Another Shake Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Report: New York City is overdue for a major earthquake

If a 5.0 Earthquake were to hit New York City, there could be $39 billion dollars worth of damage and 30 million tons of rubble… and experts say the city is overdue, according to the Daily Mail. Veuer’s Sam Berman has the full story.


At least one person in the Rochester area reporting feeling the second small earthquake to strike under Lake Ontario in the last week.

The latest temblor, which had a magnitude of 2.4,  occurred shortly before 5:30 p.m. Tuesday. It was 6.2 miles below the surface.

The epicenter was about 7 ½ miles out from the Canadian shore of the lake, roughly 23 miles east-southeast of downtown Toronto and 75 miles west-northwest of the Charlotte pier in Rochester.

Tuesday’s quake comes just four days after a 1.5-magnitude temblor was detected under the lake about 22 miles north of the Ontario-Williamson town line in Wayne County. That quake struck just before 4 a.m. Friday and occurred about 3¼ miles below the surface.

No one reported feeling that tremor, which was much too small to do damage.

But social media lit up Tuesday evening with surprised statements by people in metropolitan Toronto who felt the Earth shudder, and the U.S. Geological Survey received 20 reports from people who sensed the quake.

One report came from someone in the Victor, Ontario County, area. Another came from someone in Buffalo, a third from someone in Oceanside, Nassau County and a fourth, somewhat improbably, from a person in Columbus, Ohio. The other 16 were from residents of Ontario, Canada.

The Geological Survey releases only the location of respondents, not names.

Why one person in Victor would feel the tremor at a distance of 90 miles isn’t clear. Generally, smaller quakes tend to be felt by relatively few. People who are indoors on an upper floor and who are in a quiet environment with few distractions are most likely to sense such a quake, experts say.

According to the non-linear math of earthquake science, Tuesday’s tremor was eight times bigger than the one last week, and released 22 times more energy. At magnitude 2.4, it was near the threshold where property damage is possible. None was reported.

Small earthquakes of this nature are common in New York and eastern Ontario. Nine temblors have been measured so far this year in New York. Tuesday’s was the first in Ontario, according to a list maintained by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Four Palestinians Killed Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

A wounded Palestinian is evacuated during a protest near the Israel-Gaza border fence, in the southern Gaza Strip December 21, 2018.REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

Four Palestinians Killed in Border Protests, Gaza Authorities Say

Jack Khoury22.12.2018 | 15:40

The latest fatality, an 18-year-old Palestinian who was hit by a bullet to his stomach during Friday’s demonstration, succumbed to his wounds on Saturday

An 18-year-old Palestinian identified as Iman Munir Shubir succumbed to his wounds on Saturday after he was wounded gravely by a bullet that hit him in the stomach during protests at the border between Israel and Gaza, Gaza’s Health Ministry said.

Shubir, who hails from the city of Deir al-Balah, was hurt while participating in a demonstration east of the Palestinian refugee camp of al-Bureij in the center of the Strip.

His death brings the death toll from Friday’s Gaza demonstrations to four.

The three other fatalities from Friday’s clashes between Gazan protesters and Israeli security forces are the 16-year-old Mohammad al-Jahjuh, who was shot east of Gaza City; the 40-year-old Maher Yasin, who was shot east of al-Bureij and the 28-year-old Abed al-Aziz Sharia, who was shot east of Gaza.

According to Gaza authorities, Yasin suffered from mental and cognitive disablities.

At least 40 other people were wounded by live Israeli fire, and three were injured from tear gas inhalation.

The Israeli militarty said around 8,000 Palestinians gathered near the border fence on Friday: Most kept their distance, while some burned tires and tried to throw an explosive device into Israel, though unsuccessfully.

“Troops responded with riot dispersal means and fired in accordance with standard operating procedures,” an Israeli military spokeswoman said.

Since the Gaza border protests began in March, around 240 Palestinians died in confrontations with the Israeli military.

Ramallah’s Health Ministry reported last week that an 18-year-old resident of the refugee camp Jalazone was killed by live Israeli fire during altercations between the Israeli military and Palestinians in the West Bank.

According to the health ministry, two other Palestinians were wounded by live fire and were evacuated to a hospital in the West Bank to receive medical care.

Reuters contributed to this report. 

The Pakistani Horn Ready to Take Over Afghanistanvxj

Pakistan praises plan for US troop withdrawal in Afghanistan | Fox News

December 22, 2018

Pakistan’s foreign minister has welcomed President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw half the U.S.’s troops from Afghanistan.

Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Saturday told reporters in the central city of Multan that the decision is good for ongoing peace talks between the Afghan Taliban and the U.S.

Qureshi says Pakistan welcomes the peace discussions that took place earlier this week in Abu Dhabi and will continue to support the Afghan peace process. The minister said Pakistan has released some Taliban to help facilitate the talks.

The latest talks between the Taliban and U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad focused on the withdrawal of NATO troops, the release of prisoners and halting attacks on civilians by pro-government forces.

Khalilzad has tweeted that talks held in United Arab Emirates were “productive.”

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

IDF chief urges caution in Gaza as Hamas threatens new violence

Outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot on Sunday urged caution over the violence in the Gaza Strip, saying that a decision on launching a wide-scale Israeli military operation in the coastal enclave should be made based on “informed decisions,” rather than emotions. Meanwhile, the terror groups in Gaza vowed Sunday to avenge the deaths of four Palestinian protesters killed in weekend clashes with the IDF, which some fear will spark another escalation on the southern border.

On Friday, four Palestinian protesters, including a teenager, were fatally shot by IDF troops during the March of Return demonstrations along the border fence, prompting the Gaza factions to issue a statement threatening to respond to “Israel’s stupidity and its crimes against our people.”

Eizenkot said that Israel had a range of options open to it for dealing with Gaza.

“The question is whether to launch a major military operation, or choose a different option … For now, we’ve decided to go with a different option that would bring us the best results. We are not afraid to use force but it has to be done intelligently,” said the chief of staff.

“The use of force in Gaza will subsequently lead to questions whether it can ever be rehabilitated,” Eisenkot continued. “Although the Strip is ruled by a terrorist organization with murderous ideology that seeks to destroy Israel, it’s responsible for two million people living there.”

For the past month there has been relative quiet on the Gaza border as Israel and Hamas observed an Egypt and UN-brokered ceasefire following the biggest round of fighting between the two sides since 2014 Operation Protective Edge.

“Hamas is relatively deterred and has been in distress due to a series of decisions made by the Palestinian Authority, which has backed them into a corner. This led them to organize the border protests with the goals of easing the blockade, gaining international legitimacy and inciting violence in the West Bank—all of which they failed to achieve,” Eisenkot said.

The IDF chief also hit back at the criticism aimed at him by both former defense minister Avigdor Lieberman and Education Minister Naftali Bennett, for allowing $90 million of Qatari aid earmarked for Hamas civil servants and welfare to enter the Strip, despite the unstable security situation on the border.

IDF’s outgoing Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot (Photo: Yariv Katz)

“I am aware that we have not been able to provide a good sense of security over the past three years to the residents of the Gaza border communities due to the primitive fighting methods developed by the enemy,” he said.

Eisenkot also added that although he doesn’t agree with the notion that Israel has lost its deterrence, he admits that the situation in Gaza is “complex.”

“States and organizations can not be deterred from conventional expansion … We are doing a great deal to prevent the smuggling of advanced weapons into the Gaza Strip.” he said.

Iran Takes Over the Syrian Bridge

Iran repopulates Syria with Shia Muslims to help tighten regime’s control

New communities are settling in areas where Sunnis have fled or been forced out as Tehran seeks an arc of control stretching from its borders to Israel

Martin Chulov

First published on Fri 13 Jan 2017 08.23 EST

In the valleys between Damascus and Lebanon, where whole communities had abandoned their lives to war, a change is taking place. For the first time since the conflict broke out, people are starting to return.

But the people settling in are not the same as those who fled during the past six years.

The new arrivals have a different allegiance and faith to the predominantly Sunni Muslim families who once lived there. They are, according to those who have sent them, the vanguard of a move to repopulate the area with Shia Muslims not just from elsewhere in Syria, but also from Lebanon and Iraq.

The population swaps are central to a plan to make demographic changes to parts of Syria, realigning the country into zones of influence that backers of Bashar al-Assad, led by Iran, can directly control and use to advance broader interests. Iran is stepping up its efforts as the heat of the conflict starts to dissipate and is pursuing a very different vision to Russia, Assad’s other main backer.

Russia, in an alliance with Turkey, is using a nominal ceasefire to push for a political consensus between the Assad regime and the exiled opposition. Iran, meanwhile, has begun to move on a project that will fundamentally alter the social landscape of Syria, as well as reinforcing the Hezbollah stronghold of north-eastern Lebanon, and consolidating its influence from Tehran to Israel’s northern border.

Iran and the regime don’t want any Sunnis between Damascus and Homs and the Lebanese border,” said one senior Lebanese leader. “This represents a historic shift in populations.”

Key for Iran are the rebel-held towns of Zabadani and Madaya, where Damascus residents took summer breaks before the war. Since mid-2015 their fate has been the subject of prolonged negotiations between senior Iranian officials and members of Ahrar al-Sham, the dominant anti-Assad opposition group in the area and one of the most powerful in Syria.

Talks in Istanbul have centred on a swap of residents from two Shia villages west of Aleppo, Fua and Kefraya, which have both been bitterly contested over the past three years. Opposition groups, among them jihadis, had besieged both villages throughout the siege of Aleppo, attempting to tie their fate to the formerly rebel-held eastern half of the city.

The swap, according to its architects, was to be a litmus test for more extensive population shifts, along the southern approaches to Damascus and in the Alawite heartland of Syria’s north-west, from where Assad draws much of his support.

Labib al-Nahas, the chief of foreign relations for Ahrar al-Sham, who led negotiations in Istanbul, said Tehran was seeking to create areas it could control. “Iran was very ready to make a full swap between the north and south. They wanted a geographical continuation into Lebanon. Full sectarian segregation is at the heart of the Iranian project in Syria. They are looking for geographical zones that they can fully dominate and influence. This will have repercussions on the entire region.

“[The sieges of] Madaya and Zabadani became the key issue to prevent the opposition from retaking Fua and Kefraya, which have exclusive populations of Shia. Hezbollah consider this a security zone and a natural extension of their territory in Lebanon. They have had very direct orders from the spiritual leadership of Iran to protect them at any cost.”

Iran has been especially active around all four towns through its Hezbollah proxies. Along the ridgelines between Lebanon’s Bekaa valley and into the outskirts of Damascus, Hezbollah has been a dominant presence, laying siege to Madaya and Zabadani and reinforcing the Syrian capital. Wadi Barada to the north-west, where ongoing fighting is in breach of the Russian-brokered ceasefire, is also part of the calculations, sources within the Lebanon-based movement have confirmed.

Elsewhere in Syria, demographic swaps are also reshaping the geopolitical fabric of communities that, before the war, had coexisted for centuries. In Darayya, south-west of Damascus, more than 300 Iraqi Shia families moved into neighbourhoods abandoned by rebels last August as part of a surrender deal. Up to 700 rebel fighters were relocated to Idlib province and state media announced within days that the Iraqis had arrived.

The Sayeda Zainab mosque has been heavily fortified by Hezbollah. Photograph: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

Shia shrines in Darayya and Damascus have been a raison d’etre for the presence of Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed Shia groups. The Sayeda Zainab mosque on the capital’s western approach has been heavily fortified by Hezbollah and populated by families of the militant group, who have moved in since late 2012. Tehran has also bought large numbers of homes near the Zainab mosque, and a tract of land, which it is using to create a security buffer – a microcosm of its grander project.

Abu Mazen Darkoush, a former FSA commander who fled Zabadani for Wadi Barada said Damascus’s largest Islamic shrine, the Umayyad mosque, was now also a security zone controlled by Iranian proxies. “There are many Shia who were brought into the area around the mosque. It is a Sunni area but they plan for it to be secured by Shias, then surrounded by them.”

Senior officials in neighbouring Lebanon have been monitoring what they believe has been a systematic torching of Land Registry offices in areas of Syria recaptured on behalf of the regime. A lack of records make it difficult for residents to prove home ownership. Offices are confirmed to have been burned in Zabadani, Darayya, Syria’s fourth city, Homs, and Qusayr on the Lebanese border, which was seized by Hezbollah in early 2013.

Darkoush said whole neighbourhoods had been cleansed of their original inhabitants in Homs, and that many residents had been denied permission to return to their homes, with officials citing lack of proof that they had indeed lived there.

“The first step in the plan has been achieved,” he said. “It involved expelling the inhabitants of these areas and burning up anything which connects them to their land and homes. The second step will be replacing the original inhabitants with newcomers from Iraq and Lebanon.”

In Zabadani, Amir Berhan, director of the town’s hospital, said: “The displacement from here started in 2012 but increased dramatically in 2015. Now most of our people have already been taken to Idlib. There is a clear and obvious plan to move Sunnis from between Damascus and Homs. They have burned their homes and fields. They are telling people ‘this place is not for you anymore’.

“This is leading to the fragmentation of families. The concept of family life and ties to the land is being dissolved by all this deportation and exile. It is shredding Syrian society.”

At stake in postwar Syria, with the war beginning to ebb, is more than who lives where when the fighting finally stops. A sense of identity is also up for grabs, as is the bigger question of who gets to define the national character.

“This is not just altering the demographic balance,” said Labib al-Nahas. “This is altering the balance of influence in all of these areas and across Syria itself. Whole communities will be vulnerable. War with Iran is becoming an identity war. They want a country in their likeness, serving their interests. The region can’t tolerate that.”

Additional reporting by Suzan Haidamous

Syria is the Iranian Dream

Members of the Syrian opposition receive training from the U.S. Army Oct. 22, at the Tanf military outpost in southern Syria. (Lolita Baldor/AP)

U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria is ‘a dream come true for the Iranians’

By Liz Sly, Loveday Morris

December 21, 2018 at 7:09 PM

BEIRUT —One of the biggest winners of President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria will be Iran, which can now expand its reach across the Middle East with Washington’s already waning influence taking another hit.

The abrupt reversal of U.S. policy regarding its small military presence in a remote but strategically significant corner of northeastern Syria has stunned U.S. allies, many of whom were counting on the Trump administration’s seemingly tough posture on Iran to reverse extensive gains made by Tehran in recent years.

Instead, the withdrawal of troops opens the door to further Iranian expansion, including the establishment of a land corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean that will enhance Iran’s ability to directly challenge Israel. It also throws in doubt Washington’s ability to sustain its commitment to other allies in the region and could drive many of them closer to Russia, an Iranian ally, analysts say.

“This is a dream come true for the Iranians,” said Riad Kahwaji, who heads the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, a defense consultancy in Dubai. “No longer will Iran take the Trump administration seriously. It’s an isolationist administration, it will no longer pose a threat, and Iran will become bolder in its actions because they know this administration is more bark than bite.”

A top Iranian official gloated Friday that the United States has admitted failure in its attempts to “overrun” the Middle East, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.

From left, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu join hands following consultations this month on Syria at the United Nations in Geneva. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)

“The Americans have come to the conclusion that they can exercise power neither in Iraq and Syria nor in the entire region,” said Brig. Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, the commander of ground forces of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, at a news conference in Tehran.

The most immediate impact will be in Syria, where U.S. troops have been serving as a buffer against Iranian expansion throughout the country as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — backed by Iranian-trained and funded militias consolidates control over areas that rebelled against him in 2011.

The area in northeastern Syria where most of an estimated 2,000 U.S. troops are based is now up for grabs, with both Turkey and the Syrian government vying for control.

The Syrian Kurds, who manage the area, say they are hoping to reach a deal with Assad, which would head off a feared Turkish incursion — and bring the Iranian-allied government into areas overseen by the U.S. military.

Of more immediate concern to Israel is a much smaller toehold the U.S. military has maintained at Tanf, a tiny territory in Syria along the border of Iraq and Jordan.

The Trump administration has not said whether the withdrawal plan includes Tanf, where around 250 U.S. Special Forces are based alongside a Pentagon-trained unit of former Free Syrian Army rebels.

The rebel commander, Muhannad al-Talla, said the rebels had been told to prepare for a U.S. pullout, although they were not given a date.

The U.S. base is located at the border crossing between Iraq and Syria, along the shortest link between Tehran and the Syrian capital of Damascus, a route Iran could use to sustain the growing arsenal of missiles and rockets that its ally Hezbollah is building in Lebanon.

The unilateral decision to withdraw, without a plan for what comes next, has called into question the Israeli assumption that it can count on the United States to protect Israel against Iran, Israeli analysts said.

The sense now in Israel is that Israel is essentially alone in the task of back-walling the Iranian military presence in Syria,” said Ofer Zalzberg, a Jerusalem-based analyst with the International Crisis Group. “This decision feeds the notion that is prevalent in the region, even if it’s not entirely correct, that the U.S. is withdrawing. Many people draw delight from this, specifically in Tehran and Moscow.”

Iran is already close to restoring another land route across Iraq through Syria and into Lebanon via the Iraqi-Syrian border crossing linking the Syrian town of Bukamal and the Iraqi town of Qaim. This location is a crossroads of geopolitical conflict where the forces of the Islamic State, the Syrian government, Iranian-backed militias, Russia, the United States and the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are battling for control.

With the United States withdrawing its troops from the Syrian side of the border, Israel is concerned about whether it will also pull out from Iraq, where around 5,200 U.S. troops are based and mostly provide training and advice to the Iraqi Army, said Brig. Gen. Eli Ben Meir, who formerly headed the Israeli military’s research analysis division. The United States maintains a base just across the border from Bukamal, in Qaim, which will continue to act as a deterrent to Iran’s unfettered access to the area after troops leave Syria, while the U.S. presence in Iraq more broadly exerts some restraint on Iran’s ability to exercise full control.

“The most important thing from Israel’s aspect and Israeli strategy is how the U.S. military existence in Iraq, and especially on the Iraqi-Syrian border, will reshape, if at all, because of this withdrawal,” Meir said in a conference call with journalists in Israel. “Iran wants to be more involved in what’s going on in Syria, but there is Iraq that is between.”

The decision to withdraw from Syria on the grounds that the Islamic State has been defeated, as Trump claimed, is also likely to bolster demands from Iran’s Shiite Iraqi allies for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, said Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s former foreign minister. He predicted an intensified effort in the Iraqi parliament, where Iran-backed militia groups control at least a third of its seats and could count on support from others opposed to the U.S. presence to push for a U.S. withdrawal.

“The logic is that if the U.S. has defeated ISIS in Syria and is withdrawing, ISIS is defeated in Iraq and they should also withdraw from Iraq,” he said.

Morris reported from Jerusalem. Zakaria Zakaria in Brazil contributed to this report.

Liz Sly is The Washington Post’s Beirut bureau chief, covering Lebanon, Syria and the wider region. She has spent more than 17 years covering the Middle East, including the first and second Iraq wars. Other postings include Washington, Africa, China, Afghanistan and Italy.

Loveday Morris is The Washington Post’s Jerusalem bureau chief. She was previously based in Baghdad and Beirut for The Post.

Three More Palestinians Die Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

The Gaza Health Ministry said more than 208 Palestinians have been killed in protests at the Gaza-Israel border since weekly protests began March 30. File Photo by Ismael Mohamad/UPI | License Photo

Three Palestinians dead in clashes at Gaza border with Israel

Danielle Haynes

Dec. 21 (UPI) — Three Palestinians died during violence Friday marking nine months of weekly protests at the Gaza-Israel border, the Gaza Ministry of Health said.

Palestinian news agency WAFA identified the dead Mohammad Mo’een Jahjouh, 16, Abdul-Aziz Abu Shari’a, 28, and Maher Yasin, 40. Health officials said another 27 people sustained injuries, including journalists and medical workers.

The Risk of Nuclear War with Trump

The Trump presidency and growing risks of a nuclear war

December 22, 2018 – 11:00 AM EST

By Louis René Beres, opinion contributor 171

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Top headlines for December 22, 2018

In perilous decline, the Trump presidency’s greatest risk lies in crisis decision-making and potentially consequent nuclear war. Although seemingly far-fetched, this existential risk should never be dismissed out of hand. In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin raised the alarm just this week.

The core risks to the United States stem from the various and plausible reasons that President Donald Trump could sometime render “inappropriate” nuclear command decisions. Whether by deliberate intent, inadvertence, miscalculation or even outright irrationality, any such decision could spawn more-or-less intolerable security consequences. Even if Mr. Trump’s decisional errors were to concern “only” prospective conventional conflicts — e.g., Kim Jung Un’s North Korea — these seemingly sub-nuclear confrontations could nonetheless quickly escalate to a nuclear threshold.

In essence, President Trump should never lose sight of the potentially seamless connections and synergies between conventional conflict and nuclear war.

In the late 1970s, having already spent four years at Princeton, long an intellectual center of American nuclear strategic thought, I was busily preparing a far-reaching and original manuscript on U.S. nuclear strategy and formidable corollary risks of nuclear war. Then, I was most specifically interested in appraising American presidential authority to launch nuclear weapons.

Among other things, I learned that sophisticated and expectedly reliable safeguards were already built into American nuclear command/control decisions, but also that these essential safeguards might not meaningfully apply at the presidential level.

This disjunction did not seem to make any sense, especially in a world where flagrant leadership irrationality was hardly without precedent.

So, reaching out to retired General Maxwell D. Taylor, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I asked about such a disjunction. Almost immediately, General Taylor sent me a detailed handwritten reply. Dated 14 March 1976, the General’s informed letter concluded: “As to dangers arising from an irrational American president, the best protection is not to elect one.”

Now, in late 2018, this 1976 warning has taken on a very precise and recognizable urgency. Until now, in fact, I had never given serious thought to General Taylor’s strongly cautionary response. Somehow, I had simply assumed, “the system” would always operate smoothly and successfully.

The times have changed. Today, one must assume that if President Trump were ever to exhibit emotional instability and/or irrationality, he could (1) authoritatively order the use of American nuclear weapons, and (2) issue such an order without generating any calculable expectations of “disobedience.”

Arguably, despite Mr. Trump’s persistently deferential treatment of Vladimir Putin, the United States and Russia are deeply involved in “Cold War II.” This expanding involvement could substantially complicate certain future U.S. presidential decision-making processes, including even strategic nuclear military decisions. Already, back on 3 October 2016, Russian President Putin ordered a halt to any then-planned agreement with the United States concerning weapons grade plutonium disposal.

This openly ominous suspension took place at the same time that the two superpowers were continuing a shadowy but still-accelerating nuclear arms race.

What actual remedies are required to best safeguard the United States? What should be done by the National Command Authority (NCA) if its members should sometime decide to oppose an obviously mistaken or contrived presidential order to use American nuclear weapons? Should the NCA respond in an impromptu or expressly ad hoc fashion? Or should there already be in place assorted measures to judge a president’s reason and judgment, measures of the same sort that are routinely applied at lower levels of national nuclear command authority?

In principle, at least, any presidential order to use nuclear weapons, whether issued by an apparently irrational president, or by an otherwise incapacitated one, would have to be heeded. This sobering conclusion is incontestable. To do anything else, in such confused and bewildering circumstances, would be illegal prima facie, or “on its face.”

Any doubts we might currently harbor about Donald Trump as custodian of the U.S. nuclear codes should be framed as part of a far more generic problem of American presidential authority. More particularly, we ought to ask, if faced with a presidential order to use nuclear weapons, and if not offered any tangible corroborative evidence of some impending existential threat, would the sitting Secretary of Defense and/or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, among several relevant others: (1) be willing to disobey, and (2) be capable of enforcing their presumptively well-founded expressions of disobedience?

Following the post-World War II criminal tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, such questions should not be evaded and will need to be asked. If these questions are avoided or ignored, we could discover too late that all necessary remediation is past, and that the “best protection” against an irrational American president —  “not to elect one” — had gone unheeded.

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)