New York Earthquake: City of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Published 30th April 2018

Researchers believe that a powerful earthquake, magnitude 5 or greater, could cause significant damage to large swathes of NYC, a densely populated area dominated by tall buildings.

Some experts have suggested that NYC is susceptible to at least a magnitude 5 earthquake once every 100 years.

The last major earthquake measuring over magnitude 5.0 struck NYC in 1884 – meaning another one of equal size is “overdue” by 34 years, according their prediction model.

Natural disaster researcher Simon Day, of University College London, agrees with the conclusion that NYC may be more at risk from earthquakes than is usually thought.

EARTHQUAKE RISK: New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from far-away tremors

But the idea of NYC being “overdue” for an earthquake is “invalid”, not least because the “very large number of faults” in the city have individually low rates of activity, he said.

The model that predicts strong earthquakes based on timescale and stress build-up on a given fault has been “discredited”, he said.

What scientists should be focusing on, he said, is the threat of large and potentially destructive earthquakes from “much greater distances”.

The dangerous effects of powerful earthquakes from further away should be an “important feature” of any seismic risk assessment of NYC, Dr Day said.


THE BIG APPLE: An aerial view of Lower Manhattan at dusk in New York City


RISK: A seismic hazard map of New York produced by USGS

“New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances” Dr Simon Day, natural disaster researcher

“An important feature of the central and eastern United States is, because the crust there is old and cold, and contains few recent fractures that can absorb seismic waves, the rate of seismic reduction is low.

Central regions of NYC, including Manhattan, are built upon solid granite bedrock; therefore the amplification of seismic waves that can shake buildings is low.

But more peripheral areas, such as Staten Island and Long Island, are formed by weak sediments, meaning seismic hazard in these areas is “very likely to be higher”, Dr Day said.

“Thus, like other cities in the eastern US, New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances than is the case for cities on plate boundaries such as Tokyo or San Francisco, where the crustal rocks are more fractured and absorb seismic waves more efficiently over long distances,” Dr Day said.

In the event of a large earthquake, dozens of skyscrapers, including Chrysler Building, the Woolworth Building and 40 Wall Street, could be at risk of shaking.

“The felt shaking in New York from the Virginia earthquake in 2011 is one example,” Dr Day said.

On that occasion, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake centered 340 miles south of New York sent thousands of people running out of swaying office buildings.


FISSURES: Fault lines in New York City have low rates of activity, Dr Day said

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city was “lucky to avoid any major harm” as a result of the quake, whose epicenter was near Louisa, Virginia, about 40 miles from Richmond.

“But an even more impressive one is the felt shaking from the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes in the central Mississippi valley, which was felt in many places across a region, including cities as far apart as Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, and in a few places even further afield including,” Dr Day added.

“So, if one was to attempt to do a proper seismic hazard assessment for NYC, one would have to include potential earthquake sources over a wide region, including at least the Appalachian mountains to the southwest and the St Lawrence valley to the north and east.”

The Sixth Seal Looms Ever Closer (Revelation 6:6)

Did you feel your home shake? Early-morning earthquake in NY could be felt in Vermont

April Barton   | Burlington Free Press Updated 8 hours ago

Did you feel the earth move under your feet (cue Carole King song) early Monday morning? If so, you weren’t imagining it — a magnitude 3.4 earthquake struck Ormstown, Canada, and was expected to be felt across Vermont.

The earthquake happened at 5:37 a.m. and was expected to be felt as far away as Montpelier, 85 miles southeast of the epicenter, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

The Adirondack fault lines around New York state are some of the most seismically active in the northeastern United States even though the nearest tectonic plate boundary is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Smaller earthquakes happen once every few years and moderately damaging quakes once every few decades in the region, according to the USGS. Three of the largest quakes in recent history: a 5.8 in Massena, New York, in 1944, a 4.9 in the southern Adirondack mountains in 1983, and 5.0 in Plattsburgh in 2002 caused more than $20 million in damage.

Iraq warns Trump no to damage the oil (Revelation 6:6)

Iraq warns of ‘collapse’ if Trump blocks oil cash

Iraqi officials say around $35 billion of the country’s oil revenues are held at the US Federal Reserve, which means Washington’s threat to restrict access could be a major problem.

BAGHDAD: Iraqi officials fear economic “collapse” if Washington imposes threatened sanctions, including blocking access to a US-based account where Baghdad keeps oil revenues that feed 90 percent of the national budget.

President Donald Trump was outraged by the Iraqi parliament voting on January 5 to oust foreign forces, including some 5,200 American troops, who have helped local soldiers beat back jihadists since 2014.

If troops were asked to leave, he threatened, “we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before.”

The US then delivered an extraordinary verbal message directly to Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi’s office, two Iraqi officials told AFP.

“The PMO got a call threatening that if US troops are kicked out, ‘we’ — the US — will block your account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York,” one official said.

Parliament’s vote to oust the troops was triggered by outrage over a US drone strike on Baghdad two days earlier that killed top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani and his Iraqi right-hand-man, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

The Central Bank of Iraq’s account at the Fed was established in 2003 following the US-led invasion that toppled ex-dictator Saddam Hussein.

Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, which lifted the crippling global sanctions and oil embargo imposed on Iraq after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, all revenues from Iraqi oil sales would go to the account.

Iraq is OPEC’s second-biggest crude producer and more than 90 percent of the state budget, which reached $112 billion in 2019, derives from oil revenues.

To this day, revenues are paid in dollars into the Fed account daily, with the balance now sitting at about $35 billion, Iraqi officials told AFP.

Every month or so, Iraq flies in $1-$2 billion in cash from that account for official and commercial transactions.

“We’re an oil-producing country. Those accounts are in dollars. Cutting off access means totally turning off the tap,” the first Iraqi official said.

The second official said it would mean the government could not carry out daily functions or pay salaries and the Iraqi currency would plummet in value.

It would mean collapse for Iraq,” the official said.

– Trump ‘politicises everything’ –

A third senior Iraqi official confirmed the US was considering “restricting” cash access to “about a third of what they would usually send.”

The Federal Reserve declined to comment on Trump’s threat.

A US State Department Official confirmed to AFP that the possibility of restricting access to the Fed account was “raised” with Iraq following the vote.

“You can imagine why, if troops were expelled, banks might be nervous about sending lots of… cash to Baghdad,” this official said.

But the US threat was still highly unusual as the Fed is meant to be independent of foreign policy.

“The attempt to politicise dollar shipments has the Bank worried because it affects its prestige and integrity in dealing with clients,” the State Department official added.

“Trump is obviously willing to politicise everything.”

Washington has considered the measure for months, with a senior US diplomat at the Baghdad embassy telling AFP in July it was looking at “limiting the cash that comes into Iraq.”

“That would be the nuclear option,” this diplomat added at the time.

Just before Iraqi lawmakers voted on the troop ouster, Speaker Mohammad Halbusi warned the world could stop dealing with Iraq’s banks in revenge for the move.

Blocking the Iraqi central bank’s Fed account could be done by blacklisting a government body, which would immediately restrict Baghdad’s access to dollars.

The US already sanctions Iraqi nationals, armed groups and even banks for links to Tehran, Washington’s arch-foe in the region.

It had left oil revenues untouched, with officials previously telling AFP such a move would be too damaging to a country considered a US ally.

– US would ‘lose Iraq’ –

But ties worsened recently, with the US frustrated by Iraq’s alliance with Iran and repeated rocket attacks on US installations blamed on Iraqi factions.

Relations then took a nosedive with the January 3 US drone strike that killed Soleimani and Muhandis, a senior Iraqi paramilitary figure.

Iraq slammed the killings as a violation of its sovereignty and immediately called for the vote on US troops.

The US is considering other — less inflammatory — options too, US and Iraqi officials said.

One would be declining to renew a temporary waiver that Washington granted to Iraq in 2018 that allows Baghdad to import gas from Iran to feed its gutted power grid, despite US sanctions on Tehran’s energy sector.

If Washington does not renew the waiver in February, then the Trade Bank of Iraq (TBI), which buys the gas, could face secondary sanctions for dealing with blacklisted Iranian entities.

Iraqi officials said the US threat to deny access to oil revenues was met with shock, anger and near-disbelief.

“The PM was pissed and insulted,” one official told AFP.

Another said the US would then irreversibly “lose Iraq”.

“They’d push us towards Russia, China, Iran. We’d have to form a separate economy with those countries.”

Antichrist joins meeting of Iraqi Popular Forces’ leaders on expulsion of US troops

Influential Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in a meeting with leaders of the country’s popular forces conferred on ways to end the US occupation of the country.

Muqtada Al-Sadr joins meeting of Iraqi Popular Forces’ leaders on expulsion of US troops

January 13, 2020 – 7:14 PM

News Code : 1002048

Source : FNA


AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Influential Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in a meeting with leaders of the country’s popular forces conferred on ways to end the US occupation of the country.

The Arabic-language al-Mayadeen news website reported on Monday that the meeting was hosted by Secretary General of al-Nujaba Movement Sheikh Akram al-Kaabi and attended by Head of the Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS) Abu Alaa al-Wala’i and a representative of Asa’eb al-Haq resistance group.

The information center of al-Nujaba Movement released images of the meeting which was aimed at coordination to expel the American forces from Iraq.

Al-Kaabi had on Sunday reassured the family of IRGC Qods Force Commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, who was savagely assassinated by the terrorist army of the US at Baghdad International Airport, that resistance groups of the region will exact revenge on American perpetrators of the criminal act.

In his visit to the house of martyred General Soleimani in Tehran, al-Kaabi said that the resistance movement will take revenge on perpetrators of US terrorist act in assassinating General Soleimani very soon.

Islamic Resistance Movement of Iraq (Al-Nujaba) promised daughter of Gen. Soleimani to take revenge on martyrdom of General Soleimani” reiterated the Iraqi figure.

Iraq will not be a safe place for American mercenaries and terrorists anymore, he emphasized.

The Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution to work to end the foreign troop presence in the Arab country in the wake of a US targeted assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of Iraqi popular forces.

The resolution, which was passed anonymously, instructed the government to cancel a request for military assistance to the US-led coalition, which was issued in response to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (known as ISIL, ISIS or Daesh) terror group.

“The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory,” the resolution read, adding, “The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

The resolution stated that Iraqi military leadership has to report the number of foreign instructors that are necessary for Iraqi national security.

Earlier, Abdul Mahdi had requested that parliament order the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.

Are We Going To Witness Nuke War In 2020? Not According to Prophecy

Are We Going To Witness Nuke War In 2020?

Sri Lanka Guardian

Analysts say a nuclear conflict — although closer — is still remote. But they also agree that rhetoric from both sides combined with the possibility of even a small change to India’s no-first-use nuke policy (only China and India have an unambiguous policy) is never safe.

by Saira Baig

It’s far too easier to make war than peace in this part of region — that is South Asia — which is already full of it: disputed borders, acute resource shortages, and threats ranging from extremist violence to earthquakes. But in 2019, a crisis stood out among all: rising tensions between India and Pakistan. And as serious as both were in 2019, everyone expects it to get even worse this year.

The year 2019 was a dangerously tense year for nuke holders India and Pakistan having already fought two of their three wars over the Himalayan region.

Iran is burning over the next conflict but what about India and Pakistan?

In February, a young Kashmiri man in the town of Pulwama staged a suicide bombing that killed more than three dozen Indian security forces — the deadliest such attack in Kashmir in three decades. Jaish-e-Mohammad — a Pakistan-based terror group with close ties to Pakistan’s security establishment — claimed responsibility. India retaliated by sending jets across Pakistan-administered Kashmir and launching limited strikes, for the first time since a war in 1971. Soon after, Pakistan claimed it had carried out six air strikes in Kashmir to showcase its might, and it also shot down an Indian fighter jet and captured the pilot. The confrontation, which de-escalated when Islamabad announced the pilot’s release several days later, represented the most serious exchange of hostilities in years.

Then, in August, India revoked the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, the India-administered part of Kashmir, and declared it a new territory of India. New Delhi also imposed a security lockdown in Kashmir that included the detention of hundreds of people and a communication blackout. For Islamabad, which claims Jammu and Kashmir as its own, the move amounted to a serious provocation, if hardly a hostile act. Pakistan retaliated by expelling India’s envoy from Islamabad and suspending trade with New Delhi. Undaunted, in the weeks that followed, senior Indian officials, including the defence and foreign ministers, turned their attention to Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which New Delhi has long claimed, and suggested they eventually planned to reclaim it.

Bilateral relations remained fraught over the past few months of the year. Islamabad issued constant broadsides against New Delhi for its continued security lockdown in Kashmir. By year’s end, an Internet blackout was still in effect. Then, in December, India’s parliament passed a controversial new citizenship law that affords fast-track paths to Indian citizenship for religious minorities — but never Muslims — fleeing persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The new law angered Islamabad never just for excluding Muslims, but because of the implication — accurate but hardly anything Islamabad likes to admit — that Pakistan persecutes its Hindu and Christian communities.

These prolonged tensions often overshadowed what was arguably the biggest story in both the countries in 2019: economic struggle. India suffered its biggest economic slowdown in six years, and Pakistan confronted a serious debt crisis. The two were hardly unconnected: given the inability of New Delhi and Islamabad to fix their economies, both governments arguably sought political advantages from the distractions of saber rattling.

Against this tense backdrop, the opening in November of a new border corridor that enables Indian Sikhs to enter Pakistan visa-free to worship at a holy shrine, which in better times could have been a bridge to an improved relationship, amounted to little more than a one-off humanitarian gesture.

Bad as this crisis is, it is poised to get worse this year. And the underlying tensions between the neighbours seem to sharpen.

Islamabad rounded up dozens of Islamist militants this past year, but New Delhi was never convinced Islamabad was taking strong and irreversible steps against New Delhi-focused terrorists and their networks. And New Delhi’s actions in Kashmir in 2019 represented worst-case scenarios for Islamabad.

The two nuke-armed nations will enter 2020 just one big trigger event away from war. The trigger could be another mass-casualty attack on Indian security forces in Kashmir traced back to a Pakistan-based group, or — acting on the threats issued repeatedly by New Delhi in 2019 — an Indian preemptive operation to seize territory in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

In either scenario, escalation would be swift. Bilateral relations are much worse than they were during last February’s confrontation. Ever since its resounding re-election win last spring, India’s ruling party has pursued its Hindu nationalist agenda in increasingly aggressive fashion — which gives it hardly any incentive to go easy on Pakistan, which, in turn, will never give in easily.

Analysts say a nuclear conflict — although closer — is still remote. But they also agree that rhetoric from both sides combined with the possibility of even a small change to India’s no-first-use nuke policy (only China and India have an unambiguous policy) is never safe.

For example, if India firms up the change in its no-first-use policy, Pakistan might take this as a signal that India could launch a pre-emptive strike at Pakistani nuclear installations. And that might, in turn, prompt Pakistan to use up all its nuclear weapons first. And so, you get this destabilising dynamic where as soon as the crisis becomes nuclearised, there is an incentive for both sides to go first.

Some analysts on either side call the escalating rhetoric a ‘war of words’ that will never on its own lead to military action.

However, the increasing tensions combined with references to nuclear conflict from both sides mean that the two countries are now likely to have changed the status of their nuclear weapons readiness from ‘peacetime’ to ‘crisis’.

In practice, this means moving the three main physical components of a weapon — the warhead, missile-delivery system and fissile material core — either assembled or closer to where they need to be, ready for launch. In peacetime, each component is kept at a different location, for safety and security.

Such a state of readiness for a strike heightens the risk of a nuclear accident, but is hardly in itself a sign that war will break out.

But if there is another attack inside India — as happened in February — India’s armed forces might again respond with force. That would precipitate a reaction from Pakistan’s military, prompting retaliation from India. Unless one side voluntarily holds back, the prospect of such military escalation concerns analysts because it could eventually lead to strikes against nuclear targets.

The doomsday clock for the next India-Pakistan war is ticking at a minute to midnight. Diplomatic intervention from Washington and other third parties, and cooler heads on both sides, may keep it from ticking further forward. But it’s hard to see a path to unraveling such tightly knotted tensions.

Saira Baig is a freelance writer focusing on politics (in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Latin America), feminism, cinema and fashion

Nations Unfazed by Israel Warnings (Revelation 11)

Hamas unfazed by Israel warnings

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israel contacted the Egyptian intelligence Dec. 30, warning against Hamas firing rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel and vowing to go back on all the recent economic concessions it made to Gaza under the truce understandings reached by Egypt between the two parties, at the end of March 2019, an Egyptian parliamentarian close to the Egyptian intelligence services told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity.

The most recent rockets were fired Dec. 25. Israel responded by launching several raids on the Gaza Strip at dawn Dec. 26, targeting several positions of the Palestinian armed factions in the north, center and south of Gaza without reporting any casualties.

Yet Israel considers that any Palestinian rocket launching toward it, even if Hamas is not directly responsible, is a violation of the truce understandings and is enough to disrupt it.

On Dec. 30, Israel decided to import strawberries, tomatoes and eggplant from the Gaza Strip to support its local markets, for the first time since a ban imposed several years ago. It decided at the same time to introduce transportation buses and fishing boats to Gaza, in addition to rubber tires, which had been banned since April 2018.

Institution buildingPersonal ties on the march in Turkey’s civilian-military relations

These new concessions came after the Higher National Commission for the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege, supervised by the Palestinian factions, most notably Hamas, announced during a press conference held in Gaza City Dec. 26 that it decided to halt the marches of return that it organized on a weekly basis on the eastern border with Israel, for a period of three months, and then only resume monthly marches beginning in March 2020.

The Egyptian parliamentarian noted that Egypt believes Hamas and Israel are taking positive steps to make sure the truce is a success, “but firing more indiscriminate rockets toward Israel would disturb and sabotage this truce.”

On Dec. 2, while laying the foundation stone for the construction of 12 new factories in Ashkelon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “There will be no long-term settlement with Gaza, as long as the sporadic rocket launching continues.”

Hamas leader Yahya Moussa told Al-Monitor, “The Israeli warnings have no value and we do not take them into consideration. What we take into account is Israel’s commitment to the truce understandings, which means stopping the targeting of our people in the Gaza Strip and breaking the blockade it imposed.”

Speaking about whether or not Hamas was able to prevent the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel, Moussa said, “Rockets can be fired individually by any given faction and they usually come in response to an Israeli aggression against our people; Hamas is not a police force working to protect Israel from these rockets. It must not target our people in order to avoid these rockets.”

Islamic Jihad leader Ahmad al-Mudallal told Al-Monitor, “The Israeli warnings aim to cover up the ongoing Israeli attempts to avoid implementing the understandings of breaking the siege [the truce].”

He explained that the recent concessions are part of the understandings, “while Israel continues to ignore the implementation of the remaining provisions of the understandings — the most important of which is to allow the establishment of major projects in Gaza such as the industrial zone in the east, and to facilitate citizens’ movement through the Erez crossing and the entry of goods through the Karam Abu Salem crossing.”

Mudallal added, “The Islamic Jihad’s position on the truce understandings is clear; we are committed to them so long as Israel is.”

Iyad al-Qarra, a political writer and analyst and former editor-in-chief of Felesteen newspaper in Gaza, told Al-Monitor, “Hamas is interested in implementing the truce understandings and has taken measures to make it succeed, the most important of which is limiting the marches of return on the Gaza border and objecting to launching indiscriminate rockets, individually [by some factions] without national consensus.”

He believes that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have started rejecting indiscriminate rocket launches individually outside the national consensus, after the meeting Egypt organized between the leaders of the two movements in Cairo on Dec. 3, 2019.

Qarra ruled out any talk of a long-term truce between Hamas and Israel at the present time, saying, “Instability currently prevails at the Israeli and Palestinian levels, and this prevents talk on a long-term truce. Israel is heading toward a third election, and the Palestinian street is also awaiting general elections that may lead to major political changes. Meanwhile, Hamas is waiting to see where things could go given the recent developments in the region after the United States assassinated the second most powerful person in Iran — Qasem Soleimani — in Baghdad on Jan. 3.”

Wadih Abu Nassar, a political analyst and expert on Israeli affairs and director of the International Center for Consultations in Haifa, told Al-Monitor, “Israel believes a truce is the best option in dealing with the resistance in the Gaza Strip at the present time — for several reasons, namely in order to set the stage for talks to conclude a new prisoner exchange deal with Hamas and to provide sufficient opportunity to complete the construction of the separation barrier that Israel began building in September 2016 — along its borders with Gaza — to eliminate the resistance’s tunnels.”

Abu Nassar said that Israel also wants calm with the Gaza Strip at this particular time to focus more on the northern front where the chances of a military confrontation with Israel escalate, especially after Soleimani’s assassination.

Qarra believes that Hamas is absolutely not interested in being part of the confrontation that may occur between Iran and the United States due to Soleimani’s assassination.

Talal Okal, a political analyst for the Ramallah-based newspaper Al-Ayyam, told Al-Monitor, “The truce between Gaza and Israel has become a reality on the ground. On the Palestinian side, military activities have been stopped and the marches of return halted. On Israel’s part, economic concessions have been made and permission has been given for some previously banned materials to enter the Gaza Strip.”

He noted that firing indiscriminate and individual rockets into Israel “indicates the presence of small groups [without naming any] operating in the dark concerned with sabotaging this truce in order to destabilize Hamas’ rule in Gaza.”

Okal added, “Still, I do believe that Hamas is able — to a great extent — to stop the indiscriminate rocket fire against Israel, but sometimes it does not take sufficient measures to stop it so as to pressure Israel not to renounce the truce understandings.”

Iranian Horn Attacks Again (Daniel 8:4)

Ballistic missile debris is seen after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard targeted Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq last week [Anadolu Agency]

Rockets hit Iraq military base hosting US troops

Al Jazeera

Airbase north of Baghdad targeted with rocket barrage, wounding four Iraqi soldiers, as US-Iran tensions simmer.

Rockets slammed into an Iraqi airbase north of Baghdad on Sunday where US troops have been based, wounding at least four Iraqi troops. No immediate information about American casualties was reported.

At least six rockets struck the Al Balad base, which hosts American trainers, advisers and a company that provides maintenance services for F-16 aircraft. Some projectiles fell on a restaurant inside the airbase, officials said.

The attack came just days after Iran fired ballistic missiles at two bases in Iraq that house US forces, causing no casualties.

A majority of US airmen stationed at the Al Balad airbase, 80km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, had already left, AFP news agency quoted military sources as saying.

Some shells hit the runway of the airbase while another shell struck the gate, said Colonel Mohammed Khalil, a police officer in the northern province of Saladin.

Three Iraqi soldiers, who were on guard at the airbase gate, were injured as a result of the shelling,” he said.

The Associated Press quoted one unidentified defence official as saying: “There are American experts, trainers and advisers at the base.”

So far there was no claim of responsibility for the attack, which comes amid hightened tensions between the United States and Iran over the last two weeks.

Retaliation strike

Last week Iran launched missile attacks on two Iraqi airbases hosting US troops in retaliation for the killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in a US drone strike in Baghdad.

The US and Iran recently stepped back from the brink of war following the killing of Soleimani. A senior Iraqi leader of an Iran-backed militia was also killed.

Iran’s retaliatory attack for Soleimani’s death hit two Iraqi bases, Ain al-Asad and Erbil, where American troops are based.

The limited Iranian strikes appeared to be mainly a show of force, and de-escalated tensions that had threatened to turn Iraq into a proxy battlefield.