A Closer Look At The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

A Closer Look At The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)
A Look at the Tri-State’s Active Fault Line
Monday, March 14, 2011
By Bob Hennelly
The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast that occasionally makes local headlines when minor tremors cause rock the Tri-State region. It begins in Pennsylvania, crosses the Delaware River and continues through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic and Bergen counties before crossing the Hudson River near Indian Point nuclear facility.
In the past, it has generated occasional activity that generated a 2.6 magnitude quake in New Jersey’s Peakpack/Gladstone area and 3.0 magnitude quake in Mendham.
But the New Jersey-New York region is relatively seismically stable according to Dr. Dave Robinson, Professor of Geography at Rutgers. Although it does have activity.
“There is occasional seismic activity in New Jersey,” said Robinson. “There have been a few quakes locally that have been felt and done a little bit of damage over the time since colonial settlement — some chimneys knocked down in Manhattan with a quake back in the 18th century, but nothing of a significant magnitude.”
Robinson said the Ramapo has on occasion registered a measurable quake but has not caused damage: “The Ramapo fault is associated with geological activities back 200 million years ago, but it’s still a little creaky now and again,” he said.
“More recently, in the 1970s and early 1980s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to Indian Point,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.
Historically, critics of the Indian Point Nuclear facility in Westchester County, New York, did cite its proximity to the Ramapo fault line as a significant risk.
In 1884, according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website, the  Rampao Fault was blamed for a 5.5 quake that toppled chimneys in New York City and New Jersey that was felt from Maine to Virginia.
“Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 Earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

Democrats Try to Take Away Trump’s Nuclear Option

Democrats going nuclear to rein in Trump's arms buildup
Control of the House will give them 'the power of no — the ability to block programs, cut funding, withhold agreement.'
By BRYAN BENDER 11/24/2018 07:15 AM EST
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) who is set to become the first progressive in decades to run the House Armed Services Committee. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Democrats preparing to take over the House are aiming to roll back what they see as President Donald Trump's overly aggressive nuclear strategy.
Their goals include eliminating money for Trump’s planned expansion of the U.S. atomic arsenal, including a new long-range ballistic missile and development of a smaller, battlefield nuclear bomb that critics say is more likely to be used in combat than a traditional nuke.
They also want to stymie the administration's efforts to unravel arms control pacts with Russia. And they even aim to dilute Trump's sole authority to order the use of nuclear arms, following the president’s threats to unleash “fire and fury” on North Korea and other loose talk about doomsday weapons.
The incoming House majority will have lots of leverage, even with control of only one chamber in the Capitol, veterans of nuclear policy say. They point to precedents in which a Democratic-controlled House cut funding for Ronald Reagan’s MX nuclear missile and a Democratic-led Congress canceled the development of a new atomic warhead under George W. Bush.
"They can block funding for weapon systems," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. "The Democrats’ ascendancy will prove a much-needed check on the Trump administration's nuclear weapons policy and approaches."
Leading the charge is Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, who is set to become the first progressive in decades to run the House Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for setting defense policy through the annual National Defense Authorization Act.
Smith has long criticized both President Barack Obama and Trump’s $1.2 trillion, 30-year plan to upgrade all three legs of the nuclear triad — land-based missiles, submarines and bombers — as both unaffordable and dangerous overkill.
He's made it clear in recent days that revamping the nation's nuclear strategy will be one of his top priorities come January, when he is widely expected to take the gavel of the largest committee in Congress.
"The rationale for the triad I don't think exists anymore. The rationale for the numbers of nuclear weapons doesn't exist anymore," Smith told the Ploughshares Fund, a disarmament group, at a recent gathering of the Democratic Party's nuclear policy establishment.
The daylong conference included leading lawmakers, former National Security Council aides, peace activists and an ex-secretary of Defense, William Perry, who was once an architect of many of the nation's nuclear weapons but is now a leading proponent for a major downsizing.
Arms control and disarmament groups see Smith's emergence as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to craft a much more sensible approach to nuclear weapons and reduce the danger of a global conflict.
The mere appearance of a would-be Armed Services chairman at the recent gathering demonstrated how much circumstances have changed.
"I have never seen a chairman give nuclear policy such a high priority, have such personal expertise in the area, and be so committed to dramatic change," said Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund.
Cirincione served as a staffer to then-Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), who chaired the panel during the fierce debates over nuclear weapons policies in the 1980s, which he sees as an instructive period for today.
"I know that a Democratic House can have a major impact on nuclear policy," he said. "It is the power of no — the ability to block programs, cut funding, withhold agreement to dangerous new policies. Democrats may not be able to enact new policies, but they can force compromises."
High on the priority list is halting or delaying the development of a planned new nuclear bomb that would have less explosive power than a more traditional atomic bomb. The Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Review called for the so-called low-yield weapon last year.
Advocates assert that the weapon, to be launched from a submarine, will provide military commanders with more options and better deter nations such as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran that are building up their own nuclear arsenals. Such a modest nuke would not destroy a city but would devastate a foreign army — and adversaries would have reason to fear that the U.S. might use it in a first strike.
But Smith, who will also influence the House Appropriations Committee's recommendations for Pentagon funding, insists such a new weapon "brings us no advantage and it is dangerously escalating."
"It just begins a new nuclear arms race with people just building nuclear weapons all across the board in a way that I think places us at greater danger," he told Ploughshares Fund.
Democrats are expected to revive legislation proposed earlier this fall in both the House and Senate to try to roll back the program.
“There’s no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), one of the co-sponsors, who also gave his pitch at the Ploughshares Fund gathering this month. "Use of any nuclear weapon, regardless of its killing power, could be catastrophically destabilizing."
Leading Democrats also have their sights on a new intercontinental ballistic missile that is under development as the future land-based leg of the nuclear triad. The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent is set to replace current ICBMs that are deployed in underground silos in Western states such as Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.
"The ICBM is where the debate will focus," predicted Mieke Eoyang, vice president of national security at Third Way, a centrist think tank, and a former aide on the House Intelligence Committee.
One key argument will be cost, she added.
"People make the case for all three legs of the triad, but when you look at the budget situation, the Pentagon is going to have to make some tough choices," Eoyang said in an interview. "The modernization of the triad is a big-ticket item that comes over and above what current Defense Department needs are — at a time when budget pressures are coming the other way."
Critics also argue that the ICBM has outlived its usefulness.
Perry, who served as Pentagon chief for President Bill Clinton, has argued that the land-based ICBM is the leg of the triad that is most prone to miscalculation and an accidental nuclear war. He said submarine- and aircraft-launched nuclear weapons would provide a sufficient deterrent on their own.
But not everyone thinks cutting one leg of the triad will be easy. They cite the political clout of defense contractors and their political supporters in both parties, including the so-called ICBM Caucus — especially in the Senate, which will remain under Republican control.
"They won't be able to take on the triad," warned former Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, who chaired the national security and foreign affairs panel of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.
But Tierney and others said the House can pursue other areas for reshaping nuclear policy — and force the Senate to take up their proposals.
One way is to revive legislation adopting a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, declaring that a president could not order the use of nuclear weapons without a declaration of war from Congress.
"We want to avoid the miscalculation of stumbling into a nuclear war," Smith said. "And this is where I think the No First Use Bill is incredibly important: to send that message that we do not view nuclear weapons as a tool in warfare."
The unfolding strategy will also rely on inserting new reporting requirements in defense legislation as a delaying tactic on some nuclear efforts or to compel the administration to reconsider its opposition to some arms control treaties.
While the president negotiates treaties and the Senate is vested with the constitutional authority to ratify them, the House also has some power to force the administration's hand.
Trump, citing Russian violations, has threatened to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that Reagan signed with the then-Soviet Union in 1987. He recently sent national security adviser John Bolton to Moscow to relay the message.
But critics say the landmark treaty, which banned land-based missiles with ranges from 50 to 5,500 kilometers, is still worth trying to salvage with the Russians. And Democrats can try to force the Trump administration to curtail plans for a new cruise missile that would match the Russians.
The Democrats can put the cruise missile "back on its heels," Tierney said. "Sometimes they can delay, sometimes defeat."
Democrats also worry that the Trump administration will opt to not renew the New START Treaty with Russia, which expires in early 2021. That pact, reached in 2010, mandates that each side can have no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons and requires regular inspections to ensure each side is complying.
Trump and his advisers "are opposed to multilateralism just based on principle," Smith told the crowd of arms control advocates. "That is John Bolton’s approach, that he doesn’t want to negotiate with the rest of the world, almost regardless of what it is that we negotiate."
But Kimball, who met recently with Smith, said Democrats have options on that front, too.
"If the Trump administration threatens to allow New START to expire in 2021, the Democrats are not under any obligation to fund the administration's request for nuclear weapons," Kimball said.
He pointed out that Obama secured bipartisan Senate support for ratifying the New START treaty in return for a pledge to increase spending on upgrading the nuclear arsenal and new missile defense systems. "That linkage works the other way, too," Kimball said.
What is clear is that the nuclear arms control crowd sees Smith as the best hope for change in many years.
"I don't think it is going to be easy, but we see a chance that we haven't seen in a long time to have a different path forward on nuclear weapons," said Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War, an antiwar group. "There isn't enough money available for the wild plans we had before, let alone Trump's new objectives."

The Small Horn Breaks from the Large Horn (Daniel 8)

ANALYSIS: Muqtada al-Sadr and rising tensions between Iran and Iraq

Moqtada al-Sadr addresses his supporters at the grand mosque of Kufa on September 21, 2018. (AFP)

 

By Michael Flanagan Thursday, 29 November 2018

 

Economic and political tensions are rising between Iran and Iraq. One of the major contributors is the souring of Muqtada al-Sadr’s personal relationship with Iran and, to a lesser extent, Iraq’s cooperation with the sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States this month.
One of the major contributors is the souring of Muqtada al-Sadr’s personal relationship with Iran and, to a lesser extent, Iraq’s cooperation with the sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States this month.

For much of his career as the leader of the Sadr Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr has had a very close relationship with the Iranian leadership – both political and religious. Al-Sadr rose to prominence opposing the Americans in Iraq after the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein. He has been their main operative in Iraq for much of the time since.

In the Iraqi national elections earlier this year, al-Sadr positioned himself as the champion of Iraqi nationalism and the candidate that would lead Iraq out from under everyone’s skirts and be truly independent and self-sufficient.

In a historically low turnout election boycotted by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis because of fears of corruption, al-Sadr was swept to victory by his loyal followers who voted by almost all by themselves.

After his surprise victory, the people were hopeful that his pre-election rhetoric would indicate what al-Sadr would actually do now that he was in legitimate power.

Sadly, the first thing al-Sadr did was to combine with the Iranian parties to form a coalition government. Together, these two factions enjoy a coalition that makes-up almost one half of parliament – almost enough to form a government apart from any other help.

Iran was delighted with the result and al-Sadr was their man in Baghdad – or so they thought. Before long, al-Sadr showed a few streaks of independence. He was (and almost certainly still is) willing to fully cooperate with Iran but now on his own terms and timetables, not Tehran’s.

Iran has balked and has further signaled to al-Sadr that he had better toe the line. To that end, Tehran has begun to independently fund Ahl al-Haq, the heretofore Sadrist militant arm. Now these militants work directly for Tehran and not al-Sadr.

After his surprise victory, the people were hopeful that his pre-election rhetoric would indicate what al-Sadr would actually do now that he was in legitimate power. (AFP)

Signals to Tehran

In response, al-Sadr has started a process of subtle signals to Tehran. Curiously, imports from Iran have been turned back at the Iraqi border crossings across Iraq. Dozens of shipments food stuffs and other comestibles have been rejected by the Iraqi inspectors as “substandard.”

This is unheard of and very new. Perhaps, Al-Sadr knows that the Iranian economy depends on regular and consistent sales to one of its largest trading partners, Iraq.

Further, Iranians have insisted on hard currency from Iraq to pay its light bill. Iraq buys electricity from Iranian power stations to supplement Iraq’s chronic electricity shortage. Unable to pay in dollars because of the US sanctions, Iraq offered its own currency (the dinar) as payment.

Iran refused and is insisting on Euros, at least. This situation is as of yet unresolved largely because al-Sadr may be tweaking the regime into both giving him the independence that he wants and the funding from Tehran he needs at the same time.

Other subtle signs of cracking in the long relationship are showing-up in other ways as well. The new Prime Minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, is trying very hard to finish the formulation of his government. The important ministries of Defense and Interior along with six others are still unfilled.

There was to be a vote on Monday on the slate offered by Abdul-Mahdi but it was postponed by leadership. The candidate for the Interior is the former leader of the Public Mobilization Force (PMF). The PMF was the military arm of the successful fight against ISIS in Iraq.

Moqtada al-Sadr (L) during a news conference with Iraqi prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in Baghdad on May 20, 2018. (Iraqi Prime Minister Media Office/Handout via Reuters)

‘Totally independent’

Since those victories, the PMF has been entirely infiltrated by Iranian influence and is currently serving Iran’s needs on the borders rather than Iraq’s. Recent tweets by this leader reflect that he wishes be “totally independent from the government” (that is widely interpreted to mean, ‘serving Tehran instead’).

The PMF figures prominently into the friction. It is the PMF that facilitates this action by its control of the Syrian and Iranian border crossings into and out of Iraq in the North – where Iranian movement of oil, money and other necessities takes place to and from Damascus.

As observed by the State Department in imposing sanctions against Iran earlier this month, “The United States sanctioned an international network by which the Iranian regime and Russia are providing millions of barrels of oil to the Assad regime in exchange for the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, and for onward transfer to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezballah.”

With his objections to the PMF leader taking over the Ministry of the Interior, al-Sadr signaled to Iran that Iranian influence in Iraq must be filtered through him and not independently through some other, well-placed minister in Iraq.

As the Iranian economy continues to spiral downward, the Iranian rial becomes worth less and less each day. Understanding this, al-Sadr is turning the screws on his Iranian patrons to give him more leash. For now, if Iran wants to continue to exert influence over Iraq through al-Sadr, they may have to see it his way.

However, Tehran and al-Sadr have resisted any outward detente, of any sort.

Last Update: Thursday, 29 November 2018 KSA 08:47 - GMT 05:47

Babylon the Great Withdraws from Nuclear Treaty

US makes case for withdrawal from missile treaty with Russia
Maria Danilova, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Russia has for years been developing, testing and deploying a missile that violates a landmark nuclear weapons treaty, a senior White House official said Tuesday, making a case for the administration’s planned withdrawal from the accord ahead of a scheduled meeting between the leaders of the two nations.
The nuclear-capable missile, the official said, can reach over 300 miles (500 kilometers), in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was signed amid Cold War hostilities in 1987 and which the Trump administration is now seeking to exit.
Russia developed the weapon between 2000 to 2010 and completed testing by 2015, the official said. But when questioned about it in recent years, Moscow officials have denied violating the treaty and demanded to know how the U.S. detected the apparent violation, the official said.
The official said the Trump administration believes it was Russia's intention to keep the U.S. constrained by the treaty while they developed and deployed the illegal missiles that threaten Europe. The official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive foreign policy issue.
The future of the treaty is likely to come up this week when President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 Summit in Argentina. Administration officials have said it is time to withdraw from an accord that is outdated, has prevented the U.S. from developing new weapons and has already been violated with this Russian missile, the 9M729.
It comes amid heightened tensions between the two countries. Trump suggested Tuesday in an interview with The Washington Post that he may cancel the sit-down with Putin over Russia’s seizure of three Ukrainian naval ships last weekend.
Russia has denied that it has violated the treaty, saying the 9M729 has not been tested for the range that would make it prohibited. Moscow has also alleged the United States has also breached the accord.
Putin has warned that a U.S. decision to withdraw from the treaty would destabilize Europe and prompt Russia to "respond in kind." On Monday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated that position.
"We won't be able to turn a blind eye to the potential deployment of new U.S. missiles on the territories where they may threaten Russia," Ryabkov said.
The senior U.S. official said the administration, which is seeking support for withdrawal from NATO allies, can still reverse its plan to pull out if Russia acknowledges its violations and takes corrective steps.

Hospitals Overwhelmed by Nations Trampling (Revelation 11:2)

FILE - In this Friday, Sept. 14, 2018, file, photo, a Palestinian receives medical attention in a hospital after being injured during a protest at the Gaza Strip's border with Israel, east of Gaza City. A medical aid group says Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018 that the vast number of patients treated for gunshot wounds from months of violent border protests have overwhelmed Gaza’s health care system. Doctors Without Borders says that thousands are in danger of infection and disability because Gaza hospitals cannot adequately treat them. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana, File)
Aid group: Gaza hospitals overwhelmed by wounded in violence
Associated Press
November 29, 2018, 9:52 AM GMT
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — A medical aid group says the vast number of patients treated for gunshot wounds from months of violent border protests have overwhelmed Gaza's health care system.
Doctors Without Borders says that thousands are in danger of infection and disability because Gaza hospitals cannot adequately treat them.
Gaza's militant Hamas rulers have been organizing weekly border protests since March in which demonstrators approach the border fence, throwing firebombs at Israeli troops and burning tires.
Israeli snipers have killed about 170 people and wounded thousands.
MSF, as the aid group is known after its French acronym, says most of the 3,000 patients it has treated were shot in the legs, with about a quarter suffering from infections. If left untreated, they can lead to lifelong disabilities or limb amputations.

Iran Prepares for World War

Khamenei calls on army to increase its capability
Iran should increase its military capability and readiness to ward off enemies, the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Wednesday.
His comments came in a meeting with Iranian navy commanders, Reuters reported, citing Khamenei’s official website.
“Increase your capability and readiness as much as you can so Iran’s enemies will not even dare threaten these great people,” Khamenei said, though he also stressed, “The Islamic Republic does not intend to start war with anyone.”
The Supreme Leader has upped his rhetoric in recent days. On Sunday, Khamenei took to Twitter where he belittled Israel and asserted that it “is clearly weaker than 10, 20 years ago.”
On Monday, he took to Twitter again to blast both Israel and the US.
“Today, to hell with the US and Zionist regime for threatening the Iranian nation. Their threats and atrocities have so far failed and will continue to fail; the sanctions will also be defeated by the grace of resistance,” he wrote.
While his comments on Wednesday’s do not mention a specific “enemy”, Reuters noted that tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia have increased in recent months as both countries compete for power and influence across the region.
The two countries support opposite sides in conflicts in Syria and Yemen and different political factions in Iraq and Lebanon.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly called on Iran to stop its “meddling” in the affairs of the kingdom's neighbors.
Iran has fired back, accusing Saudi Arabia of trying to “drag the entire region into confrontation”.
Last Friday, Iran's Revolutionary Guards detained a Saudi Arabian fishing boat and arrested its crew.

Indian Point is NOT radiologically ready for the Sixth Seal

With Indian Point, are you radiologically ready?
By Thomas Slater Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
August 23rd, 2018 | News, News and Features
Just as there are plans in place for dealing with natural emergencies such as tropical and winter storms, readiness plans are developed for man-made emergencies, which includes radiological hazards.
Nuclear power plants operate in most states in the country and produce about 20 percent of the nation’s power.
Nearly three million people live within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone of an operating nuclear power plant, including West Point, which is situated between 7-to-9 miles from the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) in Buchanan of Westchester County.
Although the construction and operation of nuclear power plants are closely monitored and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, incidents at these plants are possible—and planned for.
If an accident at IPEC were to result in the potential or actual release of radiation, warning sirens in the area would be activated. Commercial and West Point media sources would broadcast Emergency Alert System  messages to advise you on protective measures.
Depending upon the scope and scale of the emergency, protective actions may include “shelter-in-place” or “evacuation” advisories. As radioactive materials rapidly decay and dissipate with distance, the most likely scenario for West Point personnel would be to take shelter rather than trying to evacuate.
If you are instructed to shelter-in-place, the following steps will keep you and your family safe during the emergency.
• Shelter. Go inside your home or the nearest building; choose an inside room with as few windows or doors as possible.
• Shut. Shut and lock all windows and doors to create a better seal; turn off heating or cooling ventilation systems. If at home, make sure the fireplace damper and all ventilation fans are closed.
• Listen. Local officials are your best source of information. If in an office, monitor your computer, television and phones; if at home, listen to your radio or television until you are told it is safe to leave the shelter or to evacuate.
For more details, consult the Orange County Indian Point Emergency Guide, available at https://www.orangecountygov.com/DocumentCenter/View/2368/Indian-Point-Orange-Emergency-Guide-PDF, or call the West Point Emergency Manager at 845-938-7092.
Readiness, through education and preparation, is the best defense. Are you radiological ready?

Iran Nuclear Horn Promises Ominous Consequences (Daniel 8:4)

Iran Nuclear Chief to EU: 'Ominous' Consequences If Deal Breaks Down
Monday, 26 Nov 2018 6:39 AM
Iran's nuclear chief warned the European Union of ominous consequences on Monday if it did not follow through with action to keep the economic benefits of the 2015 nuclear agreement alive.
The EU hosted the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, at a seminar on nuclear cooperation aimed at showing its continuing support for the deal after U.S. sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports resumed this month.
The EU and other remaining signatories to the accord hope to convince Tehran to respect the curbs that the deal placed on its nuclear program even though Washington has pulled out, depriving Iran of many of the economic benefits.
"If words are not turned into deeds, then ... it is very ominous, the situation would be unpredictable," Salehi told reporters at the conference.
Salehi, however, said he believed the EU was "doing its best" and was on its way to delivering on its promises.
EU efforts to salvage trade relations with Tehran, including by establishing a special mechanism for non-dollar transactions, have been floundering.
The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) would act as a kind of clearing house that could be used to help match Iranian oil and gas exports against purchases of EU goods in an effective barter arrangement. However, no EU country has come forward as a potential host - delaying the plans.
"Nobody should have any doubt on the level of political ambition and determination by the member states involved, in particular France, Germany and the United Kingdom to swiftly operationalise the SPV," Europe's Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said at a joint news briefing.
"This is a hugely complex and unique undertaking, technical work has been advancing over the last days and weeks."
© 2018 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved

Antichrist demands swift government formation

Iraqi cleric Moqtada Al Sadr. Reuters.
Sadr demands swift government formation, urging fresh nominations for key posts
Parliament postpones vote on key ministerial portfolios until next Tuesday
Mina Aldroubi
Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr called on Tuesday for the swift formation of a government, following a turbulent month of widening political rifts over key ministerial posts.
Lawmakers last month confirmed 14 out of the 22 posts that Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi initially presented. Yet, eight ministers, including the key defence and interior posts, remain vacant.
Parliament was initially set to vote on the remaining ministers earlier this month but the vote was continuously delayed due to disagreements over nominees.
Mr Al Sadr said that he will not approve any candidate that is affiliated to the country’s political elite.
“I urge the prime minister to quickly fill the cabinet posts that are still vacant, except for the defence and interior position,” the cleric said on Twitter.
The cleric said that he will only support independent candidates for the key posts. He proposed that the premier must choose military candidates who led Iraq’s three-year battle against ISIS.
Earlier reports had suggested that Mr Al Sadr has pressured the parliament to postpone its vote due to internal differences over who should be selected.
“I am not the cause for the delay of the cabinet formation but of its postponement,” Mr Al Sadr said.
The influential cleric's statement comes as Iraq’s parliament delayed a session initially scheduled for Tuesday, November 27, until next week to approve the remaining eight candidates for Mr Abdul Mahdi’s cabinet.
The premier was appointed to his position in early October to form a ‘technocratic’ cabinet but political jockeying has intensified in recent weeks as competing regional patrons vie for influence.
Parliament's session is officially postponed to next Tuesday.
"This is a bad start for the prime minister, which proves his weakness," Sarkawt Shams, an MP in Baghdad for the New Generation party said on Twitter.
Sunni groups in parliament are not agreeing on which candidate to nominate for the post of defence minister.
Meanwhile, Mr Al Sadr has rejected the premier's nomination of Falah Al Fayyad, former national security adviser, for the post of interior minister.
“We are seeing a situation where the premier has promised a technocratic government that wasn’t going to be beholden to political party leaders and yet he has put in names such as Fuad Hussein as minister of finance and others which is seen as a problem,” Michael Rubin, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute told The National.
“The way that horse trading occurs in Iraqi politics is there no accountability for party leaders because it’s the same leaders that distribute the patronage,” Mr Rubin said.
Mr Abdel Mahdi’s new government will not only deal with the daunting task of rebuilding the war-torn country after a devastating war against ISIS, but he will need to solve the country’s economic crisis, power and water shortages as well as tackle unemployment.
An attempt to heal ethnic and sectarian tensions will also be challenging for Mr Abdul Mahdi.

The Fight With Hamas Outside The Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

The Only Effective Option for Stopping Hamas Is Off the Table—For Now
NOV. 27 2018
By the time the second intifada began in 2001, Hamas and Fatah had built up a powerful terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank; only by reoccupying the territory did Israel succeed in putting an end to Palestinian attacks. Likewise, argues Evelyn Gordon, the only way to end Hamas’s rocket fire and other attacks would be to reoccupy the Gaza Strip—at a price that few Israelis today are willing to pay:
[Reoccupying] Gaza would have very high costs—in soldiers’ lives, in international opprobrium, and possibly in saddling Israel with responsibility for Gaza’s civilian problems. . . . No democracy could undertake such a costly plan without widespread public support, but especially not Israel, because any major military operation requires a massive call-up of reservists, and Israeli reservists tend to vote with their feet. They’ll show up in droves for an operation with broad support, but an operation widely considered unjustified will spark major protests. . . .
But with the option of reoccupying Gaza unavailable, the two main options left are both short-term fixes. One is a smaller-scale military operation. The last such operation, in 2014, bought Israel’s south three-and-a-half years of almost total quiet, but at a price (for Israel) of 72 dead and massive international opprobrium. Another such operation might buy a similar period of calm, but at a similar or even higher cost. And it would have to be repeated again in another few years, by which time Hamas may be better armed and capable of exacting an even higher price.
The second option, which [Prime Minister] Netanyahu evidently favors, is to negotiate a long-term ceasefire. This might buy a similar period of quiet, though since it hasn’t been tried before, there’s no guarantee. And it has several obvious advantages: no deaths, no international opprobrium, and most likely, greater support within Israel (though, judging by past experience, not abroad) for a more forceful response once the ceasefire collapses, as it will at some point.
But this option also has some obvious downsides. First, it’s devastating to Israeli deterrence, since it shows that firing rockets is a good way to get Israel to capitulate to your demands. Second, it ensures that when the inevitable next round arrives, Hamas will be able to inflict much more damage than it could today. . . . Either of these options would only postpone the inevitable: barring a miracle, Hamas will eventually become overconfident and cause Israel enough anguish to provoke it to reoccupy Gaza.

The Danger of the Merchant of Merchants (Revelation 16)

America’s greatest danger: Nuclear war decision-making by Donald Trump
GREG NASH
BY LOUIS RENÉ BERES, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
An inappropriate or irrational nuclear command decision by President Donald Trump is plainly conceivable. Nothing accurate can ever be said about the true probability of such a scenario, but it is not an unfounded worry.
Might this American president become subject to various forms of psychological debility? On 14 March 1976, in response to my specific query, I received a letter from General (USA/ret.) Maxwell Taylor, a former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, concerning nuclear risks of U.S. presidential decisional irrationality. Most noteworthy, in this handwritten response, is the straightforward warning contained in the closing paragraph. Ideally, cautioned Taylor, presidential irrationality is a problem that should be dealt with during an election, and not later on: "As to dangers arising from an irrational American president, the best protection is not to elect one."
There are assorted structural protections built into any presidential order to use nuclear weapons, including substantial redundancy. Nonetheless, virtually all of these reassuring and mutually reinforcing safeguards could become operative only at the lower or sub-presidential nuclear command levels.
The safeguards do not apply to the Commander-in-Chief.
This means there likely exist no permissible legal grounds to disobey any presidential order to use nuclear weapons. In principle, certain very senior individuals in the designated military chain of command could sometime choose to invoke applicable "Nuremberg Obligations," but any such last-minute invocation would almost surely need to yield to considerations of U.S. domestic law.
Should an American president operating within a bewildering chaos of his own making issue an irrational or seemingly irrational nuclear command, the only way for the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the National Security Adviser, and several possible others to effectively obstruct this order would be illegal "on its face." Under the very best of circumstances, such informal safeguards might somehow manage to work for a time, but accepting the unrealistic assumption of "best case scenario" is hardly a rational or sensible path to nuclear security.
It follows that we Americans ought to ask for more predictable and promising institutional impediments to any debilitated president.
The United States is already navigating in uncharted waters.
While President Kennedy did engage in personal nuclear brinkmanship with the Soviet Union back in October 1962, he had calculated his own odds of a consequent nuclear war as "between one out of three and even." This seemingly precise calculation, corroborated both by JFK biographer Theodore Sorensen, and by my own later private conversations with former JCS Chair Admiral Arleigh Burke (my colleague and roommate at the Naval Academy's Foreign Affairs Conference of 1977) suggests that President Kennedy was either irrational in imposing his Cuban "quarantine" or that he was wittingly acting out certain untested principles of "pretended irrationality."
JFK operated with serious and manifestly capable strategic advisors.
The most urgent threat of a mistaken or irrational presidential order to use nuclear weapons flows not from any "bolt-from-the-blue" nuclear attack - whether Russian, North Korean, or American - but from an uncontrollable escalatory process. Back in 1962, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev "blinked" early on in the "game," thereby preventing mutual and irrecoverable nuclear harms. Now, however, any escalatory initiatives undertaken by President Trump could express very unstable decision-making processes.
Donald Trump should understand the unprecedented risks of being locked into an escalatory dynamic. Although this president might be well advised to seek escalation dominance in selected crisis negotiations with determined adversaries, he would also need to avoid catastrophic miscalculations.
Whether we like it or not, and at one time or another, nuclear strategy is a bewildering game that President Donald Trump will have to play. To best ensure that this easily-distracted president's strategic moves will be rational, thoughtful, and cumulatively cost-effective, it will first be necessary to enhance the formal decisional authority of his most senior military and defense subordinates.
At a minimum, the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Advisor, and one or two others in appropriate nuclear command positions should immediately prepare to assume more broadly collaborative and secure judgments in extremis atomicum.
The only time for clarifying such indispensable preparations is now.
Louis René Beres, Ph.D. Princeton, is emeritus professor of international law at Purdue University. He is the author of 12 books and several hundred articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war. His newest book is "Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel's Nuclear Strategy" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed. 2018)

The Sixth Seal Will be in New York (Rev 6:12)

Earthquakes Can Happen in More Places Than You Think
By Simon Worrall
PUBLISHED AUGUST 26, 2017
Half a million earthquakes occur worldwide each year, according to an estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Most are too small to rattle your teacup. But some, like the 2011 quake off the coast of Japan or last year’s disaster in Italy, can level high-rise buildings, knock out power, water and communications, and leave a lifelong legacy of trauma for those unlucky enough to be caught in them.
In the U.S., the focus is on California’s San Andreas fault, which geologists suggest has a nearly one-in-five chance of causing a major earthquake in the next three decades. But it’s not just the faults we know about that should concern us, says Kathryn Miles, author of Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next Devastating Earthquake. As she explained when National Geographic caught up with her at her home in Portland, Maine, there’s a much larger number of faults we don’t know about—and fracking is only adding to the risks.
When it comes to earthquakes, there is really only one question everyone wants to know: When will the big one hit California?
That’s the question seismologists wish they could answer, too! One of the most shocking and surprising things for me is just how little is actually known about this natural phenomenon. The geophysicists, seismologists, and emergency managers that I spoke with are the first to say, “We just don’t know!”
What we can say is that it is relatively certain that a major earthquake will happen in California in our lifetime. We don’t know where or when. An earthquake happening east of San Diego out in the desert is going to have hugely different effects than that same earthquake happening in, say, Los Angeles. They’re both possible, both likely, but we just don’t know.
One of the things that’s important to understand about San Andreas is that it’s a fault zone. As laypeople we tend to think about it as this single crack that runs through California and if it cracks enough it’s going to dump the state into the ocean. But that’s not what’s happening here. San Andreas is a huge fault zone, which goes through very different types of geological features. As a result, very different types of earthquakes can happen in different places.
There are other places around the country that are also well overdue for an earthquake. New York City has historically had a moderate earthquake approximately every 100 years. If that is to be trusted, any moment now there will be another one, which will be devastating for that city.
As Charles Richter, inventor of the Richter Scale, famously said, “Only fools, liars and charlatans predict earthquakes.” Why are earthquakes so hard to predict? After all, we have sent rockets into space and plumbed the depths of the ocean.
You’re right: We know far more about distant galaxies than we do about the inner workings of our planet. The problem is that seismologists can’t study an earthquake because they don’t know when or where it’s going to happen. It could happen six miles underground or six miles under the ocean, in which case they can’t even witness it. They can go back and do forensic, post-mortem work. But we still don’t know where most faults lie. We only know where a fault is after an earthquake has occurred. If you look at the last 100 years of major earthquakes in the U.S., they’ve all happened on faults we didn’t even know existed.
Earthquakes 101
Earthquakes are unpredictable and can strike with enough force to bring buildings down. Find out what causes earthquakes, why they’re so deadly, and what’s being done to help buildings sustain their hits.
Fracking is a relatively new industry. Many people believe that it can cause what are known as induced earthquakes. What’s the scientific consensus?
The scientific consensus is that a practice known as wastewater injection undeniably causes earthquakes when the geological features are conducive. In the fracking process, water and lubricants are injected into the earth to split open the rock, so oil and natural gas can be retrieved. As this happens, wastewater is also retrieved and brought back to the surface.
You Might Also Like
Different states deal with this in different ways. Some states, like Pennsylvania, favor letting the wastewater settle in aboveground pools, which can cause run-off contamination of drinking supplies. Other states, like Oklahoma, have chosen to re-inject the water into the ground. And what we’re seeing in Oklahoma is that this injection is enough to shift the pressure inside the earth’s core, so that daily earthquakes are happening in communities like Stillwater. As our technology improves, and both our ability and need to extract more resources from the earth increases, our risk of causing earthquakes will also rise exponentially.
After Fukushima, the idea of storing nuclear waste underground cannot be guaranteed to be safe. Yet President Trump has recently green-lighted new funds for the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Is that wise?
The issue with Fukushima was not about underground nuclear storage but it is relevant. The Tohoku earthquake, off the coast of Japan, was a massive, 9.0 earthquake—so big that it shifted the axis of the earth and moved the entire island of Japan some eight centimeters! It also created a series of tsunamis, which swamped the Fukushima nuclear power plant to a degree the designers did not believe was possible.
Here in the U.S., we have nuclear plants that are also potentially vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis, above all on the East Coast, like Pilgrim Nuclear, south of Boston, or Indian Point, north of New York City. Both of these have been deemed by the USGS to have an unacceptable level of seismic risk. [Both are scheduled to close in the next few years.]
Yucca Mountain is meant to address our need to store the huge amounts of nuclear waste that have been accumulating for more than 40 years. Problem number one is getting it out of these plants. We are going to have to somehow truck or train these spent fuel rods from, say, Boston, to a place like Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. On the way it will have to go through multiple earthquake zones, including New Madrid, which is widely considered to be one of the country’s most dangerous earthquake zones.
Yucca Mountain itself has had seismic activity. Ultimately, there’s no great place to put nuclear waste—and there’s no guarantee that where we do put it is going to be safe.
The psychological and emotional effects of an earthquake are especially harrowing. Why is that?
This is a fascinating and newly emerging subfield within psychology, which looks at the effects of natural disasters on both our individual and collective psyches. Whenever you experience significant trauma, you’re going to see a huge increase in PTSD, anxiety, depression, suicide, and even violent behaviors.
What seems to make earthquakes particularly pernicious is the surprise factor. A tornado will usually give people a few minutes, if not longer, to prepare; same thing with hurricanes. But that doesn’t happen with an earthquake. There is nothing but profound surprise. And the idea that the bedrock we walk and sleep upon can somehow become liquid and mobile seems to be really difficult for us to get our heads around.
Psychologists think that there are two things happening. One is a PTSD-type loop where our brain replays the trauma again and again, manifesting itself in dreams or panic attacks during the day. But there also appears to be a physiological effect as well as a psychological one. If your readers have ever been at sea for some time and then get off the ship and try to walk on dry land, they know they will look like drunkards. [Laughs] The reason for this is that the inner ear has habituated itself to the motion of the ship. We think the inner ear does something similar in the case of earthquakes, in an attempt to make sense of this strange, jarring movement.
After the Abruzzo quake in Italy, seven seismologists were actually tried and sentenced to six years in jail for failing to predict the disaster. Wouldn’t a similar threat help improve the prediction skills of American seismologists?
[Laughs] The scientific community was uniform in denouncing that action by the Italian government because, right now, earthquakes are impossible to predict. But the question of culpability is an important one. To what degree do we want to hold anyone responsible? Do we want to hold the local meteorologist responsible if he gets the weather forecast wrong? [Laughs]
What scientists say—and I don’t think this is a dodge on their parts—is, “Predicting earthquakes is the Holy Grail; it’s not going to happen in our lifetime. It may never happen.” What we can do is work on early warning systems, where we can at least give people 30 or 90 seconds to make a few quick decisive moves that could well save your life. We have failed to do that. But Mexico has had one in place for years!
There is some evidence that animals can predict earthquakes. Is there any truth to these theories?
All we know right now is anecdotal information because this is so hard to test for. We don’t know where the next earthquake is going to be so we can’t necessarily set up cameras and observe the animals there. So we have to rely on these anecdotal reports, say, of reptiles coming out of the ground prior to a quake. The one thing that was recorded here in the U.S. recently was that in the seconds before an earthquake in Oklahoma huge flocks of birds took flight. Was that coincidence? Related? We can’t draw that correlation yet.
One of the fascinating new approaches to prediction is the MyQuake app. Tell us how it works—and why it could be an especially good solution for Third World countries.
The USGS desperately wants to have it funded. The reluctance appears to be from Congress. A consortium of universities, in conjunction with the USGS, has been working on some fascinating tools. One is a dense network of seismographs that feed into a mainframe computer, which can take all the information and within nanoseconds understand that an earthquake is starting.
MyQuake is an app where you can get up to date information on what’s happening around the world. What’s fascinating is that our phones can also serve as seismographs. The same technology that knows which way your phone is facing, and whether it should show us an image in portrait or landscape, registers other kinds of movement. Scientists at UC Berkeley are looking to see if they can crowd source that information so that in places where we don’t have a lot of seismographs or measuring instruments, like New York City or Chicago or developing countries like Nepal, we can use smart phones both to record quakes and to send out early warning notices to people.
You traveled all over the U.S. for your research. Did you return home feeling safer?
I do not feel safer in the sense that I had no idea just how much risk regions of this country face on a daily basis when it comes to seismic hazards. We tend to think of this as a West Coast problem but it’s not! It’s a New York, Memphis, Seattle, or Phoenix problem. Nearly every major urban center in this country is at risk of a measurable earthquake.
What I do feel safer about is knowing what I can do as an individual. I hope that is a major take-home message for people who read the book. There are so many things we should be doing as individuals, family members, or communities to minimize this risk: simple things from having a go-bag and an emergency plan amongst the family to larger things like building codes.
We know that a major earthquake is going to happen. It’s probably going to knock out our communications lines. Phones aren’t going to work, Wi-Fi is going to go down, first responders are not going to be able to get to people for quite some time. So it is beholden on all of us to make sure we can survive until help can get to us.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.

The Saudi Nuclear Horn Courtesy of Trump (Daniel 7)

The Crown Prince May Build Himself a Nuclear Kingdom
The horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi shed light on the reckless and dangerous decisionmaking process of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MbS). In addition to the latest crisis The New York Times recently published a story about how the prince’s closest security personnel sought to hire private foreign companies to assassinate senior Iranian officials—an act that could have trigger a regional military conflict. This conduct follows a string of other bizarre events in the last few months, initiated by MbS.
The crown prince has demonstrated arrogant, cruel, amateur and capricious behavior. His aggression has been left almost unmonitored by checks and balances inside the Saudi hierarchy. Indeed, MbS has constrained all his potential rivals and has taken full control of Saudi Arabia’s security and intelligence bodies. As the Khashoggi scandal has proven—such power enables dictators to secretly execute dangerous operations. In parallel, he managed to become the darling of the West after he initiated economic reforms and launched his so called modern 2030 vision .
Now add Saudi’s long history of nuclear ambitions to the mix. For years, Saudi officials have warned that Saudi Arabia will not curb its nuclear ambitions if it will sense a threat to its national security, or if Iran advances in its nuclear program. Rumors were that Pakistan was obliged to provide the Saudis a ready-for-use nuclear weapon if and when the time comes. Things only got more complicated once the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) with Iran was signed in 2015, practically legitimizing Iran’s rights to maintain and develop its uranium enrichment capabilities. At the beginning of November 2018, the crown prince participated in the opening ceremony marking the launch of construction of Riyadh’s first research reactor . It’s still early days and only a symbolic act—the Saudis lack knowhow, technicians, infrastructure and academic expertise—but the country has both enough ambition and funds to advance anyway. Shortly after that the Saudi energy minister said the kingdom launches uranium exploration program.
Over the last decade, purchasing sixteen nuclear power reactors—later scaled back to two reactors—plus uranium enrichment capabilities preferably from the United States, has featured prominently on the Saudi agenda. The official rationale is the country’s future needs to supply energy —with self-sufficient nuclear materials. While having enrichment capabilities can serve to counterbalance Iran, it may also constitute a future military nuclear program. During previous negotiations with Saudi officials, the Obama administration insisted that Saudi Arabia must comply with the “ gold standard ,” reflective of the conditions imposed on the UAE when it agreed to buy U.S. reactors in 2009. This standard requires a commitment not to enrich uranium or to produce plutonium as a strict condition for any agreement to sell nuclear reactors. According to current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration has maintained this policy . In an interview with CBS in March 2018, MbS maintained that “without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we would follow suit as soon as possible.”
Following the murder of Khashoggi, Senate members urged the Trump administration to curb any intention to sell nuclear reactors to the Saudi regime. This move is certainly necessary, but not nearly enough. An American refusal to his demands can push the prince to seek an alternative option elsewhere, with producers that will be all too happy to assist—for the right price.
Much of MbS’s current conduct lies parallel to previous experience with three other Middle East tyrants: former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, Libya’s leader Muammar el-Qaddafi, and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. These cynical dictators have a common denominator in their infinite ambitions, which ultimately led them to secretly promote a nuclear weapons program. They all relied heavily on their security systems in initiating these plans. Libya and Syria had no sufficient nuclear infrastructure, so they bought a turnkey nuclear project from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan Network, and in the Syrian case from North Korea .
The Saudi nuclear issue has placed a challenge before the administration. If the prince is successful in surviving the current crisis, then that could prompt him to make even riskier decisions, including taking the nuclear path. Much like in Iraq, Libya and Syria, all the necessary components for that are now in place: A de facto dictator with delusions of grandeur and poor judgment, full control over the security services, unlimited funds for the purpose, a national sense of isolation, an acute threat, and a long-term nuclear vision. As Iran seems to be complying with the JCPOA, a Saudi move could instigate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. To avoid this, the Trump administration should warn and restrict the Saudi heir. It should also keep a very close eye on Saudi Arabia’s nuclear connections and activities.
Ronen Dangoor is the former deputy head of the research and analysis division at the Israeli prime minister’s office.
Image: Reuters

Israel Continues to Trample Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

Israeli Military Drills Commence in West Bank and Gaza
27 Nov
7:51 PM
The Israeli occupation army, on Tuesday afternoon, began military training at the Zikim military point, near the Gaza shore north of Beit Lahiya, where Gazans could hear the sound of explosions and the movement of active army forces.
Israeli Channel 7 said that, in the evening, the army will begin another training in the settlements of Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim, and the training will end on Wednesday afternoon.
PNN reports that, according to the army spokesman, training is part of the 2018 plan aimed at “maintaining the readiness of troops in times of emergency.”

Two days ago, Israeli forces started training combatants in a 10 day intensive program that sees soldiers training  under the pretext of readying the soldiers for combat in an imminent “war” against Gaza and Lebanon, at the same time.
The Israeli commando brigade, formed in 2015, has seen several training exercises where soldiers are being prepared to attack under what they call “perceived challenge” or threat.
Working with the air force, the indoctrination training serves as a tool resulting in the army legitimizing the use of military action against “any enemy in any area”.

Too Little too Late Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Evening Security Drill At Indian Point Tuesday | Peekskill-Cortlandt, NY Patch
By Lanning Taliaferro | Nov 27, 2018 3:09 pm ET
Don't be alarmed by the fake gunfire. The special gear duplicates the effects, including sound, of live ammunition.
By Lanning Taliaferro | Nov 27, 2018 3:09 pm ET
CORTLANDT, NY — Entergy will be conducting security exercises at the Indian Point Energy Center during the evening Tuesday using weapons that simulate the sound of actual gunfire. During the exercises, anyone near the site may hear the sound of simulated gunfire.
Local law enforcement has been notified about the drills.
Entergy will be using a technical innovation for the exercise known as “MILES” gear, or Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement Systems. These systems involve the use of laser “bullets” and vests with laser-detection equipment, which duplicate the effects, including the sound, of live ammunition. MILES gear is used for military and counter-terrorism training across the country to make it as realistic as possible without using real bullets.
Indian Point Energy Center, in Buchanan, N.Y., is home to two operating nuclear power plants that generate approximately 2000 megawatts of electricity for homes, business and public facilities in New York City and Westchester County. They are slated to close permanently by 2022.

Antichrist Controls the New Iraq Government

Sadr demands impartial candidates for coveted posts of defense, interior minister
Influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who led the Sairoon Coalition to victory in the May 12 election, demanded the first session of parliament to resume on Oct. 7, 2018. (Photo: Archive)
ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – Influential Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Tuesday stated he would only accept independent nominees for the ministerial posts of defense and interior in Baghdad after parliament delayed another session at which the question was to be settled.
In late October, the Iraqi Parliament gave its vote of confidence to 14 ministers. The rest were due to be voted in early November but has been repeatedly delayed as leading coalitions continue to contest the two posts vital to the country’s security.
“O’ my people, I am not the cause of delaying the conclusion of the government formation but that of postponing their schemes,” Sadr said in a tweet, in an apparent response to reports claiming otherwise.
“I will not accept a minister of defense or interior [who is politically] affiliated,” stated Sadr, who is the leader of the Reform and Reconstruction parliamentary bloc.
Sadr’s statement comes a day after parliament postponed by a week its Tuesday session, scheduled to resolve the vote on the vacant ministerial portfolios.
In the meantime, the populist cleric suggested to Iraqi Prime Minister, Adil Abdu-Mahdi, to present to lawmakers his nominees for the rest of his cabinet, excluding those of defense and interior who would be voted on a later date.
He added that the PM should choose among “candidates that were previously great leaders who freed invaded lands from the hands of the cursed Da’esh [Islamic State (IS)] without intervention from any party or side.”
“Our neighbors are our friends, not our masters,” he added, referring to rumors of interference by regional powers, notably Iran, in the selection of ministers.
In addition to defense and interior, vacant posts include the ministers of planning, higher education, immigration, culture, and justice.
A parliamentary source on Tuesday told Kurdistan 24 that a further delay is expected unless the lawmakers receive the CVs of the PM’s candidates well before the session to have “sufficient time for review.”
Editing by Nadia Riva

Militia Leader Urges Security Role for Antichrist's Men (Rev 13:18)

Iraq Militia Leader Urges Formal Border Security Role for Shi'ite Fighters
Qais al-Khazali, leader of the militant group Asaib Ahl al-Haq, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Najaf, Iraq November 24, 2018. Picture taken November 24, 2018. REUTERS/Alaa al-Marjani
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - The head of a powerful Iraqi militia wants a formal role for Shi'ite paramilitaries in securing the border with Syria, a move that could deepen U.S. worries about Iran's growing sway over a strategic corridor of territory from Tehran to Beirut.
Iraq's Shi'ite militias, many of which are supported by Iran and oppose the presence of U.S. troops in the region, have sent reinforcements to the frontier after fighting flared between U.S.-backed Kurdish forces and Islamic State militants on the Syrian side.
Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq, urged the government to provide a more formal, long-term border protection role for the militias.
"Securing Iraq's borders with Syria is among the most important duties of the Popular Mobilization Forces right now," he said in an interview with Reuters at his office in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf on Saturday.
"The Daesh (IS) threat against Iraq won't end as long as Syria is unstable. The PMF proved it is the military side most capable of dealing with Daesh ... maybe the armed forces can invest the PMF in duties that include border security," Khazali said.
Asaib Ahl al-Haq is part of the PMF, an umbrella grouping of mostly Iran-backed and trained Shi'ite paramilitary groups. The PMF was made formally part of the security forces this year after helping the military defeat Islamic State in Iraq in 2017.
It remains separate from the military and police, however, raising questions over whom the militias will answer to and what their exact role will be if they are fully integrated into Iraq's security structure.
Khazali said paramilitary commanders should retain leadership positions and that "the government needs to provide bases and weapons depots."
The growing presence of Iran-backed militias on the frontier has caused tensions with Washington, which has special forces on the Syrian side to back Kurdish-led fighters battling IS.
A formal PMF border role would exacerbate that friction as Washington seeks to counter Iran's sway over territory stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean via Iraq and Syria. Iran's allies in that territory include Iraqi and Lebanese fighters and politicians, and Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.
The risks of having Shi'ite fighters and U.S. forces in close proximity were laid bare in July when the PMF vowed to "not be quiet" over an alleged U.S. air strike it said killed 22 of its members inside Syria.
The United States denied involvement in the strike.
The Iraqi military, which Washington supports, is deployed along the frontier, but PMF leaders have said they are taking the lead in securing it, including around the town of al-Qaim which borders Syria's Deir al-Zor province.
"The border was not secure before. Our operations have fixed that completely," a senior PMF commander said in October.
Iraq's military relied on the PMF support to defeat IS. It says the militias are now crucial to securing the sprawling Syrian border.
Iraqi Sunni and Kurdish politicians have called for disarming the PMF. They say the militias are responsible for widespread abuses including extra-judicial killings and displacing non-Shi'ite populations, and in effect report to Tehran, not the government in Baghdad.
The PMF says any abuses were isolated incidents and not systematic and that those who committed them have been punished.
U.S. TROOP PRESENCE 'UNACCEPTABLE'
The PMF, estimated at 150,000 members, includes groups which fought the U.S. military after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, and individuals against whom Washington has imposed Iran-related sanctions.
Members of Congress have sought sanctions against Khazali's group. Khazali denied it is currently receiving support from Iran.
"We don't expect a good future for relations between Iraq and the United States under (President Donald) Trump," he said, and reiterated his call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
"A (U.S.) training role is one thing but presence of combat forces is unacceptable. Parliament should oppose this. Daesh is no longer a military threat, so there should be a reduction" in U.S. troops, he said.
The Pentagon says over 5,000 troops are deployed in Iraq.
Khazali's militia started as a splinter group of the Mahdi Army, a force formed by anti-American Shi'ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr in the U.S. occupation. Under his leadership, it gained notoriety for its attacks against U.S. forces.
He and Hadi al-Amiri, the veteran leader of the Badr Organisation who contested Iraq's May general election, were among the first to announce late last year they were putting their paramilitaries under the orders of the prime minister.
Iran has provided training and weapons to both groups.
(Writing by John Davison, Ahmed Rasheed, Editing by William Maclean)
Copyright 2018 Thomson Reuters.

Two Centuries Before The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

 
The worst earthquake in Massachusetts history 260 years ago
It happened before, and it could happen again.
By Hilary Sargent @lilsarg
Boston.com Staff | 11.19.15 | 5:53 AM
On November 18, 1755, Massachusetts experienced its largest recorded earthquake.
The earthquake occurred in the waters off Cape Ann, and was felt within seconds in Boston, and as far away as Nova Scotia, the Chesapeake Bay, and upstate New York, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Seismologists have since estimated the quake to have been between 6.0 and 6.3 on the Richter scale, according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.
While there were no fatalities, the damage was extensive.
According to the USGS, approximately 100 chimneys and roofs collapsed, and over a thousand were damaged.
The worst damage occurred north of Boston, but the city was not unscathed.
A 1755 report in The Philadelphia Gazette described the quake’s impact on Boston:
“There was at first a rumbling noise like low thunder, which was immediately followed with such a violent shaking of the earth and buildings, as threw every into the greatest amazement, expecting every moment to be buried in the ruins of their houses. In a word, the instances of damage done to our houses and chimnies are so many, that it would be endless to recount them.”
The quake sent the grasshopper weathervane atop Faneuil Hall tumbling to the ground, according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.
An account of the earthquake, published in The Pennsylvania Gazette on December 4, 1755.
The earthquake struck at 4:30 in the morning, and the shaking lasted “near four minutes,” according to an entry John Adams, then 20, wrote in his diary that day.
The brief diary entry described the damage he witnessed.
“I was then at my Fathers in Braintree, and awoke out of my sleep in the midst of it,” he wrote. “The house seemed to rock and reel and crack as if it would fall in ruins about us. 7 Chimnies were shatter’d by it within one mile of my Fathers house.”
The shaking was so intense that the crew of one ship off the Boston coast became convinced the vessel had run aground, and did not learn about the earthquake until they reached land, according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.
In 1832, a writer for the Hampshire (Northampton) Gazette wrote about one woman’s memories from the quake upon her death.
“It was between 4 and 5 in the morning, and the moon shone brightly. She and the rest of the family were suddenly awaked from sleep by a noise like that of the trampling of many horses; the house trembled and the pewter rattled on the shelves. They all sprang out of bed, and the affrightted children clung to their parents. “I cannot help you dear children,” said the good mother, “we must look to God for help.”
The Cape Ann earthquake came just 17 days after an earthquake estimated to have been 8.5-9.0 on the Richter scale struck in Lisbon, Portugal, killing at least 60,000 and causing untold damage.
There was no shortage of people sure they knew the impretus for the Cape Ann earthquake.
According to many ministers in and around Boston, “God’s wrath had brought this earthquake upon Boston,” according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.
In “Verses Occasioned by the Earthquakes in the Month of November, 1755,” Jeremiah Newland, a Taunton resident who was active in religious activities in the Colony, wrote that the earthquake was a reminder of the importance of obedience to God.
“It is becaufe we broke thy Laws,
that thou didst shake the Earth.
…
O what a Day the Scriptures say,
the EARTHQUAKE doth foretell;
O turn to God; lest by his Rod,
he cast thee down to Hell.”
Boston Pastor Jonathan Mayhew warned in a sermon that the 1755 earthquakes in Massachusetts and Portugal were “judgments of heaven, at least as intimations of God’s righteous displeasure, and warnings from him.”
There were some, though, who attempted to put forth a scientific explanation for the earthquake.
Well, sort of.
In a lecture delivered just a week after the earthquake, Harvard mathematics professor John Winthrop said the quake was the result of a reaction between “vapors” and “the heat within the bowels of the earth.” But even Winthrop made sure to state that his scientific theory “does not in the least detract from the majesty … of God.”
It has been 260 years since the Cape Ann earthquake. Some experts, including Boston College seismologist John Ebel, think New England could be due for another significant quake.
In a recent Boston Globe report, Ebel said the New England region “can expect a 4 to 5 magnitude quake every decade, a 5 to 6 every century, and a magnitude 6 or above every thousand years.”
If the Cape Ann earthquake occurred today, “the City of Boston could sustain billions of dollars of earthquake damage, with many thousands injured or killed,” according to a 1997 study by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Hamas Threatens From Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

Hamas Threatens Tel Aviv
By Jim Fletcher November 26, 2018 , 7:00 am
 (This week marks my 12th year having the privilege of writing in this space. I love Todd and Terry, my brothers, and thank them for the opportunity! I consider my readers to be family, truly. I believe we are living in the last days, so let’s go through this period together, looking forward with joy to our Great Hope! Thank you all!)
We live in a time in which a U.S. congressman has now threatened to use nukes on American citizens who do not turn in their guns.
A Michigan college has cancelled a presentation of the infamous “Vagina Monologues,” because, it is said, not all women have vaginas.
Think that through.
New Testament prophecies are coming so sharply into focus, one tends to reflexively flinch or duck.
But as usual, watch Israel for the clearest signs that we are in the last of the last days. The international community’s increasing pressure on Israel is the sign.
Last week, almost 500 Hamas rockets hit southern Israel; one person was killed and significant property damage occurred. The Iron Dome intercepted 100 of the rockets. A “ceasefire” brokered by Egypt in effect handed a PR and “moral” victory to the terrorists. From a Times of Israel report:
“Hamas’s leader in the Gaza Strip Yahya Sinwar on Friday warned Israel ‘not to test us again,’ saying the next rocket barrage from the territory would target Tel Aviv and other central cities with a potency that would “surprise” Israel.
“Yahya Sinwa brandishes handgun with silencer he says was taken from Israeli special forces; warns next time IDF troops enter Strip, they’ll return only for ‘thousands of prisoners.’”
Israel’s decision to stand-down caused some political turmoil, with Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman resigning (it’s almost shocking to realize that Bibi Netanyahu has been PM for almost a decade, this go-around!).
A particularly odious Hamas leader made the following comment:
“Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh cheered Liberman’s resignation Wednesday, saying it marked an ‘admission of defeat’ by Israel. Haniyeh also boasted that Hamas ‘achieved a military victory against this odious occupier in less than a week.’”
One wonders if this vermin is making a thinly veiled reference to Israel’s epic Six-Day War victory 50 years ago. As usual, the Palestinians envy is showing.
My friend Ruthie Blum, a terrific writer and analyst, this week posted her thoughts on the Hamas dustup. She offers a clue as to Netanyahu’s thinking in backing-off of destroying Hamas:
“He is clearly far more concerned with the looming, existential threat along Israel’s northern border. It is a threat owed largely to the U.N.-brokered ceasefire agreement that sealed the 2006 Second Lebanon War, leaving the field wide open for Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, to amass enormous quantities of weapons with which to destroy the Jewish state at a later date.”
(I encourage you to follow Ruthie’s writing. Her book, To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring’ is sensational, and explains so much.)
 And if one takes both a macro and micro view of terrorism, we see that Israel is under existential threat in the north, and the international community—insulated from reality—does not see its own impending doom at the hands of jihadists. Consider this report from the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center:
 “Syrian army soldiers and Iranian Revolutionary Guards operatives (probably operatives of the Shiite militias) reportedly started to plant mines along the west bank of the Euphrates River, for fear of SIS operatives infiltrating into the west bank of the river. The mines were planted about 20 km southeast of Deir ez-Zor (Furat Post Facebook page, November 9,2018).”
Then this:
“The spread of ISIS and Al-Qaeda to new countries: According to the head of the FSB, ISIS is sending its branches around the world, including to countries that used to be protected from terrorism. ‘At the moment most of the militants have been driven out of their bases in populated areas. They have been dealt a hard blow in terms of resources, they have been forced to change their methods of operation, and therefore they are searching for new opportunities, [new] ways and methods, to continue their terrorist activity.’ Bortnikov added: ‘After abandoning the strategy of military invasion and taking over territory, the Islamic State, the Al-Nusra Front, and other terrorist organizations decided on an operating method of expansion to countries that were once safe from terrorism.’”
I guess my point is, none of us have any real idea what a head-of-state deals with in these dangerous times. It’s easy to criticize Netanyahu, but he’s looking at threats to Tel Aviv from the south, from Hezbollah and actual Iranian operatives in the north. All the while, the UN threatens Israel politically.
Last week, the UN voted on nine resolutions critical of Israel, including the Jewish state’s control of the Golan Heights (a must-have for defense).
“’The UN’s planned assault on Israel with a torrent of one-sided resolutions is surreal,’ said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the UN Watch monitor group.”
So, Hamas is just one part of the puzzle.
Personally, I believe in God. The God who spoke to the Jewish nation at Sinai, and the same One that went ahead of their Six-Day War victory. He alone decides outcomes. It is our job and our privilege to pray for our Jewish friends the world over, and the do what we can to protect them physically.
It is our sacred duty.
Hamas does not know what awaits.
Reprinted with author’s permission from Rapture Ready

Imam Khamenei Calls For Union of the Four Horns (Daniel 8:8)

Imam Khamenei: We advise rulers of Islamic countries to return to rule of Islam
On the auspicious birth anniversary of Prophet Muhammad and Imam Sadiq (peace be upon them), the heads of power branches, government officials, ambassadors of Islamic countries as well as invitees to the International Conference on Islamic Unity held in Tehran met with Ayatollah Khamenei—the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution—on Sunday, November 25, 2018.
AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): On the auspicious birth anniversary of Prophet Muhammad and Imam Sadiq (peace be upon them), the heads of power branches, government officials, ambassadors of Islamic countries as well as invitees to the International Conference on Islamic Unity held in Tehran met with Ayatollah Khamenei—the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution—on Sunday, November 25, 2018.
In this meeting Ayatollah Khamenei stressed the significance of uniting around the light of Prophet Muhammad to overcome challenges in the world and among Muslim, saying: At a time when the world was immersed in the darkness of ignorance and deceit, God bestowed upon the entire mankind the light of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Today too, if we follow this light, it will lead us to prosperity and salvation. If humanity achieves the maturity to accept the prophet’s invitation, all of its calamity will be resolved. Today, as a result of the oppression practiced by the domineering powers, the world is in darkness like that day. Today, humanity is encountered with afflictions; this is not only the case in the Muslim World; rather countries that are apparently developed, are also suffering from afflictions. Islam can fulfill all these needs.
The Leader of the Revolution pointed out to the obsession of the government of the United States with the South West Asian region and its concern regarding the rise of Islam and held: The U.S. is obsessed about our region because the nations of our region incline to Islam. Wherever Islam has come to power, Arrogant Powers have been slapped in the face.
Ayatollah Khamenei praised the resistance that exists in the region against the domineering, imperialist powers and stated: There is a movement of resistance against oppression in the world, and this resistance relies on the name of God and Islam.
Ayatollah Khamenei assured Muslims that with the power of Islamic awakening, the enemies will be defeated in the region. He added: Wherever Islam has conquered the hearts of the people, the Front of Arrogance has been repelled. I strongly hold that the Arrogance will be slapped in the face, once again, by the Islamic awakening in our region. I advise Muslim nations to strengthen the movement of Islamic awakening as much as possible; for by strengthening the Islamic awakening, the region will be saved.
Ayatollah Khamenei invited heads of the Islamic countries to follow the rule of Islam rather than the arrogant powers and held: I recommend the rulers of the Islamic countries to turn their attention to the rule of Islam; the rule of the U.S. and the tyrannical system will not serve them. Today, some of the countries of our region follow the U.S., rather than the rule of Allah. The U.S.— acting as the arrogant power it is, on its Arrogance-derived instinct—humiliates them.
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution slammed Saudi regime for giving into U.S. President Trump’s humiliating blusters about them, asserting that: You have heard the ranting U.S. president analogized the Saudi rulers to ‘milking cows’. If the Al-Saud is not offended by these insults, we do not care. However, this humiliation targets the people of that country and other Muslim nations as well.
Ayatollah Khamenei criticized Muslim states that ally with the United States in matters concerning Palestine or Yemen, and states: Why should Muslim rulers side with the U.S. in its criminal acts against Palestine and Yemen? These rulers must know that in the two fronts, victory will be for the people of Palestine and Yemen, and the U.S. and its allies will be defeated.
His Eminence referred to declining power of the U.S. regime and the abating of the Zionist regime, adding that: Today, the U.S. is clearly much weaker in our region, compared to ten years ago. The Zionist regime is evidently weaker. A few years ago, the Zionist regime fought against Lebanon's Hezbollah for 33 days and was defeated. A couple of years later, it fought Palestinians for 22 days and was defeated. A while after that, it fought against the oppressed people of Gaza for 8 days and was finally defeated. In the confrontation erupting last week, the Zionist regime was once again defeated in just two days. This reveals the increased declining of the Zionist Regime.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution praised the strong resistance by the Yemeni people in the face of atrocities by the Saudi regime, backed by the United States and held: The people of Yemen are undergoing the most severe tortures on the part of the Saudi regime, supported by the U.S. Nevertheless, the people of Yemen and Ansar-Allah will be victorious. Those nations that rely on God and resist, will be assisted by God: this is a divine tradition.
Ayatollah Khamenei described resistance as the only way forward to victory over enemies, adding that: The only solution is resistance, and what has frightened the U.S. and its allies today is the resistance of the Muslim nations—which will soon bear fruit.
His Eminence glorified Iranian people’s resistance in the face of animosities by the US and other major powers as an example of resistance being the only way to defeat the enemies and attain prosperity. He went on to say: The Iranian nation has been resisting for forty years. We were a fragile and small sapling at first, and we resisted thanks to blessings of the name of the prophet (PBUH) and the leadership of Imam Khomeini. We endured many hardships on this path and have had many martyrs. But, today the Iranian nation is a strong tree. Today the U.S. and the Zionist Regime won’t dare to threaten the Iranian nation. Their threats and animosity have been defeated so far, and will be defeated in the future; the sanctions will also be defeated thanks to the resistance.

Why Saudi Arabia Will Become a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Why Saudi Arabia Will Acquire Nuclear Weapons
The Trump administration’s handling of nuclear negotiations with Saudi Arabia promises to lay bare some realities about security issues and nuclear programs in that part of the world that the administration has refused to acknowledge. A front-page article by David Sanger and William Broad in the New York Times reviews some of the still-unresolved questions. The Saudi regime insists on producing its own nuclear fuel, which would be different from terms the United States has negotiated with some other states, including the United Arab Emirates, that have sought U.S. assistance in developing their nuclear programs. The Saudis have balked at comprehensive international inspections to detect any work on nuclear weapons. And Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) has explicitly threatened to develop nuclear weapons, ostensibly in response to any similar development by Iran.
A useful model for approaching this situation involves Iran. The model is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral accord commonly known as the Iranian nuclear deal, which Donald Trump has castigated and on which his administration has reneged by imposing new economic sanctions despite continued Iranian compliance with the JCPOA. The JCPOA closed all possible pathways to development of an Iranian nuclear weapon through stringent restrictions on enrichment of uranium, the gutting of reactors that otherwise might be used to produce plutonium, and the prohibition of any reprocessing by Iran of nuclear fuel. The agreement also established a thorough inspection system that involves not only routine monitoring of nuclear facilities but also the ability of international inspectors to inspect any other sites they may have reason to suspect are housing nuclear-related activity, with the other parties to the agreement being able to outvote Iran in the event of disagreement about the relevance of a requested inspection. This is the kind of highly intrusive inspection arrangement that the Saudis reportedly are refusing to apply to themselves.
The principal U.S. negotiator has been Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, for whom this is a learning-on-the-job experience. Perry was initially unaware of the Department of Energy’s nuclear responsibilities and believed his job would consist of promoting the oil industry. (This contrasts with Perry’s predecessor, Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who played a key role in negotiation of the highly detailed JCPOA.)
Although few details of the negotiations have been made public, the New York Times reports that Perry has been discussing with the Saudis a possible agreement that would place a time limit of ten to fifteen years on any restriction of Saudi fuel production. Ironically, this is the same time frame as the “sunset clauses” that apply to some (though not all) of the provisions in the JCPOA regarding uranium enrichment and that have been a focus of attack by opponents of the JCPOA.
The Saudi regime has been making noises for several years about wanting to “get whatever Iran gets,” as if the JCPOA involved Iran getting something nuclear rather than having its nuclear program set back and restricted. A reasonable U.S. response to such talk would be to say, “All right, you can have an agreement with terms that match what is in the JCPOA.” This would mean, besides strict limits on the amount and level of uranium enrichment, a total ban on domestic reprocessing of spent reactor fuel. So Riyadh would have to discard its dreams of using reactors to make its own nuclear fuel. It would mean the same sort of far-reaching inspection arrangement to which Iran is subject, including challenge inspections of undeclared facilities. And it would mean no assistance from the United States in the form of reactor sales or other help in developing a nuclear program. Saudi Arabia would not “get” anything nuclear from the United States because under the JCPOA Iran didn’t get anything nuclear from the United States either.
One might add that, to match Iran’s experience, Saudi Arabia would be subject to punishing economic sanctions until and unless it agreed to all these terms. Or, if one were to be totally consistent with the Trump administration’s policy toward Iran, Saudi Arabia would be subject to punishing economic sanctions even if it did agree to and observe those terms. But this is merely one of the most blatant ways in which the administration’s policies toward the region have been inconsistent and hypocritical.
Although Iran under the shah got a head start over its cross-gulf Arab neighbors in developing a nuclear program, Saudi Arabia has long presented at least as much of a legitimate worry about nuclear weapons proliferation. Riyadh’s security ties to Pakistan—whose nuclear weapons program, producing the first “Islamic bomb,” the Saudis financed—have provided Riyadh with a valuable chip that it undoubtedly would cash in if it decided to go the same route.
Amid all the talk among opponents of the JCPOA about ballistic missiles, it is worth noting that Saudi Arabia has been ahead of its regional neighbors on that count as well. Two decades ago, Saudi Arabia secretly purchased medium-range missiles from China that, although reportedly configured to carry conventional weapons, were of a type originally designed to deliver a nuclear warhead. The Saudis in more recent years have modernized their missile force, again relying on China as the supplier.
Destabilizing regional activity also implies that Saudi Arabia is more of a worry than most states regarding the implications of possible acquisition of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has bombed Yemen into becoming a humanitarian catastrophe, has kidnapped and attempted to coerce into resignation the prime minister of Lebanon, and has used diplomatic facilities in foreign countries to assassinate nonviolent dissidents. The impetuous young prince behind these policies has been moving toward one-man rule, shedding even the restraints of what had been a collective family autocracy.
The murder of Jamal Khashoggi has drawn some recent and welcome attention to this pattern of behavior, although it has not budged Donald Trump from his stance of sticking with MbS no matter what he does. California Rep. Brad Sherman has appropriately observed, “A country that can’t be trusted with a bone saw shouldn’t be trusted with nuclear weapons.”
The administration’s assault on the JCPOA may provide the trigger for Saudi Arabia to try to obtain such weapons. If the U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign succeeds in negating completely the economic relief Iran was supposed to have received under the JCPOA, then Iranian leaders may yet throw up their hands in disgust and pronounce the agreement null and void. This would release Iran from all its nuclear restrictions under the agreement, which in turn might provide the perfect rationale for Riyadh, especially as long as MbS is in charge, to acquire the bomb.
Paul R. Pillar is a contributing editor at the National Interest and the author of Why America Misunderstands the World .
Image: Wikimedia Commons