Despite a New Atomic Chief, a Nuclear Taliban Happens: Revelation 8

With Naming of New Atomic Chief, Is a Nuclear Taliban Possible?

By Tom O’Connor On 9/29/21 at 4:16 PM EDT

The new Taliban-led administration in Afghanistan has inherited an entire nation to run, and with it a wide range of responsibilities, one of them being a fledgling peaceful nuclear agency established a decade ago under the previous government.

With the naming of a new atomic chief, the Taliban appears poised to press forward in this field. That has raised questions as to whether the Islamic Emirate could seek to militarize nuclear energy to develop a weapon of mass destruction, though experts remain deeply skeptical of such an endeavor at this juncture.

Officially, no policy to this end appears to have been adopted, nor has the Taliban yet ruled out such an outcome.

“There has been no decision so far on the development of nuclear weapons,” one Taliban official told Newsweek on the condition of anonymity.

But a number of observers took notice last week when a list of official postings for the Taliban’s interim government decreed by Taliban Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and shared by the group’s spokespersons identified “Engineer Najeebullah” as “Head of Atomic Energy.”

Out of the 17 names on this list and dozens of others announced since the formation of the acting Taliban government earlier this month, Najeebullah has the distinction of only being mentioned by surname, casting intrigue on his identity and why the new administration sought to obscure it.

Reached for comment, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it was following the situation.

“We are aware of the media reports you are referring to,” IAEA head of media and spokesperson Fredrik Dahl told Newsweek.

But as a matter of protocol, he declined to weigh in on how this might affect the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s relationship with Afghanistan.

“In line with standard practice related to Member State decisions and appointments,” he added, “we have no comment.”

Fighters of the Taliban’s newly established Islamic Emirate pose in this image posted September 8 by the group’s Al Hurat media outlet. Al Hurat

Afghanistan was among the founding members of the IAEA in 1957, and cooperated with the international organization for more than two decades. That relationship was interrupted in the late 1970s by civil unrest and an intervention by the Soviet Union against mujahideen rebels backed by the United States and Pakistan. The conflict stretched throughout most of the following decade, ultimately ending with a Soviet withdrawal and an eventual Taliban takeover in the 1990s.

IAEA cooperation would not restart until after the first iteration of the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate was dismantled by a 2001 U.S.-led invasion that followed the 9/11 attacks conducted by Al-Qaeda, a Taliban ally at the time. In 2011, the Afghanistan Atomic Energy High Commission was established to explore nuclear technology for civil society.

As the Taliban began to resurge nationwide, however, the Afghanistan Nuclear Energy Agency began to voice concerns that instability could endanger its work.

In an address to the IAEA given in February of last year, then-Afghan ambassador to Austria Khojesta Fana Ebrahimkhel warned that “the current security situation in Afghanistan is such that some areas of the country are controlled by insurgent groups and national and international terrorist groups are active across the country,” and “as a result, we have a serious concern about the illegal transportation of nuclear materials through Afghanistan by these groups.

“In light of this, we believe that such illegal activities will make the current situation more complex and may put the lives of thousands of people in danger,” he said at the time. “Thus we sincerely request IAEA members to pay careful attention to this matter.”

Unrest in Afghanistan only worsened, however, and two weeks later, the Trump administration reached a deal with the Taliban that paved the way for a U.S. militarywithdrawal from the country. The Biden administration completed the exit last month.

But the leadup to the pull-out was accompanied by rapid Taliban gains nationwide, and by the time the last U.S. military plane left Afghanistan, the group had established full control of Kabul with little resistance. For the second time in a quarter of a century, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was officially declared.

Though the new Taliban-led government remains unrecognized by any nation, it has pledged cooperation with the international community. This includes pledges to curb the spread of transnational militant groups, combat climate change and foster trade.

But in addition to worries about how the developments in Afghanistan could affect human rights issues, especially as they relate to vulnerable groups such as women and non-Pashtun minorities, some officials and commentators have raised the alarm over how any turmoil might undermine the security of neighboring Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

In a testimony that contradicted White House claims that the Pentagon backed a timely U.S. withdrawal by the August 31 deadline that had been set, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark Milley told lawmakers Tuesday he and his team “estimated an accelerated withdrawal would increase risks of regional instability, the security of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenals, a global rise in violent extremist organizations, our global credibility with allies and partners would suffer, and a narrative of abandoning the Afghans would become widespread.”

Adding to these concerns, Pakistan has a history of extraterritorial nuclear proliferation. Nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan, commonly referred to as “the godfather” of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, has long been at the center of international accusations that he provided classified information, including centrifuge designs, to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

Libya shuttered its nascent nuclear program as part of a deal reached in 2003 with the United States, which earlier that year had invaded Iraq over what proved to be false allegations of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. would also go on to intervene in Libya and help overthrow its government in 2011.

Iran maintains a robust nuclear program, despite international accusations and assassinations of its scientists. Tehran has consistently denied any military aspirations for its program and has blamed the assassinations on Israel, which is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons.

North Korea possesses a full-fledged nuclear weapons program, complete with far-reaching missiles it credits with staving off foreign interference.

Pakistan, for its part, set out to attain nuclear weapons in response to rival India’s first test in 1974. That test came a decade after China, also locked in a violent territorial dispute with India, conducted its first nuclear weapons test.

The Taliban finds itself in the midst of these geographic and geopolitical feuds, which persist to the present day, as it seeks to govern Afghanistan once again.

The logo for the Afghanistan Nuclear Energy Agency is seen as present on the agency’s website and social media channels, which have gone inactive since the Taliban took Kabul in mid-August. Among the stated goals of the agency included innovations in the fields of security, economic growth, nutrition, medicine, water management, the regulation of radioactive activities, mining and nuclear electricity. Afghanistan Nuclear Energy Agency

And while Pakistan has maintained close ties to the Taliban throughout its rise, fall and resurgence, there remain concerns even in Islamabad that certain separatist and fundamentalist groups could take advantage of the situation to threaten the region.

Former Trump national security adviser and veteran Washington war hawk John Boltonhas amplified this anxiety to the point of suggesting that the Taliban’s return to ruling Afghanistan creates an imminent threat to Pakistan and the security of its nuclear weapons.

“The Taliban in control of Afghanistan threatens the possibility of terrorists taking control in Pakistan too, and there are already a lot of radicals in the Pakistani military,” Bolton told the WABC 770 radio show on Sunday. “But if the whole country gets taken over by terrorists, that means maybe 150 nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, which is a real threat to us and our friends.”

Pakistani permanent representative to the United Nations Munir Akram responded to this take by Bolton, whom the senior diplomat argued had sought to disarm Islamabad’s nuclear stockpile to no avail.

“Well, I believe that Mr. Bolton tried very hard to get his hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and he failed miserably,” Akram told Newsweek. “If Mr. Bolton couldn’t get his hands on our weapons. I do not believe that somebody like the Taliban are capable of doing so.”

Daryl Kimball, who has served for two decades as the executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Arms Control Association nonprofit membership group, shared skepticism toward the notion that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal faced any heightened threat in the wake of the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan.

“I just don’t think that there’s an added risk today versus a year ago vis-à-vis Pakistan, even though John Bolton is out there making some wacko claims,” Kimball told Newsweek. “Is Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure more vulnerable today than it was a year ago? I don’t think that anybody can say it is.”

He argued that when it comes to the Taliban itself, acquiring or developing nuclear weapons was far from being in their interest, both as a result of technological shortcomings and their proven strategy of beating superpowers through conventional methods.

“I think the motives for the Taliban…to acquire nuclear weapons is extremely low or it should be, because their strategy of guerrilla resistance for the last two decades against the United States and the U.S.-supported government in Kabul has ultimately succeeded,” Kimball said. “So their lesson from their history is that they can resist and they can do that without resorting to the most destructive of all weapons, nuclear weapons, which are outside of their reach.”

But he did raise the prospect of another threat that has existed for some time: a more rudimentary “dirty bomb” in the hands of militants less invested in Afghanistan’s stability and more focused on wreaking havoc in the region. He recalled how evidence emerged in past years that Al-Qaeda had explored plans to obtain such a device.

Kimball said that even in the limited amount nuclear materials used for medicinal purposes in hospitals, “you’ve got radioactive sources that could be stolen or could be sold and used as a dirty bomb.” He explained that this kind of product may yield enough material to create “an IED,” or improvised explosive device, “with radioactive material,” a weapon that could inflict serious damage, but far from the scores of casualties associated with nuclear warheads.

Pakistani military helicopters fly past a vehicle carrying a long-range ballistic Shaheen III missile as they take part in a military parade to mark Pakistan’s National Day in Islamabad on March 25. Pakistan is one of the world’s nine suspected nuclear powers, alongside Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Israel and North Korea. AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

Such a scenario, however, would almost certainly prove as devastating for the Taliban as it would the intended target. The new Afghan administration already finds itself in conflict with the Islamic State militant group’s national Khorasan affiliate (ISIS-K), and has attempted to portray the Islamic Emirate as the answer to Afghanistan’s decades-long security issues.

Toby Dalton, co-director and a senior fellow of the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Program, found a more compelling argument for the Taliban to continue the previous administration’s relationship with the IAEA, and saw the appointment of an atomic chief as likely evidence of this.

“Presumably the new Taliban government in Afghanistan would wish to continue cooperation with the IAEA for the good of the Afghan people, so the appointment of a new minister to oversee these issues makes sense,” Dalton, who formerly served as acting director for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Safeguards and Security and senior policy adviser to the Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, told Newsweek. “Most countries have ministries for such applications, so Afghanistan is not unusual in this respect.”

And, like Kimball, he emphasized how far away Afghanistan was from establishing even the most basic foundation for a nuclear weapons program. Such an effort would require “substantial outside assistance, whatever the political or military rationale it might have for seeking such weapons.”

He also said the group’s hesitation on taking a nuclear weapons stance might be strategic. By seeking to ensure continued cooperation with the IAEA, they could open yet another door to the international community.

“I’m not especially concerned that the government has not reiterated its commitment as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to not seek nuclear weapons,” Dalton said. “If the Taliban government formally renounced its commitment to abjure nuclear weapons, that would be pretty noteworthy and unusual – only North Korea has done that before. It would also, practically, end Afghanistan’s ability to cooperate with the IAEA on peaceful uses of nuclear technology.”

The agonizing problem of Pakistan’s nukes: Revelation 8

Marvin KalbTuesday, September 28, 2021

“This is a new world,” President Joe Biden declared, when justifying his pullout from Afghanistan and explaining his administration’s war on global terrorism in an August 31 speech. It will go “well beyond Afghanistan,” he alerted the world, focusing on “the threats of 2021 and tomorrow.”

The president will not have to look too far. Bordering Afghanistan, now again under Taliban rule, is Pakistan, one of America’s oddest “allies.” Governed by a shaky coalition of ineffective politicians and trained military leaders trying desperately to contain the challenge of domestic terrorism, Pakistan may be the best definition yet of a highly combustible threat that, if left unchecked, might lead to the nightmare of nightmares: jihadis taking control of a nuclear weapons arsenal of something in the neighborhood of 200 warheads.

Ever since May 1998, when Pakistan first began testing nuclear weapons, claiming its national security demanded it, American presidents have been haunted by the fear that Pakistan’s stockpile of nukes would fall into the wrong hands. That fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home.

Trying, of course, is not the same as succeeding. If history is a reliable guide, Pakistan’s professional military would almost certainly respond, and in time probably succeed; but only after the floodgates of a new round of domestic warfare between the government and extremist gangs has been opened, leaving Pakistan again shaken by political and economic uncertainty. And when Pakistan is shaken, so too is India, its less than neighborly rival and nuclear competitor.

Pakistani jihadis come in many different shapes and sizes, but no matter: The possibility of a nuclear-armed terrorist regime in Pakistan has now grown from a fear into a strategic challenge that no American president can afford to ignore.

Former President Barack Obama translated this challenge into carefully chosen words: “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term,” he asserted, “would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.” (Author’s italics).

The nation that has both nuclear weapons and a dangerous mix of terrorists was — and remains — Pakistan.

No problem, really, Pakistan’s political and military leaders have quickly assured a succession of anxious presidents. Whether it be Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehreek-e-Labaik, al-Qaida, or the Afghan Taliban’s Quetta Shura — these terrorist organizations have always been under our constant surveillance, checked and rechecked. We keep a close eye on everything, even the Islamic madrassas, where more than 2 million students are more likely studying sharia law than economics or history. We know who these terrorists are and what they’re doing, and we’re ready to take immediate action.

These official assurances have fallen largely on deaf ears at the White House, principally because one president after another has learned from American intelligence that these same Pakistani leaders have often been working surreptitiously with the terrorists to achieve common goals. One such goal was the recent defeat of the Kabul regime, which had been supported by the U.S. for 20 years. During this time, the victorious Taliban secretly received political and military support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. Shortly after 9/11, for example, the terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden, escaped U.S. capture, in part because sympathetic of ISI colleagues. Bin Laden fled to the one place where his security could be assured — Pakistan. In 2011, when the U.S. finally caught up with bin Laden and killed him, Obama chose not to inform Pakistani leaders of the super-secret operation, even though the target was down the street from a Pakistani military academy, fearful that once again bin Laden would be tipped off and escape.

The U.S. has learned over the years not to trust Pakistan, realizing that a lie here and there might be part of the diplomatic game but that this level of continuing deception was beyond acceptable bounds. That Pakistan was also known to have helped North Korea and Iran develop their nuclear programs has only deepened the distrust.

Indeed, since the shock of 9/11, Pakistan has come to represent such an exasperating problem that the U.S. has reportedly developed a secret plan to arbitrarily seize control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if a terrorist group in Pakistan seemed on the edge of capturing some or all of its nuclear warheads. When repeatedly questioned about the plan, U.S. officials have strung together an artful, if unpersuasive, collection of “no comments.”

Even though U.S. economic and military aid has continued to flow into Pakistan — reaching $4.5 billion in fiscal 2010, though on other occasions capriciously cut — America’s concerns about Pakistan’s stability and reliability have only worsened. Since the debacle in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s barely disguised role in it, serious questions have been raised about America’s embarrassing predisposition to look the other way whenever Pakistan has been caught with its hand in a terrorist’s cookie jar. How long can America look the other way?

The anguishing problem for the Biden administration is now coming into sharper focus: Even if the president decided to challenge Pakistan’s dangerous flirtation with domestic and regional terrorism, what specific policies could he adopt that would satisfy America’s obvious desire to disengage from Afghan-like civil wars without at the same time getting itself involved in another nation’s domestic struggles with terrorists?  Disengagement has become the name of the game in Washington.

One approach, already widely discussed, is that the U.S. can contain the spread of terrorism in South Asia by relying on its “over-the-horizon” capabilities. Though almost every senior official, including Biden, has embraced this approach, it’s doubtful they really believe it’s a viable substitute for “boots on the ground.”

Another possibility would be the Central Intelligence Agency striking a new under-the-table deal with the ISI that would set new goals and guidelines for both services to cooperate more aggressively in the war against domestic and regional terrorism. Unfortunately, prospects for such expanded cooperation, though rhetorically appealing, are actually quite slim. Veterans of both services shake their heads, reluctantly admitting it is unrealistic, given the degree of distrust on both sides.

But even if Biden, despite knowing better, decided to continue to look the other way, hoping against hope that Pakistan would be able to contain the terrorists and keep them from acquiring nuclear warheads, he will find that Prime Minister Imran Khan is not a ready and eager ally, if he ever was one. Lately he’s been painting the Biden administration as damaged goods after its hurried exit from Afghanistan. And he has been rearranging Pakistan’s regional relationships by strengthening his ties with China and extending a welcoming hand to Russia. Also Khan may soon discover that his pro-Taliban policy runs the risk of backfiring and inspiring Pakistani terrorists to turn against him. To whom would he then turn for help?

Khan, who won his mandate in 2018, surely knows by now that he runs a decidedly unhappy country, beset by major economic and political problems, waves of societal corruption and the no-nonsense challenge coming from domestic terrorists eager to impose a severe Islamic code of conduct on the Pakistani people. Sixty-four percent of the population are under the age of 30 and more desirous of iPhones and apps than of religious zealotry.

Pakistan is a looming problem with no satisfactory solutions. For Biden, no matter what policies he pursues, it remains a recurring nightmare, the stuff of a paperback thriller: a scary mix of terrorists who may one day be able to seize power and, with it, control over the nation’s stockpile of nuclear warheads — all of this happening in a shaky, strategically-located country that was once an ally.

Since the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, geostrategic relationships on the Asian subcontinent have been undergoing important changes. Pakistan has tilted its future towards a closer relationship with China, while its principal adversary, India, has tightened its ties to the United States, both of them sharing an already deep distrust of China. In this increasingly uneasy atmosphere, the U.S. remains concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile falling into terrorist hands. If this seemed to be happening, the U.S. would feel the need to intervene militarily to stop it. Pakistan would likely turn to China for help, setting the stage for the U.S. and China, because of Pakistan’s nukes, to head towards a direct and possibly deadly confrontation which neither superpower wants or needs.

Israel-Hamas tensions rise outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

FILE – White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan speaks during a press briefing at the White House, Monday, June 7, 2021, in Washington. Sullivan is traveling to Saudi Arabia on Monday, Sept. 27, 2021, to meet with Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman as the U.S. tries to press the kingdom to move toward a ceasefire in its years-long war with Houthi rebels in Yemen.Evan Vucci/AP

Biden adviser headed to Egypt as Israel-Hamas tensions rise

AAMER MADHANI , Associated Press Updated: Sep. 28, 2021 6:44 p.m. Comments

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan is heading to Cairo on Wednesday for talks with Egyptian government officials about rising tensions between Israel and Hamas.

The Biden administration is leaning heavily on Egypt, which has long played a role as mediator between Israel and Hamas, for help in maintaining stability in the region even as it presses Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to stop his crackdown on dissent.

Sullivan plans to follow up on the Egypt talks during a meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Eyal Hulata, next week in Washington, said National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne.

Egypt brokered a cease-fire after an 11-day war between Israel and Hamas erupted in May.

Sullivan had already planned visits to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for talks focused on finding an end to war in Yemen.

The visit to Egypt comes after the Biden administration announced earlier this month it would withhold $130 million in military aid to the country over human rights concerns.

The region has seen an increase in fighting in recent weeks, with tensions fueled by Israeli settlement construction and heightened militant activity in the northern West Bank.

Israeli troops conducted a series of arrest raids against suspected Hamas militants across the occupied West Bank early Sunday, sparking a pair of gun battles in which five Palestinians were killed and two Israeli soldiers were seriously wounded.

Looming over the meeting in Cairo is the administration’s recent decision to withhold some military aid to Egypt.

Congress had passed legislation calling on the administration to withhold $300 million in military aid to Egypt. In the end, $170 million was sent along as the administration used its authority to waive human rights conditions placed on the assistance by Congress.

The Biden administration said it decided to release most of the military aid to preserve a U.S.-Egypt security relationship that it says is critical to Mideast stability. The remaining $130 million will be released if Egypt “addresses specific human-rights related conditions,” according to the State Department.

At the same time, Biden advisers have praised Egypt for brokering the cease-fire that ended the latest Israel-Hamas war. The administration was also pleased that el-Sisi hosted Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in Cairo earlier this month, the first visit by an Israeli prime minister to Egypt since 2007.

Egypt is pressing the U.S. to side with it in a dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, a hydropower project on the Blue Nile that Ethiopia says is crucial for its economic development. Egypt says the dam would choke its economy and has threatened to use “all available means” to stop it.

The Blue Nile, a major tributary of the Nile River, originates in Ethiopia.

The Biden administration sees the dam dispute as potential flashpoint, but has sought to take a back seat to the African Union in finding a resolution.

Growing presence of Hamas in West Bank worries Israel: Revelation 11

Growing presence of Hamas in West Bank challenges Abbas, worries Israel | | AW

JERUSALEM–The raids launched by the Israeli security forces in the West Bank, on Saturday night, as they tracked down a Hamas cell, reflected Israel’s concern about the growing influence of the Palestinian militant movement  in the West Bank.

According to analysts, the growing presence of Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, also poses a challenge to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who seems unable to keep security under control in the whole of the West Bank.

Israeli Channel 13 reported that the raids carried out by Israeli security forces in the West Bank prevented a “major terrorist attack.” The channel alleged that the Hamas cell planned to carry out a series of kidnappings and killings.

IDF and police forces arrested 20 suspected members of the cell in recent days, according to the IDF, which believes there are more Hamas cell members still at large.

The Israeli channel said the arrest raids began after Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, concluded that the group was about to carry out a series of armed attacks. The channel said that officials suspect that there is a direct line of communication between the cell and the Hamas movement in Gaza.

On Sunday, the Israeli army reported the killing of five Palestinians after an exchange of fire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen in four West Bank towns, against the backdrop of the arrest raids.

“Hamas is trying to escalate the situation in the West Bank,” said Ram Ben-Barak, chairman of the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defence committee, in a press statement.

He pointed out that “Hamas cannot be allowed to escalate the situation in the West Bank, while it tries to maintain calm in Gaza.”

Recent months have witnessed a ratcheting up in violence in the West Bank with increased clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants. Last month, four Palestinians were killed in Jenin refugee camp by Israeli troops during violent clashes.

Direct confrontations often occur between Palestinians and Israeli forces when the latter carry out raids in PA-controlled areas of the West Bank.

Although the radical Islamist movement has been ruling the Gaza Strip since 2007, it has a strong presence in the West Bank, which is run by the PA and its most prominent faction, the Fatah.

Israeli officials have long worried that Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is seeking to consolidate its clout in the West Bank so as to challenge the Western-backed PA. This, they fear, would increase security risks to Israel.

Analysts attribute the escalation by Hamas of tensions in the areas under the control of the PA to its conclusions that Mahmoud Abbas’s hold on power has weakened and that his security services are unable to control Hamas elements in areas under his authority. This, they say, muddles the calculations of the PA as it seeks to resume peace negotiations with Israel, especially now that security agreements between Tel Aviv and Ramallah include provisions for cooperation over the extradition of wanted persons, coordination in combating terrorism and the exchange of intelligence information. The PA seems however unable to implement the security agreements.

Israeli officials assert that it is not possible to resume Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations while areas remain outside the control of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza.

The upsurge by Hamas comes amid signs of the authority’s inability to enforce security in the West Bank and in the absence of any prospects for a political settlement.

Hamas leading figure and former minister of health Basem Naim, said Monday that the main front for the upcoming battle with Israel will be the West Bank, as “it is the Achilles heel of the occupation and the most important pretext it uses to legitimise its presence on our land.”

Naim added that, “all national and popular efforts must be harnessed to revolutionise the cities, villages and hamlets of the occupied West Bank,” noting that “to achieve this great and strategic goal, there must be a consensus, starting with a national vision to confront the doctrine of security coordination.”

He called on those he described as the adepts of this doctrine to “either side with their people and their national project, or step aside, having lost any legitimacy, so that our people can exercise their natural duty in resisting the occupation.”

Naim’s statements aim to exacerbate existing pressures on Abbas, who faces growing divisions within the Fatah movement and a sharp decline in popularity.

Analysts say that Abbas was never weaker politically and in public opinion than he is today. They point out that ten years ago Hamas would not have dared anger the president, let alone spark an escalation in the West Bank under his watch.

They believe, also, that any moves by Abbas at this stage to bring the security situation under control by reining in Hamas cells, especially in the Jenin camp, will further weaken him at the grass root level and make him appear uncommitted to the liberation agenda, which Hamas is cultivating in various ways, including in its preparations for the upcoming elections.

The Sixth Seal: The Big Apple Shake (Revelation 6:12)

   

Big Apple shake? Potential for earthquake in New York City exists

Posted 11:21 PM, April 2, 2014, by Jeremy Tanner and Mario Diaz

NEW YORK CITY (PIX11) – For the last 43 years John Armbruster has been a seismologist with Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.  A veteran of what he describes as “a couple of dozen” quakes, he is interested in the seismic activity throughout the Pacific region in recent weeks.

However, does the amount of plate movements around the world in recent weeks as well as years to translate to New York City being more vulnerable, “These earthquakes are not communicating with each other, they are too far apart,” said Armbruster in an interview with PIX 11 News on Wednesday.

Nonetheless, Armbruster added that there are many faults around the area and a few in Manhattan, including on specific fault capable of producing a magnitude 6.0 earthquake, “The 125th street fault.”

What would a magnitude 6.0 earthquake inflict upon the city?

“I think there would be serious damage and casualties,” said Armbruster.  The reason?  Most of the buildings and infrastructure was not constructed  to withstand earthquakes.  This said, what does Armbruster think of the chances of a major earthquake catching New York City by surprise?

“We know that its unlikely because it hasn’t happened in the last 300 years but the earthquake that struck Fukushima Japan was the 1000 year earthquake and they weren’t ready for the that.

The increasing risk of miscalculation: Revelation 16

Nuclear deterrence and the risk of miscalculation | The Strategist

John Storey

Nuclear deterrence and the risk of miscalculation

The Latin adage Si vis pacem, para bellumwarns: ‘If you want peace, prepare for war.’ Given the heightened risk of war between China and the United States, we might take heed of this ancient wisdom. It is better to deter wars than wage them.

Part of the tragedy of the two world wars was that the principal aggressors who initiated or escalated them did so against objectively more powerful enemies. So, in theory, such aggression should have been easy to deter.

In 1914, Germany launched an unprovoked assault on neutral Belgium, bringing Belgium’s ally Great Britain into the war. Thus, after the opening gambits of World War I, the alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary found itself at war against an objectively more powerful alliance of Russia, France and Great Britain.

In 1939, Poland had security guarantees from Britain and France, an alliance more powerful than Nazi Germany alone, but Hitler attacked Poland anyway. In 1941, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, a much bigger and more populous country than Germany. Later that year, Japan attacked the world’s greatest industrial power, the US, by bombing Pearl Harbor. Thus, the alliance of Germany, Italy and Japan was at war against a much more powerful alliance of the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States.

The overconfidence and misjudgement displayed by Germany and Japan in the two world wars were in large measure attributable to a perception of a lack of resolve on the part of their foes.

In 1914, it wasn’t clear that Britain would fight on the side of Russia and France, and the British had made woefully inadequate preparations to do so.

In 1939, Hitler had been appeased for years, which made the British and French security guarantees to Poland seem hollow. The Soviet Union had fought poorly in the 1939–40 Winter War with Finland, and Hitler perceived that one kick would knock the whole rotten structure down. Japan thought that, with the US fleet destroyed, an indulgent and lazy America would seek a peace treaty rather than fight it out.

Since 1945, there’s been a ‘long peace’. There have been no big international wars and overt military conflict between nations has grown increasingly rare.

Nuclear weapons have changed the risk–benefit calculus for aggressors. It is difficult to misjudge a nation’s military capability if it has nuclear weapons, and such a misjudgement risks a mutually destructive Armageddon. Thus, the two superpowers and their alliances never directly fought each other during the Cold War.

Both China and the US have nuclear weapons today, so is there any reason to doubt that deterrence will continue to prevail?

A hot war between China and the US is mostly likely to break out over the issue of Taiwan. Nuclear weapons alone are unlikely to deter such a conflict.

If the risk of nuclear annihilation could deter all acts of aggression, then nobody would ever attack a nuclear-armed foe. But nuclear-armed US military forces have previously been attacked by North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Iraq and the Taliban. Egypt and Syria attacked nuclear-armed Israel in 1973.

Would a country invade an island it claims as its own that is allied to a nuclear-armed nation on the other side of the world? It’s happened before, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a colonial territory of nuclear-armed Britain, in 1982.

Nuclear weapons haven’t been used in anger since 1945 and a taboo has long since developed over initiating their use. Nuclear weapons are only likely to ever be used if a nuclear-armed nation is facing an existential threat. The reality is that, in all the above examples, no existential threat existed for the nuclear-armed power.

Is the loss of Taiwan an existential threat to the US? If Washington is unwilling to initiate the use of nuclear weapons to prevent Taiwan’s loss, how will China be deterred?

Even if the US still retains the conventional capabilities to defeat China, the history of the 20th century suggests that what is truly important is the aggressor’s perception of the other side’s willingness to fight. This is where the recent debacle in Afghanistan is so dangerous.

After capitulating to the Taliban, who in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party thinks Joe Biden would be willing to risk the lives of thousands of Americans to defend Taiwan? They might be calculating that, if Taiwan can only ever be brought back into the fold of the mainland by force, doing so before Biden leaves office will be the most opportune time.

Of course, the loss in Afghanistan might have the same impact on Biden that the loss of Czechoslovakia had on British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1939—a determination not to be embarrassed again.

The danger in the capitulation to the Taliban may not be that it has made America weak, but that it has made America appear weak. The issue may not be that Taiwan could be lost, but that China will misjudge American resolve, in which case the long peace will be at an end.

John Storey, a lawyer and military historian, is the author of Big wars: why do they happen and when will the next one be?released earlier this month by Hybrid Publishers. Image: Steve Jurvetson/Flickr.

The Antichrist calls on public to ‘save’ the country through elections

Iraq’s Al Sadr calls on public to ‘save’ the country through elections

The leading Shiite cleric launches hashtag in the run-up to October 10 ballot

Iraq’s popular political leader Moqtada Al Sadr on Tuesday urged his supporters to “save” the country at the ballot box.

In a short message on Twitter, Mr Al Sadr launched the hashtag “Saving Iraq is a National Duty” in an effort to rally support for his bloc’s candidates in the October 10 parliamentary election.

The Shiite cleric is known to be one of Iraq’s most influential religious figures, leading a political bloc in Parliament that was the biggest winner of the 2018 elections with 54 seats out of 329.

Iraq has been beset by a wave of public-service issues, including hospital fires, power cuts in the blazing summer heat and a lack of employment opportunities for the youth and security.

For years, Mr Al Sadr’s movement, known as the Sadrist Movement, has been voicing their views from a nationalist perspective. It has sought to detach itself from Iran-backed militias in Iraq.

Following the US-led invasion in 2003, Mr Al Sadr led militants against the US forces, which increased his popularity among Iraq’s impoverished Shiites.

His father, Sadiq Al Sadr, led dissent among Shiite majority against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and was killed by the regime in 1999.

In the past few years, Mr Al Sadr has withdrawn from frontline politics without dismantling his powerful movement.

In July, he changed his political stance and said he would boycott the parliamentary elections that are set to be held on October 10.

Mr Al Sadr said he wanted to distance himself from the government.

He reversed his decision again by the end of August and expressed willingness to participate in the elections. He urged his supporters to go to the polls and vote.

A vote for his movement, he said earlier, would mean an Iraq liberated from foreign meddling and rampant corruption.

Updated: September 28th 2021, 6:42 AM

Hamas Explosives Meant for Attacks in Israel Found Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Hamas Explosives Meant for Attacks in Israel Found in West Bank

Israeli security forces are still searching for additional Hamas members suspected of planning attacks against Israel

Amos HarelSep. 27, 2021 9:34 PM

Explosives belonging to a Hamas cell were found in the village of Kafr Bidu near Ramallah in the West Bank on Monday, and according to defense officials they were meant to be used to carry out attacks in Israel.

Israeli security forces are still searching for additional Hamas members suspected of planning attacks against Israel 

Five Palestinians were killed Sunday by Israeli military fire in a large-scale arrest operation in the West Bank. The target was Hamas’ military infrastructure in the Ramallah and Jenin areas after intelligence showed the group was planning to carry out attacks in Israel, at least one of them in Jerusalem, according to defense sources. 

Three Palestinians were killed in the village of Kafr Bidu. Two other Palestinians were killed in Burkin in the northern West Bank. 

An officer and a soldier from the elite Duvdevan military unit were seriously wounded by friendly fire during the overnight raids. 

There have recently been several shooting attacks on army checkpoints in the Jenin area. Israeli arrest operations, especially near the Jenin refugee camp, have been met with an unusual volume of Palestinian gunfire.

The Evolving Chinese Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

China’s Possible First-Strike Capabilities Are Changing the Threat Equation

China’s massive and fast-paced push to add more nuclear weapons to its arsenal is fast changing the threat equation for U.S. leaders who see the country’s ongoing large-scale increase in Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) as a very “destabilizing” event.

U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall says China’s move to add hundreds of new land-based, fixed ICBM silos amounts to their developing a “first-strike” capability. 

“Most of their weapons have been mobile ICBMs, so this is a very destabilizing move and I am not sure they understand the risk they are taking. Whether they intend it or not … their move creates a first-strike capability. If they continue down this path to increase their ICBM force, then that is a de facto first-strike capability,” Kendall told reporters at the Air Force Association Symposium. 

Kendall may have been referring to an event described in August at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium by the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command Adm. Charles “Chaz” Richard. 

“Only four months ago, commercial satellite imagery discovered what is accepted to nuclear missile fields in western China. Each has nearly 120 ICBM silos. Now these compliment and are added into what they already have,” Richard told an audience at the symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. 

Sure enough, Richard’s mention of Chinese ICBM silos being detected by commercial satellites is something that aligns entirely with the information referred to by Kendall.

China’s clear ambition to massively expand its nuclear arsenal is something that has been on the Pentagon’s radar for some time, as it was cited as a serious concern last year in the Pentagon’s 2020 China Military Report.  

Following the publication of this report, senior Pentagon weapons developers and experts added even more specificity and expansion metrics describing China’s ambitious nuclear weapons expansion. 

“We do believe that over the next decade, that China is likely to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile in the course of implementing the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal in its history, China’s history,” Chad Sbragia, deputy assistant secretary of defense for China, told reporters last year according to a Pentagon transcript. “An ability to double the stockpile demonstrates a move away from their historical minimum deterrence posture.”

At the moment, China is known to have an official “no first use” policy with nuclear weapons. However that position does not appear to remain the case, Kendall explained. 

“I am reacting to what they are doing, which is significantly increasing their nuclear force with silo-based ICBMs. Several years ago they made a decision to move in the direction of a much larger ICBM force. Policies are declarations of intent, but intent can change very quickly,” Kendall said.

Kendall’s concern about Chinese ICBMs aligns in several respects with the Pentagon’s 2020 China Report which adds that the number of Beijing’s ICBMs capable of threatening America will likely grow to 200 in the next five years. As an element of this expansion, China is increasing its inventory of long-range land-fired DF-26 Anti-Ship missiles able to fire both conventional and nuclear missiles.

If merely a few nuclear weapons could unleash massive, unimagined devastation upon cities and even entire countries, why would any country need more than a small number of weapons in their arsenal?

In keeping with Ancient military philosopher Sun Tzu’s famous “Mass Matters” concept, Richard said, “it does not matter if your weapons are superior if you do not have enough of them.”

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Wikimedia Commons 

The Taliban Will Definitely Have Nukes: Revelation 8

Afghanistan: Taliban could get their hands on up to 150 nuclear weapons, says John Bolton

By Lauren Lewis For Dailymail.Com 08:21 EDT 27 Sep 2021 , updated 17:01 EDT 27 Sep 2021

The could get their hands on up to 150 nuclear weapons after America’s catastrophic withdrawal from , former Trump security advisor John Bolton has warned.

Bolton said it was possible the nuclear weapons could end up in the hands of the Taliban if the Islamists take control of in an interview with WABC 770 on Sunday. 

‘The Taliban in control of Afghanistan threatens the possibility of terrorists taking control of Pakistan … that means maybe 150 nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists,’ he said.

The US completed a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 31, leaving behind military equipment that has already been seized by the Taliban, after the Islamists swept to power in a lightning offensive of the country.

Pakistan has an arsenal of approximately 160 nuclear warheads including 102 land-based missiles and F-16 combat aircrafts with 24 nuclear launchers.

The Taliban could get their hands on up to 150 nuclear weapons after America’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, former Trump security advisor John Bolton has warned 

The US completed a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 31 after the Taliban swept to power in a lightning offensive of the country 

Former security advisor Bolton warned the Taliban could gain control of Pakistan’s 160 nuclear warheads (pictured a Shaheen II) if they overrun the country 

How big is Pakistan’s nuclear inventory? 

Pakistan first tested a nuclear warhead in 1998, becoming the seventh country in the world to officially do so. 

Its arsenal is seen as a defense against India, which first tested nuclear warheads in 1974.

Number of nuclear warheads: 160 

Air capabilities: F-16 combat aircrafts with 24 nuclear launchers with a range of 1,600 km, Mirage III and V aircraft with 12 launchers with a range of 2,100km, and Ra’ad air-launched missiles with a 350km range

Sea capabilities: Recently tested a Babur 3 from a submerged platform and are working towards firing from a submarine

Land capabilities: 102 land-based missiles, six operational nuclear capable ballistic missiles

Bolton, who served under then President Donald Trump between April 2018 and September 2019, slammed Joe Biden’s management of the withdrawal, warning allies are ‘wondering if he has a grip on his own administration’s foreign policy.’ 

Biden and the White House have repeatedly insisted they were blindsided by the swept Taliban takeover because the Afghan security forces gave up so easily. 

It led to scenes of chaos with thousands of Afghans swarming the airport as they desperately tried to flee the country before the Islamists imposed their rule.

Thousands gathered at the perimeter of Kabul airport – some standing in sewage, others attempting to scale the walls and many brandishing travel documents – as US soldiers attempted to control the chaos. 

Early evacuation flights saw hundreds of young men sat on a fin below the US military’s plane’s turbine as it barreled down the runway, only to then fall hundreds of feet to their deaths.

At least two people fell to their deaths from a C-17 on August 16 and the remains of another were discovered in the wheel well of the jet when it arrived in Qatar. 

Videos captured snapshots of the chaos showed US soldiers being handed babies over barbed wire fences as desperate Afghans gathered at the edge of the airport. 

Meanwhile other footage emerged of women pleading with US troops to let them onto an evacuation flight, telling them ‘the Taliban is coming’. 

And days later a suicide explosion claimed by ISIS-K, an Islamic State offshoot based in Afghanistan’s Khorasan region, left 170 dead, including 13 US service members.  

Biden later claimed the withdrawal was an ‘extraordinary success’ and local soldiers for the mess in Afghanistan and the Taliban takeover – a claim the White House has repeated in recent weeks. 

The President also laid the blame for the chaos on his predecessor Donald Trump for striking a peace deal in February 2020 with the Taliban. Trump’s peace deal had promised US withdrawal by May if the Taliban did not harbor terrorists or attack US forces or allies. 

Bolton’s warning comes after the Taliban seized much of the equipment abandoned by the US during the chaotic end to the 20-year war in Afghanistan.  

Anwari was among young Afghan men were seen clambering onto the USAF jet as it took off from Kabul on Monday. At least three of them died, two teenage brothers by falling from the wheels and Anwari was reportedly found dead in the wheel well 

At least three bodies were seen falling from the USAF jet as it climbed into the air on Monday 

Days after the withdrawal ended, the Taliban paraded dozens of US-made armored vehicles and weaponry captured from Afghan forces during the group’s takeover. 

One event, in the southern city of Kandahar, even featured a fly-past from a Black Hawk helicopter flying the flag of the Taliban. 

Meanwhile a long line of green Humvees and armored fighting vehicles drove in single file along a highway outside Kandahar – the spiritual birthplace of the militant group. Many of the vehicles had the white and black Taliban flag attached to them.

Footage posted on social media showed a helicopter flying overhead trailing the Taliban’s standard behind it as fighters waved from below.  

One event, in the southern city of Kandahar, even featured a fly-past from a Black Hawk helicopter (pictured) flying the flag of the Taliban 

The parades of the hardware, captured during the group’s takeover of Afghanistan, were held just hours after U.S. President Joe Biden defended his decision to end two decades of American presence in the country 

Taliban spotted in Afghan army truck provided by US Military

US withdrawal from Afghanistan: 

April 14, 2021 

Biden announces U.S. forces will withdraw unconditionally by Sept. 11, implementing the agreement reached with the Taliban by his predecessor, Trump.

July 2, 2021

U.S. troops abruptly pull out of their main base at Bagram airfield 60 km (40 miles) north of Kabul.

August 15, 2021 

After a stunning week-long advance capturing cities across the country, the Taliban seize Kabul without a fight. President Ashraf Ghani flees the country. The United States and Western allies launch an urgent airlift from Kabul airport to bring out their own citizens and tens of thousands of Afghans who aided them.

August 26, 2021

Islamic State offshoot ISIS-K launches a suicide bomb attack on the crowded gates of Kabul airport, killing scores of civilians and 13 U.S. troops.

In the days that followed, the U.S. conducted drone strikes on ISIS-K assets in Kabul in response. ISIS-K also fired five rockets towards Kabul airport as U.S. and western forces tried to get the last American citizens and Afghan allies to safety. 

August 30, 2021 

U.S. General Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, announces completion of the U.S. troop withdrawal. The Taliban celebrated with gunfire in the streets as Western forces finally left after 20 years.

There were still at least 250 American citizens stranded on the ground and thousands of Afghan allies – SIV applicants are those designated as vulnerable – left to face the Taliban.