The European Union’s latest moves (as part of its 17th package of sanctions against Russia declared in May) to target much more intensively Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and other vessels illustrate the danger that, as long as the Ukraine war continues, so will the risk of an incident that will draw NATO and the EU into a direct military clash with Russia.
The EU sanctions involve bans on access to the ports, national waters and maritime economic zones of EU states. Ships that enter these waters risk seizure and confiscation. It does not appear that Washington was consulted about this decision, despite the obvious risks to the U.S.
As part of this strategy, on May 15, an Estonian patrol boat attempted to stop and inspect a tanker in the Gulf of Finland. Russia sent up a fighter jet that flew over the Estonian vessel (allegedly briefly trespassing into Estonian waters), and the Estonians backed off — this time. In January, the German navy seized a Panamanian-flagged tanker, the Eventin, in the Baltic after its engines failed and it drifted into German territorial waters.
Sweden has now announced that starting on July 1 its navy will stop, inspect and potentially seize all suspect vessels transiting its exclusive economic zone, and is deploying the Swedish air force to back up this threat. Since the combined maritime economic zones of Sweden and the three Baltic states cover the whole of the central Baltic Sea, this amounts to a virtual threat to cut off all Russian trade exiting Russia via the Baltic — which would indeed be a very serious economic blow to Moscow.
It would also threaten to cut off Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad, which is surrounded by Poland, from access to Russia by sea.
This is the kind of action that has traditionally led to war. The Swedish assumption seems to be that the Russian navy and air force in the Baltic are now so weak — and so surrounded by NATO territory — that there is nothing Moscow can do about this. However, it is very unlikely that the Swedes would take this step unless they also believe that in the event of a clash, Washington will come to Sweden’s defense — even though the EU and Swedish decisions were made without U.S. approval and are not strictly covered by NATO’s Article 5 commitment.
And despite all the hysterical language about Russia being “at war” with NATO countries, these moves by the EU and Sweden are also based on an assumption that Russia will not in fact lose its temper and react with military force. European policymakers might however want to think about a number of things: for example, what would the U.S. do if ships carrying U.S. cargo were intercepted by foreign warships? We know perfectly well that the U.S. would blow the warships concerned out of the water and declare that it had done so in defense of the sacred rule of free navigation — in which the EU also professes to believe.
EU leaders, and admirals, should also spend some time on Russian social media, and read the incessant attacks on the Putin administration by hardliners arguing precisely that Moscow has been far too soft and restrained in its response to Western provocations, and that this restraint has encouraged the West to escalate more and more. Such hardliners (especially within the security forces) are by far the greatest internal political threat that Putin faces.
It is important to note in this regard that moves to damage Russia’s “shadow fleet” have not been restricted to sanctions. In recent months there have been a string of attacks on such vessels in the Mediterranean with limpet mines and other explosive devices — developments that have been virtually ignored by Western media.
In December 2024, the Russian cargo ship Ursa Major sank off Libya after an explosion in which two crewmembers were killed. The Reuters headline reporting these attacks was rather characteristic: “Three tankers damaged by blasts in Mediterranean in the last month, causes unknown, sources say.” Unknown, really? Who do we think were the likely perpetrators? Laotian special forces? Martians? And what are European governments doing to investigate these causes?
If the Russians do sink a Swedish or Estonian warship, the Trump administration will face a terribly difficult decision on how to respond to a crisis that is not of its own choosing: intervene and risk a direct war with Russia, or stand aside and ensure a deep crisis with Europe. The U.S. administration would therefore be both wise and entirely within its rights to state publicly that it does not endorse and will not help to enforce this decision.
Washington also needs — finally — to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks about all this. The overwhelming majority of senators who are proposing to impose 500% tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy have apparently not realized that one of the two biggest countries in this category is India — now universally regarded in Washington as a vital U.S. partner in Asia. And now America’s European allies are relying on U.S. support to seize ships providing that energy to India.
The U.S. administration would also be wise to warn European countries that if this strategy leads to maritime clashes with Russia, they will have to deal with the consequences themselves. Especially given the new risk of war with Iran, the last thing Washington needs now is a new flare-up of tension with Moscow necessitating major U.S. military deployments to Europe. And the last thing the world economy needs are moves likely to lead to a still greater surge in world energy prices.
European governments and establishments seem to have lost any ability to analyze the possible wider consequences of their actions. So — not for the first time — America will have to do their thinking for them.
Multiple outlets are reporting that Israel only has a limited number of air defense interceptors available to shoot down incoming Iranian missiles. Since Tel Aviv launched its offensive war on Friday, Tehran has launched several waves of drones and missiles at Israel in response.
On Tuesday, Middle East Eye reported speaking with a senior US official who explained, “Israel is using its ballistic missile interceptors at a rapid clip.” The official went on to warn that if Washington officially entered the conflict, it would drain American air defense stockpiles to a “horrendous” level.
While Washington has provided Tel Aviv with intelligence, arms, and defensive support, US forces have not directly attacked Iran. Israeli officials are pushing President Donald Trump to begin offensive strikes on Iran. If President Donald Trump does give in to Israeli pressure, it would put 50,000 US troops stationed across the Middle East at risk of being attacked by Iran.
Additionally, US stockpiles of interceptors were stretched thin before Israel launched its war of choice against Iran. When asked last month if the US would provide Ukraine with the air defenses it was requesting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio replied that Washington could not send more Patriot missiles and launchers because “frankly, we don’t have” the supply.
The MEE reporting was confirmed later in the day by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. “Israel is running low on defensive Arrow interceptors,” WSJ explained.
The Arrow interceptor is one of the three stages of Israeli air defenses. According to the Post, Tel Aviv also has a limited supply of Iron Dome interceptors. “Without resupplies from the United States or greater involvement by U.S. forces, some assessments project Israel can maintain its missile defense for 10 or 12 more days if Iran maintains a steady tempo of attacks,” a source told the outlet.
The official added that Tel Aviv will begin having to select which missiles to shoot down, and allow others to reach their targets. “They will need to select what they want to intercept,” the source said. “The system is already overwhelmed.”
Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the hawkish think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, told WSJ the limited number of interceptors will force Tel Aviv to wrap up the conflict quickly.
“Neither the U.S. nor the Israelis can continue to sit and intercept missiles all day,” he said. “The Israelis and their friends need to move with all deliberate haste to do whatever needs to be done, because we cannot afford to sit and play catch.”
Along with Israeli-operated air defenses, the US has deployed THAAD and Patriot systems to Israel.
Anduril Technologies, the startup behind Fury, is no legacy military contractor like Raytheon or Boeing. The company, which launched like a rocket in 2017, was founded by Palmer Luckey, the teenaged wunderkind who designed the Oculus Rift VR headset. He was born in 1992! In other words, he’s now just 32 years old, and was 24 when he started the company.
Revenge of the Nerds, with a kill switch.
Anduril, which just turned seven, is already valued at $36 billion—just below industry legend Raytheon’s valuation. The young company enjoys unusually close ties with U.S. military leadership, and skips past traditional defense procurement red tape under special programs like Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and SOFWERX.
In its brief corporate life, Anduril has delivered advanced miltech solutions and secured generous production contracts, particularly for its flagship product, a key bit of software called Lattice OS. The company describes it as “an AI-powered operating system designed to orchestrate autonomous defense systems across land, sea, air, and even cyberspace.”
The operative word is “autonomous.” Lattice isn’t for manually flying drones using a joystick and a VR headset. It’s for issuing goal-oriented commands— like those you would issue to human soldiers. Commands like, monitor this valley, engage anything crossing this perimeter,neutralize radar emitters in zone Alpha, or destroy the Eiffel Tower.
There’s no pilot. There’s just Bob, back at the base, making suggestions.
The article described Fury, Anduril’s latest hardware prototype, a pre-production proof-of-concept. It’s similar to how Tesla both writes its self-driving software and also builds the cars that use it. Except that military-grade AI is obviously far beyond chatbots, self-driving Teslas, or whatever else we experience from consumer-level AI tech.
The SlashGear article introduced Fury as a 20-foot-long autonomous fighter jet —not a drone— capable of climbing to 50,000 feet, hitting Mach 0.95, and sustaining +9 Gs. Designed for air-to-air combat; it’s made to fly and fight by itself.
“Fury,” the article explained, “is a high-performance, multi-mission group 5 autonomous air vehicle (AAV).”
We could pause here to wallow in the well-worn moral murk — the classic handwringing over whether autonomous killing machines are morally ambiguous or whether “AI safety” still applies once your autonomous AI jet is pulling 9 Gs and launching air-to-air missiles. But set that ethical quagmire aside.
🚀 My question for today is much simpler: how stupid do they think we are? The answer is, pretty stupid, apparently.
Apparently, it is only minor news to the defense industry —ignored by corporate media— that military AI can be trusted to navigate a $30 million fighter jet in three-dimensional space under combat conditions, but they are also telling us that they can’t figure out how to get your chatbot to open the browser by itself and renew your driver’s license.
It makes less than no sense.
I’m a lawyer, not an AI engineer with a Q-clearance, so obviously I don’t know. But for Heaven’s sake, I can read. If AI can fly jets at supersonic speeds and battle it out in dogfights with other AI fighters, then the technology accessible to the military is light years beyond suggesting a polite way to decline an invitation to your kindergartner’s classmate’s bar mitzvah.
It makes me wonder: Was last week’s breathless “disclosure” of an AI-turned pharma whistleblower real? Or was that just a psyop, designed to convince us that consumer AI tech should be locked down and hobbled for safety? In actual truth, are they intentionally dribbling AI out slowly, to keep our enemies behind the eight ball and maybe to protect our economy from being disrupted too quickly?
In podcast after podcast and conference after conference, they keep warning us about the coming threat of artificial general intelligence — the moment AI becomes smarter than people — while also insisting, over and over, that we’re still years away from that troubling milestone. But isn’t it odd that they only ever talk about consumer AI — chatbots, homework helpers, and virtual therapists — and never speculate about the AI already flying autonomous military aircraft, managing battlefield logistics, or directing drone swarms at the speed of thought?
For the last year — maybe longer — we haven’t seen meaningful progress in consumer chatbot intelligence. Instead, we’ve been dazzled by a parade of low-stakes novelties: talking image generators, dancing avatars, and viral clips of AI-generated cats telling dad jokes in Morgan Freeman’s voice.
It’s not that AI has stopped evolving —clearly not— it’s that we’re being shown the circus, not the control room.
🚀 Once you begin wondering what AI level we are really at, recent history begins to make a lot more sense. Aside from the Proxy War in Ukraine, the next-most terrifying conflict was the escalation over the Strait of Taiwan. Starting around 2021, China and the U.S. faced off with naval fleets to fight over the one island where most AI chips are made.
For two years straight, all Nancy Pelosi could talk about was semiconductors. “Chips this, chips that, squaaawk” and she kept flying her broomstick into Taipei like it was spring break for congressional war hawks. CNBC, 2022:
Now, in 2025, President Trump has just declared a new Manhattan Project — not for bombs, but to supercharge our national energy grid and fuel the computing demands of massive new AI data centers.
Make no mistake. The real arms race is no longer nuclear. The real arms race is artificial intelligence. I doubt anyone would bother arguing the point.
🚀 Once you realize that AI is the new arms race, recent history stops looking confusing — and starts looking obvious. The Ukraine war dominated headlines. But the real geopolitical near-miss was the 2022 standoff over Taiwan — the one triggered by Nancy Pelosi’s surprise visit to the island. Officially, she was there to support democracy. But every journalist with a press badge knew the real story: the day-drinking day-trader was there to protect the global supply of AI chips.
The chipmaker Pelosi invited war with China to visit was Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC)— the quiet fabrication engine behind NVIDIA’s GPUs, Apple’s SoCs, and nearly every serious AI training run on Earth.
Congress was already acting. The 2022 CHIPS Act prioritized onshoring domestic chip development with $52 billion in federal funds— and since he took office, President Trump has expanded and accelerated the CHIPS initiative, declaring a national security emergency, allowing faster permitting and easier zoning, and using tariffs to force domestic sourcing of defense-related chips.
It’s working. Taiwan’s TSMC is now building a massive $165+ billion fabrication complex in Phoenix, Arizona. It’s scheduled to come online in phases between 2026–2028. Axios, this month:
Intel, long dormant, is also staging a major chipmaking comeback with new U.S. fabs in Ohio and Arizona — thanks mostly to Trump’s industrial pressure campaign.
🚀 None of this is particularly any secret. As far back as 2018, defense rags were accurately predicting current events. In April, 2018 —just after Palmer Luckey founded Anduril— DefenseOne ran this prophetic story:
The prescient analysis, written by defense strategist Elsa B. Kania, warned that the world was already locked into an AI arms race — not just between the U.S. and China, but including Russia, India, Israel, even non-state actors like ISIS, who were using commercial drones to deliver battlefield intelligence.
Back then, the military’s Project Maven had just launched. The Pentagon’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) didn’t exist yet. ChatGPT wasn’t even a glimmer in the public’s eye.
Kania called it “more than” an arms race because — unlike nuclear missiles — AI isn’t a discrete, singular weapon system. It’s a general-purpose technology, like electricity, or the steam engine, capable of transforming every aspect of military power: cybersecurity, battlefield decision-making, electronic warfare, logistics, surveillance, and strategic planning.
In other words, AI doesn’t just change what militaries do — it changes how they think. And that means traditional “arms race” metaphors break apart. Kania argued that framing the AI revolution purely in “weapons race” terms missed the bigger picture— that AI will become the nervous system of every future military, not just its weapons lab.
I can’t emphasize this enough: years before ChatGPT suggested possible recipes for the three overripe vegetables left in the fridge, the military was accurately forecasting the future arms race (more than). Which means that, in 2018, they must have already enjoyed enough operational AI capability to know where we were headed.
Perhaps a better question is: why did they let us have ChatGPT at all? Whatever the reason, OpenAI did not create the AI revolution. It was a relatively late player.
🚀 Tech bro Palmer Luckey named his billion-dollar startup Anduril and it wasn’t an accident. The name refers to J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and it carries a heavy thematic payload.
In Lord of the Rings canon, Andúril means “Flame of the West,” which was the reforged sword of Elendil, later wielded by Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor. Andúril was reforged from the shards of Narsil, another legendary sword that sliced the One Ring from Sauron’s hand.
In short, Andúril was a weapon, a weapon of ancient power, reforged in modern hands to reclaim rightful dominion.
“Anduril” wasn’t just branding. It was mission signaling. Naming the company Anduril signaled mythic ambition, restoration of lost power, and righteous moral framing. It’s a civilizational project. Palmer sees himself as rebuilding America’s lost military edge— like Aragorn returning to reclaim his throne. And it suggests Palmer’s team sees itself as the good guys, wielding dangerous power to combat evil.
🚀 What does it all mean? It means that we regular folks aren’t witnessing the rise of AI. We’re witnessing its containment.
For the past year, the public discussion has been fixated on the wrong question. Talking heads fret over whether ChatGPT might say something offensive, or whether Midjourney might draw the wrong number of fingers. We are told that AI isn’t quite ready — it’s potentially dangerous, often unpredictable, hallucinates too much, and is a bit too quirky for real work. They claim we’re years away from so-called artificial general intelligence, and that “alignment” must come first.
Meanwhile, military-grade AI is flying 9G fighter jets.
This is not any kind of conspiracy theory. None of this is secret. The defense journals were writing about the AI revolution back in 2018, and even earlier, well before consumer AI hit the scene. Along with his venture capital partners, Palmer Luckey invested billions in writing an AI operating system — in 2017!
Back then, defense analyst Elsa Kania warned not that we were entering an AI arms race — she said we were already in one. She accurately labeled it “more than” an arms race that would reshape every dimension of military, economic, and political power. And that is just what is happening.
Anduril Industries, founded in 2017 by a 24-year-old Palmer Luckey, wasn’t predicting the future — he was building out the present. The firm’s software platform, Lattice OS, isn’t a helpful chatbot. It’s a battlefield operating system for managing fully autonomous weapons across land, sea, air, and space. The new aircraft, Fury, is a fully autonomous fighter jet. Not merely a prototype — it’s a fully functional, AI-based weapons system.
Don’t misunderstand: I am not complaining about consumer AI’s throttling, not really. It seems logical on many levels. For one thing, the economy needs time to absorb what’s coming. And I also get that we don’t need China stealing weapons-grade AI from Microsoft Word’s Copilot.
But it is aggravating that the AI conversation itself has been nerfed and dumbed down, with the enthusiastic participation of useless corporate media that consistently obscures the true issues, and instead runs ridiculously superficial articles mocking small AI mistakes in MAHA reports. The AI that flies 9G fighter jets doesn’t make those kinds of easy errors. Just the versions that we get.
And if we can’t honestly debate AI, how can we participate in deciding who wields Andúril?
All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the enormous generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.
On June 13th, the Zionist entity carried out a wide-ranging, unprovoked, criminal military strike on Iran, purportedly to dent the Islamic Republic’s quest to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran has consistently repudiated any suggestion it harbours such ambitions. A November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concurred, expressing “high confidence that in fall 2003,” the country “halted” any and all research in the field. This assessment remained unchanged for several years subsequently, and was reportedly shared by Mossad.
By contrast, Benjamin Netanyahu has for decades declared almost annually Iran is mere years away from becoming a nuclear power, urging military action as a result. The longtime Israeli leader’s anxieties are sickly ironic, given Tel Aviv’s own nuclear weapons program is the worst kept ‘secret’ in international affairs. Over many years, multiple entity officials and prominent figures have effectively – or even directly – admitted this monstrous capacity. Moreover, Israel is avowedly committed to the ‘Samson Option’.
Under its horrifying auspices, if the entity feels sufficiently threatened, it reserves the right to carry out preemptive nuclear strikes not merely on regional adversaries, but its Western sponsors into the bargain. As Dutch-born Israeli military theorist Martin van Creveld boasted in September 2003:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets…We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
Despite such flagrant disclosures, the Zionist entity rigidly sticks to a policy of “deliberate ambiguity”, refusing to formally confirm or deny it possesses nuclear weapons. When one of Netanyahu’s ministers openly advocated nuking Gaza in November 2023, they were reprimanded and suspended. Such punishment pales in comparison to the fate of Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician who revealed details of Tel Aviv’s nuclear weapons program to the British media in 1986.
Lured to Rome by Mossad, he was then rendered to the Zionist entity and convicted in a secret trial. Vanunu subsequently spent 18 years in prison, the majority of which in solitary confinement. Since release in 2004, he has been subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement, and repeatedly arrested and jailed for violating the stringent terms of his parole. All along, organisations including Amnesty International have condemned Tel Aviv’s brazen breaches of Vanunu’s basic human rights.
Mordechai Vanunu holds a newspaper front page outlining his revelations, 2004
At the time of Vanunu’s heroic whistleblowing, Western governments and intelligence agencies had been aware of – and deeply concerned by – Israel’s development of nuclear weapons for almost three decades. How the Zionist entity acquired nukes is a little-known tale, of theft, deception, shadowy spy games, dangerous connivances, and more. Its full dimensions remain indeterminate today. However, given current events, it is vital what’s known about this sordid hidden history is told.
‘Face Value’
Israel’s nuclear weapons program was, from inception, “a secret within a secret”. In 1957, France inked a covert agreement with the Zionist entity, leading to the creation of the Dimona nuclear power facility. Paris was apparently unaware the complex would soon form the basis of a clandestine underground reprocessing facility, capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. The US was seemingly ignorant of Dimona’s existence, let alone its utility for producing nukes, until December 1960.
That month, a classified CIA assessment outlined “implications of the acquisition by Israel of a nuclear weapons capability.” The document expressed little doubt that a “major purpose” of Dimona was “plutonium production for weapons,” and detailed multiple grave outcomes of Tel Aviv’s push for nukes. For one, exposure of the program would inevitably cause “consternation” in North Africa and West Asia, potentially prompting “threatened” Arab and Muslim states to turn to the Soviet Union for military assistance.
Aerial photo of the Dimona complex, November 1968
Furthermore, the CIA predicted Western interests in the region more widely could come under attack, and the Israeli initiative “might remove some of the inhibitions to development of nuclear weapons” elsewhere in the world. On January 19th 1961, the day before his inauguration, John F. Kennedy and his incoming administration visited the White House to meet with outgoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Israel’s nuclear program loomed large in discussions between the two statesmen.
On January 31st that year, Kennedy met with Eisenhower’s departing ambassador to Israel Ogden Reid, for a comprehensive briefing. Declassified records refer to the President’s “special interest” in Dimona. While a member of Congress during the 1950s, Kennedy had repeatedly taken a righteously robust stand against not only nuclear proliferation, but testing, believing the latter encouraged the former. He was implacably opposed to Tel Aviv securing nukes, and immediately upon taking office began intensely pressuring then-Israeli premier David Ben-Gurion to allow regular US inspections of Dimona.
Reid told Kennedy he believed Ben-Gurion’s “assurances” Dimona was a mere “research reactor”, intended to “serve the needs of industry, agriculture, health, and science”, could be taken at “face value”. The President strongly disagreed, and informed the Israeli Prime Minister in no uncertain terms regular inspections of Dimona were a core condition for harmonious US-Israeli relations. Tel Aviv finally folded in May 1961, and an American inspection team was dispatched to the site.
Their report concluded Dimona was strictly intended for nuclear power generation purposes, without military application. This false finding was achieved by French and Israeli technicians outright lying to US inspectors, while undertaking extensive efforts to camouflage and conceal areas of the plant dedicated to research and development of nukes. It was not until March 1967 that a State Department Intelligence and Research report uncovered this rank subterfuge, and that Tel Aviv had the ability to produce nuclear weapons at the complex.
‘Atrociously Incompetent’
In the intervening time, multiple US investigations of Dimona reached the same conclusion as the first. Yet, until his death in November 1963, Kennedy remained convinced the Zionist entity was determined to develop nuclear weapons, and may have already done so. Six months before his assassination, he wrote a private telegram to Ben-Gurion, warning of “the disturbing effects on world stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel.” He also stressed the “urgency” of regular Dimona inspections.
Given the President’s visceral hostility to Israel’s nuke ambitions, it is hardly surprising theories have abounded for years Tel Aviv was one way or another involved in his murder. In 2004, Mordechai Vanunu explicitly levelled the charge, stating there were “near-certain indications” Kennedy was assassinated due to “pressure he exerted” on Ben-Gurion to “shed light on Dimona’s nuclear reactor.” No smoking gun evidence supporting this allegation has emerged since, although sensitive documents recently released upon Donald Trump’s order unambiguously point in this direction.
In 1992, investigative journalist Samuel Katz posited veteran CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton secretly directed clandestine Agency assistance to Israel’s nuclear weapons program for years. Fast forward to today, and the freshly-declassified JFK records amply expose how Angleton, one of the Agency’s founders, systematically abused his position to assist the Zionist entity throughout his lengthy tenure. Among the newly-declassified files is a June 1953 memo stating Angleton’s primary intelligence source was Israel.
June 1975 FBI report on James Jesus Angleton’s routine contact with Israeli intelligence
Other declassified documents indicate Angleton was effectively running an agency within an agency in the CIA, with Tel Aviv the ultimate beneficiary. A June 1975 FBI report on “Israeli intelligence collection capabilities” in the US outlines Angleton’s “special relationship” with the entity in some detail, noting he routinely delivered “extremely sensitive information” in person to Israel’s Washington DC embassy. Simultaneously, the Bureau was into the 10th year of its probe into how 93 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium mysteriously vanished from Washington’s Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation.
CIA chief Richard Helms demands Attorney General Ramsey Clark instigate an FBI probe into NUMEC’s chief, April 1968
Centre of the CIA-instigated FBI investigation was NUMEC president Zalman Shapiro, a hardcore Zionist with high-level government contacts and significant business interests in Israel. This included a contract to build nuclear-powered generators. Officially, the NUMEC scandal remains unsolved today, despite dedicated inquiries by the Atomic Energy Commission, Bureau, CIA, and other US government agencies lasting many years. A scathing 1978 review by Washington’s Comptroller General concluded investigating authorities deliberately sabotaged their probes into the uranium loss, for the Zionist entity’s benefit:
“The NUMEC incident and its associated 13-year investigation highlight this country’s current inability to effectively deal with possible diversions of nuclear material…The US needs to improve its efforts for effectively responding to and investigating incidents of missing or unaccounted for weapons-grade nuclear materials…We believe a timely, concerted effort on the part of these…agencies would have greatly aided and possibly solved the NUMEC diversion questions, if they desired.”
There was an obvious motivation for the CIA, FBI et al not “desiring” to solve the riddle of where NUMEC’s missing highly-enriched uranium ended up. As Kennedy assassination expert Jefferson Morley has told mainstream news networks, Israel’s man in Langley James Jesus Angleton placed the President’s alleged killer Lee Harvey Oswald under Agency surveillance in November 1959. This amounted to intensively “monitoring his politics, his personal life, his foreign travels, his contacts” until the day the President was killed. Morley explained the significance of this thus:
“Angleton had a 180-page file on Oswald on his desk a week before Kennedy went to Dallas in November 1963…So what this story raises is the question: was the CIA incredibly, atrociously incompetent when it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald, or was Angleton actually running an operation involving Oswald?”
