftermath of the drone attacks, United States President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Iran has previously warned that countries where US military assets are deployed or Israeli-linked interests are located are viewed as legitimate targets.

Iran has also accused the UAE of strengthening ties with Israel while reports have emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a “secret” visit to the Gulf state during the US-Israel war on Iran. The UAE has denied this.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also said last week that Israel had deployed Iron Dome air defence systems and personnel to the UAE to help defend against possible Iranian attacks.

What has the IAEA said?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, said Sunday’s incident in the UAE had forced one reactor to rely temporarily on emergency diesel generators.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi expressed “grave concern” and warned that military activity threatening nuclear facilities was “unacceptable”.

How serious could a strike on a nuclear facility be?

Attacks on nuclear power plants are especially worrying because they can risk damaging critical safety systems or reactors, which could release radioactive material into the atmosphere, not only over the country targeted but also across neighbouring states. Radiological material, specifically the hazardous isotope Caesium-137, could be released into the atmosphere.

The release of radioactive material could result in environmental contamination and poses major risks to public health. Water, if contaminated, becomes undrinkable while farmland and fisheries could become unsafe for decades, depending on the isotope released.

Short-term, acute exposure to radioactivity can cause burns and acute radiation sickness, which can be life-threatening.

Prolonged exposure, even to smaller doses, can increase the risk of illnesses such as cancer, especially thyroid cancer and leukaemia. Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable.

Over the course of the US-Israel war on Iran, energy infrastructure has become a target.

Iran’s only functioning nuclear plant, the Bushehr power plant, has come under repeated attacks in the war. There are fears that damage at Bushehr could contaminate water across the entire Gulf region, most of which lacks groundwater and relies heavily on the desalination of seawater. Desalination plants are not specifically built to filter radioactive material, and not all plants currently are fitted with the technologies required to do so.

May 17 (UPI) — A drone strike on a nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates sparked a fire at the facility Sunday, defense officials said.

The UAE’s Defense Ministry said three drones entered the country from the “western border direction,” two of which were intercepted. The third carried out a strike on an electrical generator at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in Abu Dhabi, the BBC reported.

Politico said there were no reports of injuries or a release of radiation at the facility.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but the UAE’s Foreign Ministry described it as an “unacceptable act of aggression.”

“The targeting of peaceful nuclear energy facilities is a flagrant violation of international law, the U.N. charter and the principles of humanitarian law,” the ministry said.

Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a statement on X that “military activity that threatens nuclear safety is unacceptable.”