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”.

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 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

Building up the European Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7)

The nuclear threat is rising. Europe cannot just stand and watch

Wilfred WanMon 26 Nov 2018 06.20 EST

The danger is clear with Putin building up his forces, Trump pulling out of treaties and the ever-present terrorist risk

A hundred years after the armistice that ended the first world war heads of state and government gathered in France this month to commemorate the centenary and attend the opening of the Paris Peace Forum. The object of the forum – to spur international cooperation on global challenges to durable peace – is more essential than ever. But the meeting took place against a deteriorating multilateral landscape in which arguably the preeminent threat to international peace and security – nuclear weapons use – may be at its highest since the deep chill of the cold war.

Much attention in the aftermath of Armistice Day has focused on the concept of a “true European army” advanced by the leaders of France and Germany, a proposal linked to the evolving nuclear risk landscape. Indeed, French president Emmanuel Macron’s call for European defence came directly in response to the US announcement that it would withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty – European security was identified as the “main victim” should the Americans follow through. Yet even with a European army in place, and even if the US and Russia were to resolve their issues and abide by their INF obligations, the spectre of nuclear use on the continent remains.

Worsening relations between nuclear-armed states in recent years have had real consequences for the possibility of nuclear weapons use in Europe, whether intentionally or inadvertently. With Russia building up its military forces in Kaliningrad in response to frayed relations with the west, and the Obama-era New Start treaty set to expire in 2021 with no follow-up on the cards, European leaders have invoked images of an arms race on their continent. The continued presence of US and Russian nonstrategic weapons on the continent already poses serious risk of “accidental use, miscalculation and inadvertent escalation”. Recent activity in the Norwegian Sea raises the possibility of confrontation involving Russia’s Northern Fleet – a scenario that could mirror events during the Cuban missile crisis.

The crisis in nuclear diplomacy has also been felt across non-proliferation and nuclear security efforts. This is significant as terrorist groups are said to remain intent on acquiring the materials necessary to construct a crude nuclear device. Russia’s 2014 expulsion from the G8 effectively halted activities in the global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Vladimir Putin withdrew from the bilateral plutonium management and disposition agreement with the US in 2016. Such stalled campaigns to secure vulnerable nuclear materials should be of concern for a region that has proven susceptible to terrorist threat.

A brief history of nuclear near-misses

But recent attention on the INF underplays the fundamental issue of nuclear risk. Indeed, Europe is not immune even from North Korea’s capabilities. The varied nature of nuclear risk – and its causes – helps to explain why a number of European states, including nuclear-armed Britain and France, have undertaken practical actions to limit the dangers. In May 2016 officials from Sweden and Switzerland identified the unique risks associated with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, prompting cries in some circles for a global ban. Those two states have also long been engaged in calls to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems (“de-alerting”).

Europe has not been reduced to spectator status in the face of a heightened possibility of nuclear detonation on its doorstep. Yet if it is to confront nuclear risk, it cannot be selective. Any effort must be comprehensive and considered, tackling more than just narrow aspects of risk. Imagine a scenario – as in the past – in which Moscow misinterprets a conventional missile flight as nuclear. Even a cooperative European defence could do little to prevent a retaliatory nuclear response. But if all nonstrategic warheads in Europe had been placed in central storage, this would allay the possibility that Moscow might misinterpret conventional missions in the first place. Direct communication links containing multiple nodes (beyond Moscow-Washington) could further bolster protection against escalation. For its part, Moscow could have physically blocked the lids on its silo-based weapons, which could lengthen decision time by valuable minutes – perhaps enough to clarify the situation.

There are no universal solutions. Those who linger on the future of the INF should not lose sight of the broader issue of nuclear risk. Yet few in the international community have taken a wide view on nuclear risk reduction, much less address the range of causes of risk and accompanying scenarios. While research institutes and former officials have made commendable efforts, a significant gap remains. This cannot persist. Nuclear risk reduction is a common security interest of all states – one that transcends alliances and umbrellas, and even the geopolitical circumstances that have stagnated arms control and disarmament.

Systematic engagement in nuclear risk reduction can result in measured concrete action. At a time when the nuclear risk on the continent is acute, European states have every reason to take the lead.

Wilfred Wan is writing in a personal capacity. He is a researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and is currently focusing on nuclear risk reduction options

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

Iran could have nuclear weapon in one month

World War 3: Iran could have nuclear weapon in month claims Israel | Daily Star

By Matt Drake 12.11, 24 Nov 2018 UPDATED 20.11, 24 Nov 2018

IRAN could have a nuclear weapon within a matter of months if the country pulls out of the 2015 deal, according to shocking claims made by Israeli intelligence agents.

A secret Iranian archive seized by Israeli agents earlier this year suggests the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme was more advanced than the West had thought, according to a nuclear expert who examined the documents.

It suggests if Iran pulls out the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal, that Donald Trump has abandoned, it could produce a bomb in a matter of months, according to physicist David Albright from Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, DC.

Mr Alrbight told Foreign Policy: “The archive is littered with new stuff about the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

“It’s unbelievable how much is in there.”

ADVANCED: Iran’s programme is said to be more advanced than first thought (Pic: GETTY)

But Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, Barbara Slavin, said the real concern is Donald Trump pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal.

Tehran’s controversial nuke agreement with the US saw the Islamic Republic agree to give up nukes.

It saw the US agree to waive tough economic sanctions under Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama.

Trump axed the deal in May before reimposing sanctions, leading to fears Iran could restart its programme.

Ms Slavin told Daily Star Online: “The documents Israel discovered related to Iran’s nuclear program revealed no information about an ongoing weapons program, only that Iran had made substantial progress in that direction in the past.

“If anything, these findings only reinforced the rationale behind the 2015 nuclear deal and the folly of the Trump administration in walking out of the deal without a replacement in hand.”

Iran would still need to produce weapons-grade uranium.

But Mr Albright added that if it restarts its centrifuges it could have enough in about seven to 12 months.

The physicist continued: “The US was issuing statements that it would take a year at least, perhaps two years, to build a deliverable weapon. The information in the archive makes it clear they could have done it a lot quicker.”

The archive is over 100,000 pages long and is from 1999 to 2003, a decade before negotiations on a nuclear deal began.

It reveals that Washington underestimated how close Iran was to making a nuke.

But Ms Slavin believes Iran will keep in compliance with the deal and it is only Trump trying to wreck it.

“Fortunately, Iran appears willing to remain in compliance with the agreement and accept European, Russian and Chinese efforts to maintain a minimum of trade.

“Iran’s hope is that Donald Trump will be a one-term president and that his successor will return to the deal or seek new negotiations on a more realistic basis.”