New York Subways at the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6)

New York City is full of peculiar phenomena—rickety fire escapes; 100-year-old subway tunnels; air conditioners propped perilously into window frames—that can strike fear into the heart of even the toughest city denizen. But should they? Every month, writer Ashley Fetters will be exploring—and debunking—these New York-specific fears, letting you know what you should actually worry about, and what anxieties you can simply let slip away.

The 25-minute subway commute from Crown Heights to the Financial District on the 2/3 line is, in my experience, a surprisingly peaceful start to the workday—save for one 3,100-foot stretch between the Clark Street and Wall Street stations, where for three minutes I sit wondering what the probability is that I will soon die a torturous, claustrophobic drowning death right here in this subway car.

The Clark Street Tunnel, opened in 1916, is one of approximately a dozen tunnels that escort MTA passengers from one borough to the next underwater—and just about all of them, with the exception of the 1989 addition of the 63rd Street F train tunnel, were constructed between 1900 and 1936.

Each day, thousands of New Yorkers venture across the East River and back again through these tubes buried deep in the riverbed, some of which are nearing or even past their 100th birthdays. Are they wrong to ponder their own mortality while picturing one of these watery catacombs suddenly springing a leak?

Mostly yes, they are, says Michael Horodniceanu, the former president of MTA Capital Construction and current principal of Urban Advisory Group. First, it’s important to remember that the subway tunnel is built under the riverbed, not just in the river—so what immediately surrounds the tunnel isn’t water but some 25 feet of soil. “There’s a lot of dirt on top of it,” Horodniceanu says. “It’s well into the bed of the bottom of the channel.”

And second, as Angus Kress Gillespie, author of Crossing Under the Hudson: The Story of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, points out, New York’s underwater subway tunnels are designed to withstand some leaking. And withstand it they do: Pumps placed below the floor of the tunnel, he says, are always running, always diverting water seepage into the sewers. (Horodniceanu says the amount of water these pumps divert into the sewer system each day numbers in the thousands of gallons.)

Additionally, MTA crews routinely repair the grouting and caulking, and often inject a substance into the walls that creates a waterproof membrane outside the tunnel—which keeps water out of the tunnel and relieves any water pressure acting on its walls. New tunnels, Horodniceanu points out, are even built with an outside waterproofing membrane that works like an umbrella: Water goes around it, it falls to the sides, and then it gets channeled into a pumping station and pumped out.

Of course, the classic New York nightmare scenario isn’t just a cute little trickle finding its way in. The anxiety daydream usually involves something sinister, or seismic. The good news, however, is that while an earthquake or explosion would indeed be bad for many reasons, it likely wouldn’t result in the frantic flooding horror scene that plays out in some commuters’ imaginations.

Horodniceanu assures me that tunnels built more recently are “built to withstand a seismic event.” The older tunnels, however—like, um, the Clark Street Tunnel—“were not seismically retrofitted, let me put it that way,” Horodniceanu says. “But the way they were built is in such a way that I do not believe an earthquake would affect them.” They aren’t deep enough in the ground, anyway, he says, to be too intensely affected by a seismic event. (The MTA did not respond to a request for comment.)

One of the only real threats to tunnel infrastructure, Horodniceanu adds, is extreme weather. Hurricane Sandy, for example, caused flooding in the tunnels, which “created problems with the infrastructure.” He continues, “The tunnels have to be rebuilt as a result of saltwater corroding the infrastructure.”

Still, he points out, hurricanes don’t exactly happen with no warning. So while Hurricane Sandy did cause major trauma to the tunnels, train traffic could be stopped with ample time to keep passengers out of harm’s way. In 2012, Governor Andrew Cuomo directed all the MTA’s mass transit services to shut down at 7 p.m. the night before Hurricane Sandy was expected to hit New York City.

And Gillespie, for his part, doubts even an explosion would result in sudden, dangerous flooding. A subway tunnel is not a closed system, he points out; it’s like a pipe that’s open at both ends. “The force of a blast would go forwards and backwards out the exit,” he says.

So the subway-train version of that terrifying Holland Tunnel flood scene in Sylvester Stallone’s Daylight is … unrealistic, right?

“Yeah,” Gillespie laughs. “Yeah. It is.”

Got a weird New York anxiety that you want explored? E-mail tips@curbed.com, and we may include it in a future column.

Indian Point Reactor 2 to be Shut Down Before the Sixth Seal

Indian Point reactor to be shut down tomorrow

Peter KatzApril 29, 2020

The nuclear reactor that is Indian Point Unit 2 will be shut down for the final time tomorrow as part of the plan to totally take the nuclear-powered electric generating plant out of service by April 30, 2021.

The plant itself was built with three nuclear reactors that provided heat to turn water into steam to drive turbines that turn electric generators. Construction started on Reactor No. 1 on April 30, 1956. The reactor started operating in 1962. It was permanently shut down on Oct. 30, 1974.

Photo by Bob Rozycki

Reactor No. 2 began commercial operations in 1974, with Reactor No. 3 coming on line in 1976. Reactor No. 3 is scheduled to be shut down next year. Entergy purchased Indian Point units 1 and 2 from Con Edison for $602 million. It subsequently bought Unit 3 from the New York State Power Authority.

“Over the last 45 years, thousands of dedicated professionals have operated Unit 2 at Indian Point – safely, securely and reliably,” said Chris Bakken, Entergy’s chief nuclear officer. “We owe each of them our thanks for a job well done and for their commitment to the highest standards of professionalism.”

Entergy owns and operates five nuclear power units in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi along with conventional power plants. Entergy has annual revenues of $11 billion and has approximately 13,600 employees.

The Indian Point shutdown is the result of a settlement agreement with New York state.  More than 40 employees from Indian Point have accepted offers to continue with Entergy in other locations.

In April of last year, Entergy announced the proposed post-shutdown sale of the subsidiaries that own Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 3 to a Holtec International subsidiary. Holtec would handle decommissioning at Indian Point following regulatory approvals and the closing of the transfer from Entergy next year. It has said that part of the Indian Point site would be released for reuse in 12 to 15 years after decommissioning began. Holtec said it expected to offer employment to about 300 Indian Point employees for work on the shutdown.

Babylon the Great Tries to Stop the Nuclear Horns

America’s New Sniffer-Plane Would Track Rogue Nuclear Weapons

The U.S. Air Force is getting new reconnaissance planes equipped to detect atomic explosions.

Well, the planes themselves aren’t exactly new. In fact, they’re 1960s-vintage aerial refuelers. But they’re more modern than are the Air Force’s existing nuke-sniffing recce aircraft. And they could revitalize an important mission as the world races to rearm with new atomic weapons.

The three WC-135Rs, based on the airframes of three former U.S. Air National Guard KC-135R tankers, are slated to replace two WC-135C/Ws that fly from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

The $220-million conversion effort should be complete by 2022.

The WC-135s are “bug-catchers,” to borrow Air Force slang. They carry air filters connected to sensors that can detect the radioactive particles that result from nuclear blasts. The WC-135s complement seismic sensors and other methods that help the U.S. government to track atomic tests.

The WC-135C/Ws entered service starting in 1965, replacing 1950s-vintage WB-50s. The current WC-135s are powered by older J57 engines, while the newer WC-135Rs sport CFM56 engines that are cleaner, more efficient and more powerful than are the J57s.

The WC-135Rs also will feature modern cockpits and better communications and navigation gear compared to the WC-135C/Ws. Despite their basic airframes dating back to the 1960s, the WC-135Rs are structurally sound and could continue flying for decades.

They might stay busy.

Various nuclear-test-ban treaties bar member countries such as the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China from conducting above-ground tests. But underground tests still are legal and, in any event, “rogue” states such as North Korea have not signed on to the test-ban treaties.

When North Korea in 2006 conducted its first-ever atomic test, an underground blast equivalent to roughly one kiloton of high-explosive, a WC-135 flying from Japan quickly detected radioactive dust from the test.

WC-135s since have been regular visitors to the Korean Peninsula as North Korea continues to build up its nuclear arsenal.

The Air Force’s effort to replace the older WC-135s surely is a welcome initiative at Offutt Air Force Base, which operates many of the flying branch’s oldest but most important reconnaissance aircraft.

Offutt is also awaiting replacements for its two aging OC-135s, which fly photographic inspection missions over Russia in order to verify compliance with arms-control treaties. Those missions take place under the auspices of the 1992 Open Skies Treaty.

The Air Force has secured funding for new Open Skies planes based on business jets. But the administration of Pres. Donald Trump has signalled it might cancel Open Skies, based on the administration’s false belief that the treaty allows Russia to spy on the United States.

The Pentagon has declined to cut a contract for the new Open Skies planes until Trump decides whether to pull out of the treaty.

David Axe is defense editor at The National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad.

The Iran Nuclear Horn is Now a Legitimate Threat

Iran’s Space Threat is the Problem

One can expect Iran to launch many more satellites into orbit over the next year or so to complete the constellation it is developing. At that point, both North Korea and Iran would have the capability to threaten the technological American military with certain defeat.

Brandon J. WeichertApril 27, 2020

Greatness Agenda

The Trump Administration has issued an edict to the U.S. Navy: sink any Iranian vessel that harasses U.S. warships operating near Iran. The last two American presidents had to deal with Iranian brinkmanship at sea. Yet, never before has the White House given such an explicit order.

What changed?

First, the coronavirus pandemic not only has crippled the United States, it also has eviscerated the leadership of Iran, which already was grappling with an economic decline caused by the sanctions imposed by the Trump Administration for its wanton pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Second, as the global price of oil collapses, Iran’s economy is suffering even more than it already was (oil is a key commodity for Iran). This creates a negative feedback loop, making Iranian aggression more likely in the region.

Third, Iranian aggression against American forces in the region not only is on the rise, but Iran passed a major milestone recently: the country has placed its first indigenously produced satellite into orbit. Many believe that the satellite launch was merely cover for the testing of an Iranian ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear payload over any target in the world.

This is certainly a possibility.

But there’s something more to this launch that has American strategists concerned beyond the expected concern over Iran progressing in the critical domain of reliable ballistic missile capabilities.

More Than a Nuclear Threat

Iranian space capabilities pose two additional threats for the United States and its allies: First, Iran can now place surveillance and communications satellites in orbit that will give Iranian forces operating on the ground, at sea, and in the air greater situational awareness. As Tehran aggressively pursues its grand strategy of regional hegemony, such capabilities will be key, particularly as Iran faces advanced foes in the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel—all of which have access to space capabilities that Iran has otherwise lacked.

Second, there is the added threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons. The threat of EMP to undefended US systems, such as radios and early warning radar, was first discovered during a US military high-altitude nuclear weapons test over the Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean in 1962. An EMP blast is a non-lethal and devastating way to cripple the electronics of a rival. Most American electronic systems, civilian and military alike, are undefended against EMP attack. While the Ayatollah of Iran has long argued against using nuclear weapons in a first strike against Iranian adversaries, he has condoned the creation and use of EMP weapons as “Sharia approved” bombs. In 2010, for example, Iran’s military doctrine was updated to include the use of EMP weapons against the Americans and their allies should conflict between the West and Iran erupt.

American foes have determined that our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness. On our own, the United States (and its allies, like Israel) are high-tech powers whose militaries are unstoppable. We proved this in Desert Storm. This is why American rivals from China to Russia to Iran and North Korea have embraced asymmetrical warfare methods as a way of undermining America’s otherwise overwhelming military dominance. By effectively “turning off” the power on the U.S. military and its allies, in the way an EMP would do, Iran suddenly would be facing an American force that is disjointed, disabled, and demoralized. And since the fighting would be closer to Iranian territory, suddenly the Iranian forces would enjoy significant advantages.

The EMP Threat

Last year, I cautioned about the possibility that North Korea may have spent the last decade seeding Earth orbit with EMP bombs in anticipation of holding the world hostage. We know that Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs are aligned closely—and EMP capability is an outgrowth of those programs—so Iran, like North Korea before it, may have just weaponized space. One can expect Iran to launch many more satellites into orbit over the next year or so to complete the constellation it is developing. At that point, both North Korea and Iran would have the capability to threaten the American military with certain technological defeat.

The fact that Iran has named their first satellite, “Noor,” (meaning “Light” in Farsi) should concern us. North Korea named their satellite constellation “Brilliant Star.” While these might be fanciful names for satellites, they could also be indicative of a dark sense of humor among our foes.

Even if the Iranian satellite is not an EMP weapon, the capabilities it and similar systems will be able to provide Iran’s growing military threat in the region is a game-changer. I believe that Iran’s space threat, more than any other part of Iran’s ongoing threat to the United States and its allies, is why the White House has issued its shoot-to-kill orders for any Iranian boat so much as looking at a U.S. Navy ship the wrong way.

As the coronavirus pandemic destabilizes the world system, American rivals—China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela—are all looking to test America’s ailing deterrence. The Trump Administration’s change in U.S. Navy rules of engagement is meant to dissuade Tehran from being bolder than they’ve already been. Above all, it is a recognition of the dangers associated with Iranian forays into technological systems that might initiate an EMP attack on U.S. satellite constellations or, heaven forbid, the American homeland.

Russia Chastises Babylon the Great

Russia slams US arguments for low-yield nuclear weapons

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV | Associated Press | Published: April 29, 2020

MOSCOW — The Russian Foreign Ministry on Wednesday rejected U.S. arguments for fielding low-yield nuclear warheads, warning that an attempt to use such weapons against Russia would trigger an all-out nuclear retaliation.

The U.S. State Department argued in a paper released last week that fitting the low-yield nuclear warheads to submarine-launched ballistic missiles would help counter potential new threats from Russia and China. It charged that Moscow in particular was pondering the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons as a way of coercion in a limited conflict — an assertion that Russia has repeatedly denied.

The State Department noted that the new supplemental warhead “reduces the risk of nuclear war by reinforcing extended deterrence and assurance.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry sees it otherwise.

The ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, commented on the State Department’s paper at a briefing on Wednesday, emphasizing that the U.S. shouldn’t view its new low-yield warheads as a flexible tool that could help avert an all-out nuclear conflict with Russia.

“Any attack involving a U.S. submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), regardless of its weapon specifications, would be perceived as a nuclear aggression,” Zakharova said. “Those who like to theorize about the flexibility of American nuclear potential must understand that in line with the Russian military doctrine such actions are seen as warranting retaliatory use of nuclear weapons by Russia.”

Zakharova cast the U.S. deployment of low-yield warheads as a destabilizing move that would result in “lowering the nuclear threshold.”

U.S.-Russian differences on nuclear arms issues come as relations between Moscow and Washington are at post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis and the accusations of Russian meddling in the U.S. 2016 presidential election.

Last year, both Moscow and Washington withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The only U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement still standing is the New START treaty, which was signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The pact limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers and envisages sweeping on-site inspections to verify the compliance.

Russia has offered to extend the New START that expires in February 2021, while the Trump administration has pushed for a new arms control pact that would also include China. Moscow has described that idea as unfeasible, pointing at Beijing’s refusal to negotiate any deal that would reduce its much smaller nuclear arsenal.

In a statement Wednesday marking the 10th anniversary of signing the New START, the Russian Foreign Ministry hailed the treaty as an instrument that helps ensure predictability in the nuclear sphere and reaffirmed Moscow’s offer to extend it without any preconditions.

Babylon the Great Takes no Responsibility for the Rising Iranian Horn

The Trump Administration Is Suddenly Pretending That It Didn’t Blow Up the Iran Nuclear Deal

“Psych,” Mike Pompeo did not say, but could have. (Above, Pompeo after testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill on Feb. 28.)

Mandel Ngan/Getty Images

While everyone is riveted to the deadly grind of COVID-19, the Trump administration is stepping up its efforts to crush the Islamic Republic of Iran through one of the most squirrely legal arguments that a nation-state has ever devised.

The move is also a political shot in the foot, because it amounts to an unwitting admission that President Donald Trump was wrong to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal.

Signed in 2015 by then­-President Barack Obama and the leaders of five other nations, the deal—which was codified as a U.N. Security Council resolution—required Iran to dismantle nearly all of its nuclear program; in exchange, the signatories and the U.N. would lift most of their sanctions against Iran, as well as normalize business relations with the country.

Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, not because Iran was cheating—in fact, international inspectors affirmed in their regular reports that Iran was abiding by the deal’s terms—but rather because Trump simply didn’t like it: didn’t like anything to do with Iran, didn’t like anything accomplished by Obama.

With the withdrawal, Trump reimposed sanctions against Iran, then threatened to impose new sanctions on countries that did business with Iran—and those countries, which were dependent on transactions with the U.S.-controlled financial system, reluctantly obeyed.

This was part of Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy, which he was sure would cause the mullahs of Tehran to cave in—either to negotiate a deal more to his liking or (the real aim) to implode as a regime. However, the mullahs are still here. In fact, the failure of the nuclear deal has strengthened the hands of the regime’s most hard-line factions.

So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stepped up the pressure, and in a way that has made observers around the world drop their jaws or scratch their heads.

According to the New York Times, Pompeo is making a legal argument that the United States is still a “participant” in the Iran nuclear deal. As such, he is saying, Trump will soon invoke a clause in the deal, known as the “snapback clause,” which requires the U.N. Security Council to reimpose economic sanctions if Iran is found to be cheating. Since, by its own admission, Iran has violated some aspects of the deal in recent months, the sanctions will automatically be reimposed once Trump raises the transgressions.

Pompeo’s argument is bogus on several counts. First, given Trump’s formal withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, it is preposterous to claim that the United States is still a participant. Or, if Trump wants to claim he is a participant, he first has to lift the sanctions he reimposed two years ago. He can’t embrace one part of an accord while rejecting all the other parts.

Second, since last summer, Iran has amassed a somewhat larger nuclear stockpile and enriched more uranium than the deal allows, but it did so in response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal and his success at pressuring other signatories to restore sanctions. Ironically, Iran’s move was fully consistent with the terms of the nuclear deal—specifically with Paragraph 36, which states that if one signatory believes that the others “were not meeting their commitments,” then, after certain meetings and consultations, it would have “grounds to cease performing its commitments.” (Iranian diplomats tried to dissuade the European signatories from restoring sanctions for a full year before expanding its nuclear program.) In other words, technically, Iran is still acting under the terms of the deal. Its diplomats say that, if the U.S. and the other nations lifted the sanctions once again, Iran would scale back its stockpile and enrichment.

Third, Trump was in violation of the deal even before he withdrew from it. Back in July 2017, at his first G-20 summit, he pressured allied leaders to stop doing business with Iran. This pressure contravened Paragraph 29 of the accord, which states that the U.S. and the other signatories “will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran inconsistent with the commitments not to undermine the successful implementation” of the deal.

Still, none of this means Pompeo will let the matter drop or that other nations won’t let him get away with such a duplicitous move. If the United States declares itself a participant in the Iran nuclear deal and invokes the snapback clause—and if the country chairing the Security Council at the time bangs the gavel in assent—then, under the terms of that clause, the deed will be done; there will be no vote, much less an opening for a veto.

“This would create something like a constitutional crisis at the Security Council,” says Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute and author of Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy. Parsi also predicts that, if this happens, not only will the Iranians give up hoping for a return to the nuclear deal, they will probably also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “This is what Trump and Pompeo want,” Parsi told me in a phone conversation. “They want a legal foundation for regime change or war.”

Meanwhile, owing to administrative incompetence, political repression, and a woeful lack of resources, nearly 100,000 cases of the coronavirus—resulting in more than 5,800 deaths—have been reported in Iran. Stiffened sanctions will only worsen the country’s plight, which Pompeo no doubt regards as an enhanced measure in his “maximum pressure” campaign. That will push the regime over the edge, he may be thinking. Maybe so; probably not. Either way, it will kill a lot more Iranians, and Trump and Pompeo don’t seem to care. If there is regime change, that pretty much ensures the new regime won’t be any less suspicious toward America than the current one. It will possibly be more hostile still.

Israel Arrests Hamas-Linked Cell Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Israel Arrests Hamas-Linked Cell in Bomb Plots

Ahmad Sajdaya from the West Bank’s Qalandiya refugee camp has a history of building explosive devices for terrorist attacks. Years ago, he reportedly lost part of his hand in a bomb-making accident. But that gruesome accident did not stop the Palestinian, now 27, from planning to kill Israelis.

Israeli authorities arrested Sajdaya last month along with two other Palestinians suspected of plotting major terrorist attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem on behalf of Hamas.

The suspects, males in their mid-20s, initially planned to set off a bomb in Jerusalem’s Teddy Stadium soccer arena, according to a statement last Wednesday from the Shin Bet — Israel’s domestic security service. One of the cell members, Umar Eid, had an Israeli identity card — which allowed him to enter Jerusalem from the West Bank to attend a soccer game at Teddy Stadium on a reconnaissance mission last year.

The men conducted surveillance and other preparatory measures but ultimately scrapped the original plan after assessing that the stadium was too heavily protected.

The cell relied on online bomb-making instructions and bought ingredients required for building explosive devices, including chemicals, nails and other metallic parts to maximize casualties. Eventually, the terror cell shifted its focus on planning bombing attacks targeting Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and several other sites around Ramallah.

Counterterrorism measures that harden a specific target, or make it more difficult for terrorists to strike, often lead motivated terrorists to shift targets. The terrorist cell decided to strike Israeli military personnel directly, given higher levels of security around popular civilian sites like Teddy Stadium.

The suspects originally met as student members of the Hamas-affiliated Kutla Islamiya group in the West Bank’s Birzeit University and were involved in several other attempted bombings in the past. Rahman Hamdan, a Ramallah-based Kutlah Islamiyah official, allegedly helped finance the terror cell and facilitated direct contact with Hamas.

Last year, Israel foiled another cell directly tied to the Hamas student association and discovered a fully-built bomb in the process. Gaza-based Hamas figures seek out talented students who are motivated and capable of building bombs. The terrorist organization also instructs its recruits to mobilize other students and young Palestinians to form cells in the West Bank.

The latest arrests highlight the dangers of Hamas’ West Bank terrorist infrastructure, among educational institutions and beyond. Over the years, Israel has foiled numerous deadly Hamas-directed attacks, including kidnapping attempts in the West Bank and within Israel.

In December, the Shin Bet revealed that Israel foiled more than 450 major terrorist attacks targeting Israel throughout 2019. Israeli authorities reportedly thwarted 500 attacks the year before.

Israeli authorities disrupted another elaborate Hamas plot in 2017. According to the subsequent indictment, Hamas officials in Gaza sent instructions to a three-man terrorist cell via Facebook, explaining how to carry out shooting attacks, detonate explosives, and coordinate kidnappings around Hebron.

That cell also scouted several locations within Israel for future attacks, including a bus station in Afula, a military base, the Binyamina Train Station, and a synagogue.

The terrorists involved in that plot gained important information about the targets while working in Israel illegally.

Terrorist organizations, including the Islamic State, Hezbollah and Hamas continue to use social media outlets to direct or encourage cells in other theatres to attack their enemies.

Beyond Israel’s vast network of informants and human intelligence capabilities, Israeli intelligence has developed social media analytic programs to detect and anticipate potential terrorist incidents.

However, these cases, including the Teddy Stadium bomb plot, illustrate the major threat posed by terrorist operatives who can infiltrate into Israel either illegally or with genuine Israeli identity cards.

The latest developments show that Hamas remains committed to expanding and consolidating its terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian territory in an effort to destabilize the Palestinian Authority and infiltrate Israel for attacks.

Steven Emerson is executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism. He was a correspondent for CNN and a senior editor at U.S. News and World Report. Read Steven Emerson’s Reports — More Here.