The largest nuclear power plant in the world, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, is scheduled to reopen operations in Japan.
The Niigata local government approved the plant’s partial restart on Monday. In response to the public’s opposition, Japan has restarted a number of nuclear facilities as part of its efforts to cut emissions. In response, it has gone back to its original policy 15 years after 54 reactors were shut down in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Governor Hideyo Hanazumi, who supported the restart last month, was granted a vote of confidence by the assembly of Niigata prefecture, which would have allowed the plant to resume operations.
Japan’s confidence in its nuclear energy infrastructure was destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami that followed the triple meltdown in Fukushima in 2011.
However, Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s new prime minister, is supportive of reopening some of the shuttered plants because of the high environmental and economic costs associated with relying on imported fossil fuels.
There are currently 33 nuclear plants in operation in the nation, and 14 have been revived. The Fukushima plant’s owner, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), is the first to run Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.
According to Japanese public broadcaster NHK, TEPCO may reactivate the first of its seven reactors at the plant on January 20.
According to estimates from the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the first reactor alone could increase Tokyo’s electricity supply by 2 percent.
As Niigata prefectural assembly members vote on reopening the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant on December 22, 2025 [Issei Kato/Reuters]
Despite the promise of new jobs and lower electricity bills, the assembly session revealed that the community is still divided over the restart despite the support of legislators.
No Nukes, “We oppose the restart of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa,” and “Support Fukushima,” were the banners that 300 protesters held as they gathered to protest the election.
Ayako Oga, a 52-year-old farmer and anti-nuclear activist, flew to her new home in Niigata, where she settled after escaping the city’s Fukushima plant in 2011 along with 160, 000 other evacuees. Within the irradiated exclusion zone, her old home was located 20 kilometers (12 miles) away.
Oga continued, adding that she still struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder-like symptoms, noting that “we know firsthand the risk of a nuclear accident and cannot dismiss it.
To improve energy security and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, which also contribute to climate change, Takaichi, who took office two months ago, has backed nuclear restarts.
United States President Donald Trump’s second administration has introduced a bold and unconventional strategy for the Middle East. The administration intends to recalibrate US influence in a region historically scarred by conflict, prioritising regional stability through economic strength and military consolidation by asserting a stronger, business-minded US presence.
At the centre of Trump’s ambitious goal is what the new US envoy to Iraq, Mark Savaya, described as his goal to “make Iraq great again”. This approach moves away from traditional endless war tactics towards a transactional, results-oriented diplomacy that aims to restore Iraqi sovereignty and economic vitality. It could be the “great gamble” for Trump, who seeks an Iraq that serves as a stable, sovereign regional hub rather than a battleground for foreign interests.
Trump’s primary plans and wishes for Iraq involve a twofold mission: consolidating all armed forces under the command of the legitimate state and drastically reducing the influence of malign foreign players, most notably Iran. The administration seeks to open Iraqi markets to international investment, upgrade the country’s infrastructure, and secure the independence of its energy sector. Hence, the plan is to ground a genuine partnership that respects Iraq’s unity while ensuring that it is no longer a central node for militia activity or external interference.
Militias and political gridlock
This assertive US strategy lands directly in a highly contested and fractured political environment in Iraq, which is less a single state than a patchwork of competing powers. The heart of the problem lies not just in parliament, but also in the persistent shadow influence of armed factions and militias that often operate outside the formal chain of state command. Those groups were among the biggest winners in the November 2025 elections.
Now the ongoing government negotiations have thrown a stark light on these non-state actors.
Their power raises crucial concerns for the future: How can Iraq enforce the law and, crucially, attract the foreign investment needed for revival if armed groups challenge state authority? The consolidation of the country’s armed forces under complete state control is an urgent necessity, underscored by rising regional tensions and security threats.
Moreover, the path to achieving genuine stability is severely obstructed by entrenched political interests.
For Iraq to achieve stability, it must urgently strengthen its institutional frameworks and clearly establish a separation of powers. Yet, many political parties seem more focused on maintaining control over lucrative state resources than on implementing the meaningful reforms the country desperately needs. The result is a governance model struggling to stand firm amid the crosscurrents of competing loyalties and power grabs.
Washington’s play
To achieve these high-stakes goals, Trump has bypassed traditional diplomatic channels by appointing Mark Savaya as the US special envoy to Iraq on October 19. Such an appointment signals a shift towards “deal-making” diplomacy. Savaya’s mission is to navigate the complex political turmoil following Iraq’s parliamentary elections to steer the country towards a stable transition. His job is to bridge the gap between institutional support and massive financial investment, acting as a direct representative of Trump’s business-centric foreign policy.
Savaya is an Iraqi-born, Detroit-based businessman lacking the traditional diplomatic background; his experience is rooted in the private sector in the cannabis industry, but he gained political prominence as an active supporter of Trump’s campaign in Michigan.
He played a key role in the delicate negotiations that secured the release of Elizabeth Tsurkov, the Israeli-Russian academic and Princeton University student who had been kidnapped by an Iraqi militia for more than two years.
Savaya’s communal and ethnic ties have given him significant access to Iraqi power centres that traditional diplomats often lack.
The Iran factor
Iraq’s position in a geopolitical tug-of-war is compounding the internal struggles, forced to balance its critical relationships with two giants: the US and Iran. On the one hand, Washington’s objective is clear: it wants to bolster Iraq’s sovereignty while simultaneously pushing back against the dominance of powerful, often Iran-backed, militias. The US believes that allowing these armed groups too much sway could leave the nation isolated and wreck its fragile economic stability.
But Iranian influence remains a formidable and enduring force. Tehran views Iraq not just as a neighbour but also as a crucial strategic ally for projecting its power across the entire region. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been actively working to maintain unity among key Shia factions in Baghdad. This move clearly signals Iran’s deep and enduring interest in shaping Iraq’s political alignment and its future path. Iraq must therefore navigate this high-stakes balancing act to survive.
Savaya’s mission unfolds at a time when Iran’s regional “axis of resistance” is under unprecedented pressure. Having already lost their primary foothold in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime in late 2024, and seeing Hezbollah’s political and military standing in Lebanon severely decimated by the 2025 conflict with Israel, Iranian proxies now face the very real prospect of losing their grip on Iraq too.
In Lebanon, a new government is committed to regaining the state’s monopoly on the use of force, leaving Hezbollah increasingly isolated. This regional retreat means that for Tehran, maintaining influence in Baghdad is a final, desperate stand to remain a relevant regional power.
Other regional actors
The success of Trump’s gamble also depends on the roles of other regional players. Turkiye has recently recalibrated its strategy to integrate Iraq into ad hoc regional trade and security frameworks, effectively diluting Iran’s centrality. Simultaneously, Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are emerging as key economic and security partners for Baghdad, offering an alternative to reliance on Iran.
However, these regional actors also bring their own agendas — such as Turkiye’s focus on containing Kurdish movements — which may conflict with US objectives. If Savaya can successfully align these diverse regional interests with Trump’s plan, he may fundamentally rewrite Iraq’s turbulent future.
A realist pragmatism
The “Make Iraq Great Again” strategy reflects a pragmatic reassertion of US interests within the anarchic international system, prioritising Washington’s security and economic power over idealistic goals.
By appointing Savaya — an unconventional, business-oriented envoy — the Trump administration is employing “transactional realism”, utilising economic diplomacy and personal ties as strategic tools to pull Iraq away from Iran’s orbit. This approach views the US-Iran rivalry as a zero-sum game of power politics, where integrating Iraq’s armed forces under centralised state control is fundamental to restoring a state-centric order and sidelining non-state militias that currently feed Tehran’s regional influence.
The new US envoy to Iraq has made clear that “there is no place for armed groups in a fully sovereign Iraq”. His calls resonated with Iraqi officials and militia leaders alike – now at least three militias close to Iran have publicly agreed to disarm. However, other groups have yet to do the same, while rejecting the call from the outset.
However, this high-stakes attempt to shift the regional balance of power faces a significant “security dilemma”, as aggressive moves to diminish Iranian influence may trigger a violent defensive response from Tehran to protect its remaining strategic assets. While the strategy seeks to exploit a regional shift – leveraging the weakened state of Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon – it must contend with the “hybrid” power of Iraqi militias and the narrow self-interests of neighbouring players like Turkiye and the Gulf states.
The success of this gamble depends on whether the US can dismantle the shadow economies that facilitate foreign interference and establish a stable, autonomous Iraqi state capable of navigating the intense geopolitical tug-of-war between Washington and Tehran.
The stakes for Iraq’s future
Ultimately, the appointment of Savaya serves as the definitive stress test for Iraqi sovereignty, marking a high-stakes transition towards a transactional “America First” strategy aimed at “Making Iraq Great Again”. By attempting to consolidate military command under the state and dismantle the shadow economies fuelling Iranian influence, Savaya’s mission seeks to exploit the current regional weakening of Tehran’s proxies to transform Iraq into a stable, autonomous hub.
However, the success of this “Great Gamble” hinges on Savaya’s ability to overcome entrenched political opposition and reconcile the presence of US forces with the demand for national unity. If this unconventional diplomatic push can bridge internal divides — particularly between Baghdad and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north — Iraq may finally secure a path towards economic independence; otherwise, the nation risks remaining a perpetual battleground caught in the geopolitical crossfire between Washington and Tehran.
A Swiss court has agreed to hear a lawsuit against cement company Holcim, alleging it is not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions.
The court had decided to accept the legal complaint, according to Swiss Church Aid (HEKS/EPER), which supports the complainants. Holcim affirmed the decision and stated that it would file an appeal.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Four Pari residents, a low-lying Indonesian island that has experienced repeated flooding as global temperatures rise, file the complaint in January 2023. The case was brought before a court in Zug, Switzerland, where Holcim’s corporate headquarters is located.
This is the first time a Swiss court has accepted a large corporation’s climate lawsuit, according to HEKS.
In the event of success, the group has filed a lawsuit challenging Swiss company’s legal responsibility for its role in global warming.
The lawsuit is one of the first climate cases brought by people in the world’s south who have been directly affected by climate change, according to campaigners who are supporting the case.
Holcim, one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon dioxide and the biggest so-called “carbon major,” was chosen, according to the non-governmental organization supporting the plaintiffs.
Between 1950 and 2021, Holcim emitted more than 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, according to a study co-authored by HEKS and carried out by the United States-based Climate Accountability Institute. This represents about 0.42 percent of the total industrial emissions during that time.
Holcim has stated that it will work with science to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Since 2015, the business claims to have reduced direct CO2 emissions from its operations by more than 50%.
The plaintiffs are suing for damages to Pari Island’s flood protection measures, compensation for damage caused by climate change, and a swift reduction in Holcim’s carbon emissions.
A nine-point political roadmap was signed by Sudanese political parties, armed groups, civil society organizations, and prominent political figures in Nairobi on December 16 and presented as a civilian-led initiative aimed at ending Sudan’s war and restoring a democratic transition.
It attempts to use civilians as a “third pole” in Sudan’s conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which are both framed as antiwar, pro-peace, and pro-peace.
Even though the declaration doesn’t provide any specific steps toward military reform, its authors claim that it represents an attempt to reclaim political power from civilians after months of being marginalized by armed actors and foreign mediators.
The roadmap sparked new political and civic circles in Sudan about legitimacy, representation, and the persistent dominance of elite-driven civilian politics.
The roadmap
The Quad’s announcement in September, which included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the United States, led to the release of the Nairobi declaration.
A three-month truce, according to the Quad statement, should result in a permanent ceasefire, humanitarian assistance for civilians, and the establishment of a political transition process.
The Nairobi declaration also emphasized the importance of reforming Sudan’s security forces under civilian oversight and excluding remnants of the regime of former president Omar al-Bashir.
The Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM-AW), led by Abdelwahid al-Nur, as well as the National Umma Party, the Sudanese Congress Party, civil society organizations, and the Sudanese Congress Party (SUN).
Abdalla Hamdok, the former prime minister, signed the declaration, which coordinated with the SAF and the RSF, from al-Bashir’s overthrow in 2019 until the military coup in October 2021.
Al-Nur, the long-time leader of the SLM-AW armed group that controls Jebel Marra in Darfur and who has historically rejected what he sees as “elite-driven” political settlements, also endorsed it.
Having a bad day
Hamid Khalafallah, a researcher from Sudan, claimed that the declaration does not adequately reflect the country’s wider civic movement despite its intention to present a civilian leadership.
He claimed that the Nairobi coalition is an example of earlier civilian organizations that failed to reach Sudanese citizens, particularly those who were most impacted by the conflict.
He claimed that it is a reproduction of former groups that have struggled to represent the Sudanese people. It still represents a highly regarded elite group that practices politics the same way it has always done.
No committees formally supported or signed the declaration, despite reference to neighbourhood groups that emerged from Sudan’s protest movement and helped toppled al-Bashir in 2019.
Abdalla Hamdok, left, and Abdelwahid al-Nur met in Khartoum in February.
Drafts were reportedly shared with some grassroots organizations, but the process proceeded without a single vote, bolstering concerns that local people remain politically instrumental rather than empowered.
Khalafallah argued that his inclusion was intended to counterbalance rival military-aligned forces rather than change civilian politics, despite al-Nur’s participation being hailed by some as a breakthrough.
Prior to the Nairobi Declaration, Sudan’s three main civilian coalitions were either affiliated with or accused of acting in such a way.
The Democratic Bloc is a group of political parties and armed organizations affiliated with the SAF, while Tasis is a coalition of political parties and armed movements that was established in February of this year.
Finally, political parties and civil society organizations are joined by Hamdok’s Sumoud, which the SAF claims supports the RSF.
Europe’s one-track civilian strategy
Officials in Europe have taken a break from the initiative in Nairobi.
Under the condition of anonymity, a senior European Union diplomat told Al Jazeera that Brussels does not support the Nairobi roadmap as the foundation for a unified civil process.
The source stated that the African Union [AU] should have access to just one civil process. Like this Nairobi incident, “everything else is a distraction.”
The priority, according to the EU official, is not to multiply civilian platforms, but to consolidate them under a trustworthy umbrella that is widely accepted by Sudanese society.
The source stated that “our goal is to build a credible third pole in opposition to SAF and RSF.” “A welcoming one that most Sudanese citizens support.”
After the SAF and the RSF approve the Quad’s proposals for a humanitarian truce and ceasefire, including reforms putting security forces under civilian-led control, the EU plans to form a broad coalition that will take the lead.
The EU’s language asserts that abandoning Sudan’s divided civilian landscape would automatically legitimize military rule, while also reflecting growing international actors’ growing frustration with its fragmented civil landscape.
We are not naive that people will rule tomorrow, the source said. However, we must uphold our values.
The EU official rejected narratives that depicted either side as a governing body in her assessment of Sudan’s conflicting parties.
SAF is a bit better, but not much, according to the source, “than RSF does in Darfur.”
Look at the oil deal, the official continued. People are not important, but money is.
Following SAF’s pullout and the RSF’s capture of the site, they referred to the most recent agreement between the SAF and the RSF, which was reached under South Sudanese mediation. Both organizations would then withdraw from the Heglig oil facility.
Warring parties acting as spoilers
The Nairobi declaration effectively presents to the international community a roadmap that adheres to pre-existing goals in order to win support from the Quad, according to US-Africa policy expert Cameron Hudson, who told Al Jazeera.
According to Hudson, “I think the Nairobi declaration reverses what the Quad has said,” implying that the initiative is intended more to sway international support than to create genuine domestic consensus.
Hudson argued that this method “prematurely” links ceasefire efforts with army reforms or other political changes, and that it should continue to go along separate lines until the violence subsides. He also argued that this method mishandles the political transition in Sudan.
He argued that if the Quad wanted an unconditional ceasefire, it should pursue it rather than allowing for political guarantees during a transition.
It is premature to discuss reforming the army or engaging in other political reforms for this reason. For the time being, these should be kept separate.
The tension is intense. Both the SAF and the RSF should not have a political future, according to the Quad and the European Union, and they must be completely excluded from the Bashir regime.
After holding separate meetings with Ukrainian, European, and Russian negotiators in the state of Florida, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has praised discussions on ending Moscow’s conflict in Ukraine as “productive and constructive.”
The US, Russia, and Ukraine held their latest meetings on a 20-point plan that US President Donald Trump has touted to end the nearly four-year-old conflict on Sunday in Miami.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
No clear indications of imminent resolutions to pressing issues, including the one involving the territory Russia has seized during the conflict, have been received despite US optimism.
On Sunday, Witkoff met with officials from Europe and the Ukraine during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy Kirill Dmitriev. The Ukrainian delegation, led by senior official Rustem Umerov, was then led by him in separate discussions.
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, also attended the gatherings.
According to Witkoff and Umerov, Sunday’s discussions focused on a “shared strategic approach between Ukraine, the United States, and Europe,” according to a joint statement released on the occasion.
Discussions of timelines and the timing of the next steps were given particular attention, they said.
The 20-point plan, a “multilateral security guarantee framework,” a “US Security guarantee framework for Ukraine,” and an “economic &, prosperity plan” were the focus of discussions between Ukrainian and US officials on Sunday, according to Witkoff and Umerov.
Witkoff claimed that his discussions with Dmitriev were also “productive and constructive” in a separate X post that used some of the same language.
In the post, Witkoff stated that “Russia is unwaveringly committed to bringing peace to Ukraine.” Russia values the United States’ efforts to end the conflict in Ukraine and restore world peace.
Vladimir Putin and Yury Ushakov, the president of Russia, are pictured here.
Yury Ushakov, Putin’s top aide to foreign policy, claimed earlier on Sunday that the changes the US and its allies in Europe demanded to the US’s proposed framework had no effect on peace.
Dmitriev is scheduled to return to Moscow on Monday, according to Ushakov, and Putin will be informed of the outcome of his discussions.
He said, “We will formulate the position with which we will proceed, including in our contacts with the Americans.”
Russia, which launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, claims that its participation in the talks will only hinder them.
After the latter suggested that Europe should contact the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin said on Sunday that Putin was ready to talk to Emmanuel Macron.
Putin and Macron have “expressed their willingness to dialogue,” Peskov told RIA Novosti, a Russian state news agency. Therefore, “anything that is mutual political will can only be positively evaluated”
The Russian statement was welcomed by Macron’s office.
The Kremlin’s public support of this strategy is welcome, “. In the coming days, it said, “We will decide which course of action is best.”
Trump’s plan, which includes 28 points, was first released last month, drawing immediate criticism from European leaders who claimed it echoed the demands of the Kremlin.
Zelenskyy has since claimed that Ukraine and its allies in Europe have developed a 20-point plan based on the White House’s initial proposal.
One of the main disagreements between Russia and Ukraine is how much of the land that Russia has seized in Ukraine since launching its full-scale invasion in the wake of years of fighting in the east.
Zelenskyy described the discussions as “constructive” and claimed they were moving “quite quickly.” He did, however, warn that “a lot depends on whether Russia feels the need to end the war for real.”
