Quakeland: New York and the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next Devastating Earthquake

Roger Bilham

Given recent seismic activity — political as well as geological — it’s perhaps unsurprising that two books on earthquakes have arrived this season. One is as elegant as the score of a Beethoven symphony; the other resembles a diary of conversations overheard during a rock concert. Both are interesting, and both relate recent history to a shaky future.

Journalist Kathryn Miles’s Quakeland is a litany of bad things that happen when you provoke Earth to release its invisible but ubiquitous store of seismic-strain energy, either by removing fluids (oil, water, gas) or by adding them in copious quantities (when extracting shale gas in hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, or when injecting contaminated water or building reservoirs). To complete the picture, she describes at length the bad things that happen during unprovoked natural earthquakes. As its subtitle hints, the book takes the form of a road trip to visit seismic disasters both past and potential, and seismologists and earthquake engineers who have first-hand knowledge of them. Their colourful personalities, opinions and prejudices tell a story of scientific discovery and engineering remedy.

Miles poses some important societal questions. Aside from human intervention potentially triggering a really damaging earthquake, what is it actually like to live in neighbourhoods jolted daily by magnitude 1–3 earthquakes, or the occasional magnitude 5? Are these bumps in the night acceptable? And how can industries that perturb the highly stressed rocks beneath our feet deny obvious cause and effect? In 2015, the Oklahoma Geological Survey conceded that a quadrupling of the rate of magnitude-3 or more earthquakes in recent years, coinciding with a rise in fracking, was unlikely to represent a natural process. Miles does not take sides, but it’s difficult for the reader not to.

She visits New York City, marvelling at subway tunnels and unreinforced masonry almost certainly scheduled for destruction by the next moderate earthquake in the vicinity. She considers the perils of nuclear-waste storage in Nevada and Texas, and ponders the risks to Idaho miners of rock bursts — spontaneous fracture of the working face when the restraints of many million years of confinement are mined away. She contemplates the ups and downs of the Yellowstone Caldera — North America’s very own mid-continent supervolcano — and its magnificently uncertain future. Miles also touches on geothermal power plants in southern California’s Salton Sea and elsewhere; the vast US network of crumbling bridges, dams and oil-storage farms; and the magnitude 7–9 earthquakes that could hit California and the Cascadia coastline of Oregon and Washington state this century. Amid all this doom, a new elementary school on the coast near Westport, Washington, vulnerable to inbound tsunamis, is offered as a note of optimism. With foresight and much persuasion from its head teacher, it was engineered to become an elevated safe haven.

Miles briefly discusses earthquake prediction and the perils of getting it wrong (embarrassment in New Madrid, Missouri, where a quake was predicted but never materialized; prison in L’Aquila, Italy, where scientists failed to foresee a devastating seismic event) and the successes of early-warning systems, with which electronic alerts can be issued ahead of damaging seismic waves. Yes, it’s a lot to digest, but most of the book obeys the laws of physics, and it is a engaging read. One just can’t help wishing that Miles’s road trips had taken her somewhere that wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen.

Catastrophic damage in Anchorage, Alaska, in 1964, caused by the second-largest earthquake in the global instrumental record.

In The Great Quake, journalist Henry Fountain provides us with a forthright and timely reminder of the startling historical consequences of North America’s largest known earthquake, which more than half a century ago devastated southern Alaska. With its epicentre in Prince William Sound, the 1964 quake reached magnitude 9.2, the second largest in the global instrumental record. It released more energy than either the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake or the 2011 Tohoku earthquake off Japan; and it generated almost as many pages of scientific commentary and description as aftershocks. Yet it has been forgotten by many.

The quake was scientifically important because it occurred at a time when plate tectonics was in transition from hypothesis to theory. Fountain expertly traces the theory’s historical development, and how the Alaska earthquake was pivotal in nailing down one of the most important predictions. The earthquake caused a fjordland region larger than England to subside, and a similarly huge region of islands offshore to rise by many metres; but its scientific implications were not obvious at the time. Eminent seismologists thought that a vertical fault had slipped, drowning forests and coastlines to its north and raising beaches and islands to its south. But this kind of fault should have reached the surface, and extended deep into Earth’s mantle. There was no geological evidence of a monster surface fault separating these two regions, nor any evidence for excessively deep aftershocks. The landslides and liquefied soils that collapsed houses, and the tsunami that severely damaged ports and infrastructure, offered no clues to the cause.

“Previous earthquakes provide clear guidance about present-day vulnerability.” The hero of The Great Quake is the geologist George Plafker, who painstakingly mapped the height reached by barnacles lifted out of the intertidal zone along shorelines raised by the earthquake, and documented the depths of drowned forests. He deduced that the region of subsidence was the surface manifestation of previously compressed rocks springing apart, driving parts of Alaska up and southwards over the Pacific Plate. His finding confirmed a prediction of plate tectonics, that the leading edge of the Pacific Plate plunged beneath the southern edge of Alaska along a gently dipping thrust fault. That observation, once fully appreciated, was applauded by the geophysics community.

Fountain tells this story through the testimony of survivors, engineers and scientists, interweaving it with the fascinating history of Alaska, from early discovery by Europeans to purchase from Russia by the United States in 1867, and its recent development. Were the quake to occur now, it is not difficult to envisage that with increased infrastructure and larger populations, the death toll and price tag would be two orders of magnitude larger than the 139 fatalities and US$300-million economic cost recorded in 1964.

What is clear from these two books is that seismicity on the North American continent is guaranteed to deliver surprises, along with unprecedented economic and human losses. Previous earthquakes provide clear guidance about the present-day vulnerability of US infrastructure and populations. Engineers and seismologists know how to mitigate the effects of future earthquakes (and, in mid-continent, would advise against the reckless injection of waste fluids known to trigger earthquakes). It is merely a matter of persuading city planners and politicians that if they are tempted to ignore the certainty of the continent’s seismic past, they should err on the side of caution when considering its seismic future.

New York’s Complacency Will Lead to the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Indian Point (photo: the governor’s office)

Leonard Rodberg & Herschel Specter

New York’s recently-passed Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act has been described as the boldest climate legislation in the nation. It sets demanding milestones for reducing carbon emissions, starting with the 2030 goal that New York state should, by then, derive 70% of its electricity from renewable sources (solar, wind, and waterpower). By 2040, it should derive all of its electricity from “clean” sources, and it should be carbon-neutral in all its uses of energy by 2050.

These goals pose daunting challenges, but within two years the challenge will become even greater when the Indian Point nuclear plant, 36 miles up the Hudson River from New York City, is scheduled to shut down. Governor Cuomo agreed to its closure, even though it is functioning safely and economically, because of fears of a nuclear accident raised by the community around the site. When he agreed to the closure, he made a commitment it would not result in any new carbon emissions. Nevertheless, the operator of New York’s electric grid has made clear that three natural gas-powered generating plants will be fired up to replace the carbon-free electricity flowing from Indian Point. These replacement plants will release 7 million metric tons of greenhouse gases for each year thereafter. The increased greenhouse gas emissions will undermine the new climate law before it even gets started, and the smaller capacity of the gas plants may well lead to shortages of electric power in the coming years.

We have shown elsewhere that attempting to meet the new law’s 2030 goal with only renewable sources would cost more than $100 billion and is completely impractical. However, the language of the new climate law ignores the contribution that nuclear power, which emits no carbon dioxide, can make toward a carbon-free future. Indeed, if Indian Point and other nuclear plants, which already provide nearly a third of New York’s electricity, are kept running, and the governor’s planned expansion of offshore wind takes place, a 2030 goal of 70% carbon-free electricity will be met without any further expenditure. 

There is no need to shut down Indian Point. This facility, which produces a quarter of the New York City Metro region’s electricity, is safe and reliable and can keep going for decades more. The current closure agreement does allow the plant, if necessary, to continue operating through 2024 and 2025. While the current operator, the Entergy Corp., is giving up control of the plant, the New York Power Authority could take it over and continue operating it, as it did safely and efficiently for many years before Entergy came into the picture. In fact, Indian Point should remain operational until such time as new, carbon-free resources can replace it. That way, it can continue to help meet the state’s emission reduction goals.

We recognize that including nuclear energy, along with carbon-free renewable energy sources, in meeting our climate goals will require a major re-evaluation of risk by groups deeply invested in opposing nuclear power. These groups, some of which campaigned for the closure of Indian Point, are concerned that nuclear reactors will suffer accidents that could have catastrophic consequences. In fact, as one of us has explained in a brief guide, this is not possible. Nuclear reactor accidents have led to very few deaths – 28 plant workers and firefighters perished at Chernobyl, along with an estimated 60 deaths from thyroid cancer worldwide — and there were zero fatalities from the Three Mile Island and Fukushima events. Hundreds of thousands have already suffered from the effects of climate change, and millions more are likely to suffer if climate change proceeds as it is on course now.

Keeping Indian Point and other nuclear plants operating while the state builds new, even safer nuclear facilities and installs modest amounts of renewable resources offers the most practical, achievable path for New York to meet its emission goals and offer our children and grandchildren a realistic chance for a carbon-free, stable future.


Leonard Rodberg is a physicist who taught climate change and public policy at Queens College/CUNY until his retirement in 2017. Herschel Specter is an engineer who focused on nuclear safety issues in many positions, including at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

How the First Nuclear War Will Devastate Our Food Supply

Even ‘small-scale’ nuclear war between India & Pakistan would DEVASTATE global food supply – study

17 Mar, 2020 04:48 / Updated 1 day ago

A low-level nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could wipe out large swaths of the world’s food supply, igniting cataclysmic fires that blot out the Sun in a decade-long nuclear winter, according to new research.

Estimated to hold about 150 warheads each, India and Pakistan’s combined arsenals make up only a fraction of the worldwide stockpile – about 14,000-strong at present – but even a “limited” nuclear war between the regional rivals could have grave consequences for the rest of the planet, a study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal claims.

“Even this regional, limited war would have devastating indirect implications worldwide,” said Jonas Jagermeyr, the study’s lead author and a researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “It would exceed the largest famine in documented history.”

We’re not saying a nuclear conflict is around the corner. But it is important to understand what could happen.

Starting its simulation in 2025, when tensions in the contested Kashmir region boil over into a hypothetical shooting war, the study looks at what might follow if both sides set off a total of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs – much less powerful than many modern thermonuclear warheads.

Also on rt.com ‘No precedent in human experience’: Study finds nuclear war between India and Pakistan could leave 125 million dead

Beyond the immediate death and destruction from the explosions themselves, a cascade of side effects would likely roil the world’s climate for years, the study found, with the blasts igniting immense fires that launch 5 million tons of soot toward the stratosphere, exceeding “impacts caused by historic droughts and volcanic eruptions.”

Enveloped under a thick blanket of smoke and soot, global temperatures plummet, sending crop yields – corn in particular, the most common cereal grain – into a downward spiral. While the researchers believe agriculture would be worst affected in breadbasket regions in the northern hemisphere – across the US, Europe, Russia, and China, for example – somewhat paradoxically, they suggest hunger would be worst in the global south, where populations rely on the huge food surpluses produced in developed countries to the north.

Up to 70 poorer nations with a combined population of 1.3 billion would likely see food supplies fall by more than 20 percent within five years, the study concluded. Corn production in the US could be reduced by as much as 20 percent, while Russia could see its maize output cut clean in half. Wheat and soybean crops would likely suffer a similar fate.

While some regions in South America and Africa may see crops perform better under the cooler climes, it would be nowhere near sufficient to offset the losses elsewhere.

“As horrible as the direct effects of nuclear weapons would be, more people could die outside the target areas due to famine,” said study co-author Alan Robock, adding that such weapons “can be used with tragic consequences for the world.”

Russia’s New Hypersonic Nuclear Weapons

WW3 warning: Russia’s missile which could breach US defence ‘Hypersonic destruction!’ | World | News | Express.co.uk

They added that Tsirkon “destroyed the designated naval targets at hypersonic speed.”

The development of the weapon was confirmed in 2011, and nearly a decade later Moscow believes it has developed a weapon capable of breaching US defences.

One of CNBC’s sources added: “What we are seeing with this particular weapon is that the Russians designed it to have a dual-purpose capability, meaning, it can be used against a target on land as well as a vessel at sea.”

Many are fearing that the arms race could lead to conflict, something the Russian President has previously warned would be disastrous.

Putin said in 2018 that nuclear war that “could lead to the destruction of civilisation as a whole and maybe even our planet”.

In recent years, two missiles treaties have either ended or come under increasing doubt as US President Donald Trump and President Putin disagree over limits on weapons.

The United Nations has been embroiled in a tense debate over the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the US and Russia, which limits the country’s use of launchers and warheads, and is due to expire in February 2021.

World War 3: Russia’s Avangard missile (Image: getty)

Under the accord, the US and Russia are entitled to deploy no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads on a maximum of 700 deployed launch platforms.

Both nations are also permitted to engage in 18 mutual inspections every year. Washington and Moscow has each completed a total of 162 inspections in the nine years New START has been in effect.

Putin has stressed the importance of prolonging the treaty, while Mr Trump has not yet decided whether to extend it

This feud comes after another agreement – Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) – was abandoned in February after Putin and Trump failed to reach a resolution.

Signed between Washington and the Soviet Union in 1987, the deal barred the use of the two nations’ land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with that could hit targets from intermediate range, set at distances between 500km range and 5,500km range depending on the type of system.

President Donald Trump announced in October 2018 that he wanted to pull America out of the INF treaty, accusing Moscow of violating the terms of the nuclear arms agreement.

But the Kremlin has rejected the accusations, stressing that the scrapping of the INF treaty would force Russia to take measures to ensure its security.

As crucial accords crumble and Russian weapons continue to pose a threat – World War 3 fears will not be eased.

Iran Praises Attack on Babylon the Great and the Clown

Iran’s supreme leader calls Trump a ‘clown,’ praises missile attack on US troops

March 17, 20204 Min Read

President Trump on Friday fired again at Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — who earlier within the day known as him “a clown” — with a tweet warning that he had higher “be very cautious” when selecting his phrases.

“The so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ of Iran, who has not been so Supreme currently, had some nasty issues to say about america and Europe. Their financial system is crashing, and their persons are struggling. He must be very cautious together with his phrases!” the commander in chief wrote on his strategy to a weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Khamenei described Trump as a “clown” who solely pretended to help Iran’s folks, and hailed the Islamic Republic’s current missile attack on US troops in Iraq an “American humiliation.”

In his first Friday sermon in Tehran in eight years, the Ayatollah excoriated the US for its “cowardly” killing of prime basic Qassem Soleimani, who he stated was the best commander within the battle in opposition to ISIS.

In response to the drone strike, Iran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles concentrating on two bases housing US troops in Iraq, with out inflicting critical accidents.

“The truth that Iran has the ability to offer such a slap to a world energy reveals the hand of God,” Khamenei stated, including that the killing of Soleimani, commander of the Quds Pressure, confirmed Washington’s “terrorist nature.”

“The Quds Pressure is a humanitarian group with human values that protects folks throughout the area,” he stated. “They’re fighters with out borders.”

Khamenei, who delivered a part of his sermon in Arabic, stated the strike had dealt a blow to America’s picture as a superpower, including that stated the true punishment could be in forcing the US to withdraw from the Center East.

“Resistance should proceed till the area is totally free of the enemy’s tyranny,” Khamenei stated.

As Iran’s Revolutionary Guard braced for a US counterattack that by no means got here, it mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner shortly after it took off from Tehran, killing all 176 passengers on board, largely Iranians.

Donald TrumpEPA

“The airplane crash was a bitter accident, it burned by means of our coronary heart,” Khamenei stated in an deal with punctuated by cries of “Loss of life to America” from the lots.

“However some tried to… painting it in a strategy to neglect the nice martyrdom and sacrifice” of Soleimani, the top of the international operations arm of the Revolutionary Guards, he stated, including that the elite drive can take its combat past Iran’s borders.

Iran initially denied its position within the tragedy, blaming the crash on a technical drawback, however later admitted duty.

As a outcome, avenue protests erupted across the nation, prompting safety forces to disperse the crowds with dwell ammo and tear fuel.

Trump despatched tweets in Farsi and English to help the protesters, drawing a sharp response from Khamenei.

“These American clowns who lie and say they’re with the Iranian folks ought to see who the Iranian persons are,” he stated Friday.

Iranians chanting slogans throughout Friday prayers in Tehran.Getty Photos

Khamenei additionally lashed out at Britain, France and Germany, saying they’re too weak to convey Iranians to their knees after they triggered a dispute mechanism to attempt to convey Iran again into compliance with the unraveling 2015 nuclear settlement.

“After the US exited the deal, I instructed you then that these international locations can’t be trusted. Even their negotiations with Iran are stuffed with deceit,” he stated.

However, he added, he was nonetheless open to negotiation — simply not with the US.

“The gents behind the desks that negotiate are the identical as those that terrorized Gen. Soleimani,” stated Khamenei, 80, who brazenly wept on the funeral of the revered army commander.

Tensions between Tehran and the Washington have spiked since Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear cope with world powers, which had imposed restrictions on its nuclear program in alternate for the lifting of worldwide sanctions.

After Soleimani was killed, Iran introduced it could now not be certain by the restrictions within the settlement.

Yes the First Nuclear War Would Kill People All Over the Planet (Revelation 8 )

Yes a Pakistani-Indian Nuclear War Would Kill People All Over the Planet

It would be catastrophic.

Key point: Tensions wax and wane between the two nuclear powers. No matter how bad things are, other countries have a good reason to pressure them to negotiate and get along.

Between February 26 and 27 in 2019, Indian and Pakistani warplanes launched strikes on each other’s territory and engaged in aerial combat for the first time since 1971. Pakistan ominously hinted it was convening its National Command Authority, the institution which can authorize a nuclear strike.

This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The two states, which have retained an adversarial relationship since their founding in 1947, between them deploy nuclear warheads that can be delivered by land, air and sea.

However, those weapons are inferior in number and yield to the thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by Russia and the United States, which include megaton-class weapons that can wipe out a metropolis in a single blast.

Some commenters have callously suggested that means a “limited regional nuclear war” would remain an Indian and Pakistani problem. People find it difficult to assess the risk of rare but catastrophic events; after all, a full-scale nuclear war has never occurred before, though it has come close to happening.

Such assessments are not only shockingly callous but shortsighted. In fact, several studies have modeled the global impact of a “limited” ten-day nuclear war in which India and Pakistan each exchange fifty 15-kiloton nuclear bombs equivalent in yield to the Little Boy uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Their findings concluded that spillover would in no way be “limited,” directly impacting people across the globe that would struggle to locate Kashmir on a map.

And those results are merely a conservative baseline, as India and Pakistan are estimated to possess over 260 warheads. Some likely have yields exceeding 15-kilotons, which is relatively small compared to modern strategic warheads.


Recurring terrorist attacks by Pakistan-sponsored militant groups over the status of India’s Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir state have repeatedly led to threats of a conventional military retaliation by New Delhi.

Pakistan, in turn, maintains it may use nuclear weapons as a first-strike weapon to counter-balance India’s superior conventional forces. Triggers could involve the destruction of a large part of Pakistan’s military or penetration by Indian forces deep into Pakistani territory. Islamabad also claims it might authorize a strike in event of a damaging Indian blockade or political destabilization instigated by India.

India’s official policy is that it will never be first to strike with nuclear weapons—but that once any nukes are used against it, New Dehli will unleash an all-out retaliation.

The Little Boy bomb alone killed around 100,000 Japanese—between 30 to 40 percent of Hiroshima’s population—and destroyed 69 percent of the buildings in the city. But Pakistan and India host some of the most populous and densely populated cities on the planet, with population densities of Calcutta, Karachi and Mumbai at or exceeding 65,000 people per square mile. Thus, even low-yield bombs could cause tremendous casualties.

A 2014 study estimates that the immediate effects of the bombs—the fireball, over-pressure wave, radiation burns etc.—would kill twenty million people. An earlier study estimated a hundred 15-kiloton nuclear detonations could kill twenty-six million in India and eighteen million in Pakistan—and concluded that escalating to using 100-kiloton warheads, which have greater blast radius and overpressure waves that can shatter hardened structures, would multiply death tolls four-fold.

Moreover, these projected body counts omit the secondary effects of nuclear blasts. Many survivors of the initial explosion would suffer slow, lingering deaths due to radiation exposure. The collapse of healthcare, transport, sanitation, water and economic infrastructure would also claim many more lives. A nuclear blast could also trigger a deadly firestorm. For instance, a firestorm caused by the U.S. napalm bombing of Tokyo in March 1945 killed more people than the Fat Man bomb killed in Nagasaki.

Refugee Outflows

The civil war in Syria caused over 5.6 million refugees to flee abroad out of a population of 22 million prior to the conflict. Despite relative stability and prosperity of the European nations to which refugees fled, this outflow triggered political backlashes that have rocked virtually every major Western government.

Now consider likely population movements in event of a nuclear war between India-Pakistan, which together total over 1.5 billion people. Nuclear bombings—or their even their mere potential—would likely cause many city-dwellers to flee to the countryside to lower their odds of being caught in a nuclear strike. Wealthier citizens, numbering in tens of millions, would use their resources to flee abroad.

Should bombs beginning dropping, poorer citizens many begin pouring over land borders such as those with Afghanistan and Iran for Pakistan, and Nepal and Bangladesh for India. These poor states would struggle to supports tens of millions of refugees. China also borders India and Pakistan—but historically Beijing has not welcomed refugees.

Some citizens may undertake risky voyages at sea on overloaded boats, setting their sights on South East Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Thousands would surely drown. Many regional governments would turn them back, as they have refugees of conflicts in Vietnam, Cambodia and Myanmar in the past.


Radioactive fallout would also be disseminated across the globe. The fallout from the Chernobyl explosion, for example, wounds its way westward from Ukraine into Western Europe, exposing 650,000 persons and contaminating 77,000 square miles. The long-term health effects of the exposure could last decades. India and Pakistan’s neighbors would be especially exposed, and most lack healthcare and infrastructure to deal with such a crisis.

Nuclear Winter

Studies in 2008 and 2014 found that of one hundred bombs that were fifteen-kilotons were used, it would blast five million tons of fine, sooty particles into the stratosphere, where they would spread across the globe, warping global weather patterns for the next twenty-five years.

The particles would block out light from the sun, causing surface temperatures to decrease an average of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit across the globe, or 4.5 degrees in North American and Europe. Growing seasons would be shortened by ten to forty days, and certain crops such as Canadian wheat would simply become unviable. Global agricultural yields would fall, leading to rising prices and famine.

The particles may also deplete between 30 to 50 percent of the ozone layer, allowing more of the sun’s radiation to penetrate the atmosphere, causing increased sunburns and rates of cancer and killing off sensitive plant-life and marine plankton, with the spillover effect of decimating fishing yields.

To be clear, these are outcomes for a “light” nuclear winter scenario, not a full slugging match between the Russian and U.S. arsenals.

Global Recession

Any one of the factors above would likely suffice to cause a global economic recession. All of them combined would guarantee one.

India and Pakistan account for over one-fifth world’s population, and therefore a significant share of economic activity. Should their major cities become irradiated ruins with their populations decimated, a tremendous disruption would surely result. A massive decrease in consumption and production would obviously instigate a long-lasting recessionary cycle, with attendant deprivations and political destabilization slamming developed and less-developed countries alike.

Taken together, these outcomes mean even a “limited” India-Pakistan nuclear war would significantly affect every person on the globe, be they a school teacher in Nebraska, a factory-worker in Shaanxi province or a fisherman in Mombasa.

Unfortunately, the recent escalation between India and Pakistan is no fluke, but part of a long-simmering pattern likely to continue escalating unless New Delhi and Islamabad work together to change the nature of their relationship.

Sébastien Roblin holds a master’s degree in conflict resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring. This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Pompeo Issues A Warning To The Iranian Horn

US will act in ‘self-defense’ if attacked in Iraq – Pompeo

March 17, 2020

US bases in Iraq have been repeatedly shelled recently and several servicemen have been killed and injured.

Pompeo told Iraqi PM Adil Abd al-Mahdi that Baghdad “must defend Coalition personnel supporting the Iraqi government’s efforts to defeat ISIS,” the US Department of State said in a statement on Monday.

Al Arabiya English


US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (@SecPompeo) tells Iraq’s prime minister the US will take measures in self-defense if attacked, after a second rocket attack on an Iraqi base that houses US troops.

Those “responsible for the attacks must be held accountable,” the official warned, adding that Washington “will not tolerate attacks and threats to American lives” and will take “action as necessary in self-defense.”

Back in January, the Iraqi parliament passed a non-binding resolution, urging all foreign militaries, including the US to withdraw from the country.

The landmark decision came after the US assassinated Iranian top general Qassem Soleimani and deputy chief of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a drone strike outside Baghdad.

The US was quick to refuse withdrawal, yet its forces have been repeatedly attacked throughout the country since then.

The response from Mike Pompeo came at a time when Iraq was bombed a couple of days ago.

The US retaliated and in a tweet, Mike Pompeo warned the Iraqi Govt that if attacked, the US will spare no moment to take action in self-defense.

Iraq was attacked in the past when the country was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction.

At that time US President George W Bush accused Saddam Hussain of making the nuclear weapon.

However, after the attack the US took back its accusation and declared Iraq a nuclear free state.