The Sixth Seal: More Than Just Manhattan (Revelation 6:12)

New York, NY – In a Quake, Brooklyn Would Shake More Than Manhattan

By Brooklyn Eagle

New York, NY – The last big earthquake in the New York City area, centered in New York Harbor just south of Rockaway, took place in 1884 and registered 5.2 on the Richter Scale.Another earthquake of this size can be expected and could be quite damaging, says Dr. Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

And Brooklyn, resting on sediment, would shake more than Manhattan, built on solid rock. “There would be more shaking and more damage,” Dr. Kim told the Brooklyn Eagle on Wednesday.

If an earthquake of a similar magnitude were to happen today near Brooklyn, “Many chimneys would topple. Poorly maintained buildings would fall down – some buildings are falling down now even without any shaking. People would not be hit by collapsing buildings, but they would be hit by falling debris. We need to get some of these buildings fixed,” he said.

But a 5.2 is “not comparable to Haiti,” he said. “That was huge.” Haiti’s devastating earthquake measured 7.0.

Brooklyn has a different environment than Haiti, and that makes all the difference, he said. Haiti is situated near tectonic plate.

“The Caribbean plate is moving to the east, while the North American plate is moving towards the west. They move about 20 mm – slightly less than an inch – every year.” The plates are sliding past each other, and the movement is not smooth, leading to jolts, he said.

While we don’t have the opportunity for a large jolt in Brooklyn, we do have small, frequent quakes of a magnitude of 2 or 3 on the Richter Scale. In 2001 alone the city experienced two quakes: one in January, measuring 2.4, and one in October, measuring 2.6. The October quake, occurring soon after Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “caused a lot of panic,” Dr. Kim said.

“People ask me, ‘Should I get earthquake insurance?’ I tell them no, earthquake insurance is expensive. Instead, use that money to fix chimneys and other things. Rather than panicky preparations, use common sense to make things better.”

Secure bookcases to the wall and make sure hanging furniture does not fall down, Dr. Kim said. “If you have antique porcelains or dishes, make sure they’re safely stored. In California, everything is anchored to the ground.”

While a small earthquake in Brooklyn may cause panic, “In California, a quake of magnitude 2 is called a micro-quake,” he added.

Russia Challenges Babylon the Great (Daniel 7)

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives to attend the Navy Day celebration.
Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives to attend the military parade during the Navy Day celebration in St.Petersburg, Russia, Sunday, July 26, 2020. (AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky, Pool)

MOSCOW — Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack that warrants a nuclear retaliation, the military warned in an article published Friday.

The harsh warning in the official military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) is directed at the United States, which has worked to develop long-range non-nuclear weapons.

The article follows the publication in June of Russia’s nuclear deterrent policy that envisages the use of atomic weapons in response to what could be a conventional strike targeting the nation’s critical government and military infrastructure.

In the Krasnaya Zvezda article, senior officers of the Russian military’s General Staff, Maj.-Gen. Andrei Sterlin and Col. Alexander Khryapin, noted that there will be no way to determine if an incoming ballistic missile is fitted with a nuclear or a conventional warhead, and so the military will see it as a nuclear attack.

“Any attacking missile will be perceived as carrying a nuclear warhead,” the article said. “The information about the missile launch will be automatically relayed to the Russian military-political leadership, which will determine the scope of retaliatory action by nuclear forces depending on the evolving situation.”

The argument reflects Russia’s longtime concerns about the development of weapons that could give Washington the capability to knock out key military assets and government facilities without resorting to atomic weapons.

In line with Russian military doctrine, the new nuclear deterrent policy reaffirmed that the country could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or an aggression involving conventional weapons that “threatens the very existence of the state.”

The policy document offered a detailed description of situations that could trigger the use of nuclear weapons, including the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies.

In addition to that, the document states for the first time that Russia could use its nuclear arsenal if it receives “reliable information” about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting its territory or its allies and also in the case of ”enemy impact on critically important government or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the incapacitation of which could result in the failure of retaliatory action of nuclear forces.”

U.S.-Russia relations are at post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the accusations of Russian meddling in the U.S. 2016 presidential election and other differences.

Russian officials have cast the U.S.-led missile defense program and its plans to put weapons in orbit as a top threat, arguing that the new capability could tempt Washington to strike Russia with impunity in the hope of fending off a retaliatory strike.

The Krasnaya Zvezda article emphasized that the publication of the new nuclear deterrent policy was intended to unambiguously explain what Russia sees as aggression.

“Russia has designated the ‘red lines’ that we don’t advise anyone to cross,” it said. “If a potential adversary dares to do that, the answer will undoubtedly be devastating. The specifics of retaliatory action, such as where, when and how much will be determined by Russia’s military-political leadership depending on the situation.”

This article was written by VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV from The Associated Press and was legally licensed through the Industry Dive publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to

Israel Targets Hamas Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Israel targets Hamas position after army post torched | World News ...

Israeli army targets Hamas position in Gaza

Warplanes strike position in Beit Lahiya belonging to Hamas’ military wing

Gulsen Topcu   |07.08.2020

GAZA CITY, Palestine 

The Israeli army bombed a position of the Palestinian group Hamas late Thursday in the north of the blockaded Gaza Strip, according to local media.

Israeli warplanes struck the position in Beit Lahiya belonging to the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing.

No information was reported by the Palestinian Health Ministry on casualties.

Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation also said the Israeli army targeted some positions in Gaza.

*Writing by Sena Guler in Ankara

Investigating the Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Chinese entities have made numerous pacts and agreements with Saudi Arabia on its path towards processing uranium.
Chinese entities have made numerous pacts and agreements with Saudi Arabia on its path towards processing uranium (AFP/File photo)

US investigating claims of Saudi-China nuclear development: Report

Intelligence agencies have analysed suspected collaboration between the two countries at an undeclared site near Riyadh, NYT reports


US intelligence agencies are said to be assessing reports that China is secretly helping Saudi Arabia expand its nuclear programme, which could pave the way towards the development of nuclear weapons.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that US intelligence agencies have analysed suspected collaboration between the two countries at an undeclared site in the kingdom, close to a solar-panel production area.

Analysts who spoke to Times said satellite images of buildings near the capital Riyadh were similar to nuclear facilities built by China in Iran.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that another site in the country’s northwest was being used to extract uranium yellowcake from uranium ore – a further step towards the development of nuclear fuel that could put the kingdom on a path to developing nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia constructs facility for extracting uranium yellowcake: Report

Saudi Arabia has not signed up to the same restrictions that the UAE agreed to during the construction of its own nuclear power plants, and in 2018, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said the kingdom would try to develop or acquire nuclear weapons if Iran continued its work toward a bomb.

According to the Times, the kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding with China National Nuclear in 2017 to help explore its uranium deposits, and another was signed with China Nuclear Engineering Group.

The two accords followed a 2012 pact announced between Riyadh and Beijing to co-operate on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.\

Shift towards China

Analysts said that Saudi Arabia began making a shift towards nuclear cooperation with China, rather than its tradional ally the US, as the kingdom has lost faith in Washington’s ability to counter Iran.

“They believe that as a result of the JCPOA, they can’t rely on anyone reining in the Iranians, and they are going to have to deter Iran themselves,” Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the director of intelligence and counterintelligence at the Energy Department, told the Times.

Saudi Arabia has also not signed up to the same US restrictions that other countries have, and Riyadh currently has a limited safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and is not obliged to disclose its yellowcake site to the nuclear watchdog.

As of early this year, more than 150 countries, including Iran and the US, had signed onto the IAEA’s additional protocols – the agency’s most advanced type of oversight – which safeguards against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

‘I am completely convinced that Saudi Arabia and China are actively cooperating on plans for uranium mining and yellowcake production’

– Robert Kelley, former IAEA inspector

Neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel have signed onto this latest oversight agreement.

Robert Kelley, a former inspector for the agency, told the Times that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was unhappy about Riyadh’s opaqueness towards “their existing programme and where it is going”.

While he did not think that the central Saudi plant was unusual, he did believe Riyadh and Beijing might be working together on other covert activities.

“I am completely convinced that Saudi Arabia and China are actively cooperating on plans for uranium mining and yellowcake production,” he said.

Last week, House Democrat Adam Schiff included a provision in the intelligence budget authorisation bill requiring the Trump administration to submit a report about Saudi efforts to develop a nuclear program.

The report, the provision stated, should include an assessment of “the state of nuclear cooperation between Saudi Arabia and any other country other than the United States, such as the People’s Republic of China or the Russian Federation.”

Fighting Over Kashmir WILL Blow Up the Planet (Revelation 16)

Fighting Over Kashmir Could Blow Up the Planet


Jammu and Kashmir, widely referred to as Kashmir, has had many designations since India and Pakistan were partitioned by Britain and gained their respective independence from the Empire: a Princely State, a State, a Union Territory. The 86,000 mile, Muslim-majority region sits in the Himalayas on the border with China. It is of strategic significance to both India and Pakistan, primarily because of the Siachen Glacier which brings freshwater the drought-ridden nations. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons: armaments of such destruction that even a “minor” regional war would cause more than a decade of global nuclear winter.

Both countries have already fought several times over Kashmir. With India going down the route of Hindu fanaticism and Pakistan gripped by Islamism, both nations compound their irrationalities with a different form of religious extremism exported from the West, namely neoliberal economics. The chances of global survival diminish. The question is what we in the West can do to pressure our governments to de-escalate the conflict and cease exacerbating it.


The princely state of Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, Hari Singh. Following independence from Britain in 1947, Pakistani fighters invaded Kashmir. Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India, igniting war between India and Pakistan, which lasted for two years. Two-thirds of Kashmir fell under Indian control. Both states violated UN Security Council Resolution 47: India refused to hold an election, which would have allowed the Muslim-majority population to decide their future, and Pakistan never withdrew its troops. India subsequently opposed UN involvement in the dispute.

In 1965, Pakistan infiltrated troops into the Indian zones in an apparent effort to incite a counter-India insurgency. Around 6,000 people were killed during the 17-day Indian counter-offensive. The war ended with the so-called Line of Control, created by the Simla Agreement of 1972, which followed another conflict in Kashmir and basically existed until India’s annexation of Kashmir in 2019. Following a growing independence movement among Kashmiris, India passed the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, which led to the disappearances of around 8,000 Kashmiris and the indefinite detention of hundreds more.

In a repeat of 1965, India tried to seize the high ground of Kargil in 1999. A few years later, two Kashmiri groups based in Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, attacked the Indian Parliament, nearly triggering war. A so-called Composite Dialogue was established, seeking to bring the more moderate independence groups into negotiations. This led to a ceasefire.

In 2007, a bilateral peace plan was nearly finalized, but collapsed due to Pakistan’s internal problems. Pro-independence demonstrations ended in violence in 2010. Tensions rose again in 2016, with India’s murder of Burhan Wani, the leader of the group Hizbul Mujahedin. Hundreds were detained and dozens killed, following more protests. In 2017, the Indian government declared its lack of interest in peace talks as curfews were imposed. However, India employed the ex-intelligence officer, intelligence official, Dineshwar Sharma, to seek a consensus for peace. This was scuppered by Pakistan’s decision to release from house arrest, Hafiz Saaed of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

In 2019, India bombed Pakistan in retaliation for an SUV attack in Kashmir, attributed to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad. In August, India’s ultra-Hindu nationalist BJP party revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, effectively ending Jammu and Kashmir’s formal autonomy and leading to its de facto annexation.


How are Britain and the U.S. responding? In 2017, the UK exported £370m-worth of military equipment to India, including components for aerial targeting equipment, RADAR, technology for military space craft, viruses (yes, viruses), and nuclear detection equipment and graphite; an element used in nuclear weapons production. In the same year, the UK exported £14m-worth of military equipment to Pakistan, including aerial targeting equipment and deuterium compounds, which can also be used in nuclear reactors. After the declaration of ceasefire in 2018, the UK continued to feed the war machine. In that year, it exported £164m-worth of similar military equipment to India and £19m-worth to Pakistan.

India has had the atomic bomb since 1974, when it conducted an underground test (“Smiling Buddha”). In1998, India began testing again, allegedly prompting Pakistan to test and formally declare possession. Like Israel, neither country is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. During the 1980s, the U.S. Reagan administration allowed Pakistan’s dictator Zia ul-Haq to develop nuclear weapons, partly in exchange for using Pakistan as a base to recruit and transport anti-Soviet Mujahiddeen, later rebranded “al-Qaeda” by the CIA. In 2006, the U.S. lifted sanctions on India, enabling it to import nuclear materials.

In July, shortly before India’s unilateral annexation, Trump told India’s PM Modi that the U.S. would be willing to act as a moderator between the two states over Kashmir. This gave Modi leverage to annex: the logic being that India seizes the main prize and “negotiates” smaller ones. This tactic is modelled on Israel’s theft of Palestine and its sham “peace process.” Indeed, these events occurred around the time that Israeli PM Netanyahu was greenlighted by Trump to formally annex parts of Palestine. India is mimicking Israel in other ways. Just as Israel holds 1.8m Gazans hostage behind a wall, India is keeping Bangladeshis locked into their poverty by constructing a “security fence” on the border. Just as Israel cries “anti-Semitism” whenever pressure is put upon it to treat Palestinians with minimal decency, BJP apologists accuse Modi opponents of “Hinduphobia.”

As Britain’s Lord Desai signed a letter denouncing alleged anti-Semitism within the UK Labour Party under the lefty leader and anti-occupation activist, Jeremy Corbyn, Desai appeared on television in praise of India’s lockdown Kashmir. Labour’s new leader, Keir Starmer, seems to be to the left of the party on social issues (at the moment), thanks to pressure from the grassroots. But Starmer is a Blarite in his approach to foreign policy. A lawyer and former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir said: “Any constitutional issues in India are a matter for the Indian Parliament, and Kashmir is a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve peacefully.”


Every few years, scientists model nuclear winter. Recently, climatologists modelled “the potential effects” of nuclear powers detonating “50 Hiroshima-size bombs—less than 1 percent of the estimated world arsenal.” They found that at least five million tons of soot would block out the Sun for fifteen years and reduce global crop production by 11 percent. In 2015, Pakistan declared that it had developed tactical nukes, which are usually of a small yield and therefore more dangerous because they increase the likelihood of being used. India’s nukes are more advanced and capable of being delivered from sea, on land, and dropped from the air.

Nearly three decades ago, Hindus razed a mosque in Ayodhya, India, said to have been built on the site of the Hindu god, Ram. Today, Modi is back at the site to inaugurate the construction of a Hindu temple. Zafaryab Jilani, General Secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, says: “It is against the letter and spirit of India’s secular constitution for the prime minister in his official capacity to attend such a religious event.”

With these underlying cultural tensions creating a psychology of illogicality, a war sparked in Kashmir over, for instance, access to water from the Siachen Glacier, could prove fatal for us all. We will have ourselves to blame, in part, for not pressuring our leaders to forge peace: if there’s anyone left to blame after the atoms are split.

More articles by:

T. J. Coles is director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author of several books, including Voices for Peace (with Noam Chomsky and others) and  Fire and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks Nuclear War in Asia (both Clairview Books).

Hiroshima Day: The unimaginable consequences of the first nuclear war (Revelation 8 )

Hiroshima Day: The unimaginable consequences of a nuclear war in South Asia

India is believed to have 140 warheads, while Pakistan is estimated to possess around 150. With the two countries in a race to amass more, some predict that both may have 250 warheads each by 2025.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan will have no winner.

What happened in 1945?

On August 6, 1945, at the height of World War II, a US B-29 bomber made its way over Hiroshima before deploying ‘Little Boy,’ a nuclear payload that detonated about 500 meters above the city, leading to the immediate deaths of at least 70,000 Japanese citizens. The next few weeks, months and years would see thousands more succumb to high levels of radiation poisoning that followed. Just three days later, the US would drop another atomic bomb over Nagasaki killing another 50,000 people. And only two weeks later, Japan would surrender, effectively, ending the war.

Little Boy and Fat Man, the second bomb that struck Nagasaki, remain till this day, the only nuclear weapons ever deployed outside of tests, as the world came to understand the sheer power and threat of the weapon.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan will have no winner, only losers

75 years on, there has been little progress made towards global denuclearisation with several countries continuing to add to their nuclear stockpiles in the face of rising geopolitical tensions. Over the years, India and Pakistan have also pushed on with nuclear weapons testing. The general belief is that, while India holds a considerable advantage in the realm of conventional armed forces, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is very much comparable to that of India’s.

In March 2019, following the surgical air strikes carried out by Indian Air Force jets near the town of Balakot in Pakistan’s Khyber Paktunkhwa province, fears over a nuclear engagement between the two nations once again surfaced.

In September 2019, at a United Nations annual summit, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan continued to stoke the fire when he said, “There is a potential that two nuclear-armed countries will come face to face at some stage,” referring specifically to the ongoing Kashmir conflict that has already led to three bloody wars between India and Pakistan.

The thought of a nuclear engagement between the two nation states is not something that either side truly wishes to entertain. That, of course, has not stopped many from constructing so called ‘doomsday scenarios’ of what this may look like, and the terrifying consequences this may have regionally, as well as globally.

According to a paper composed by numerous researchers including those from Rutgers University, the University of Colorado and the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley among others, published in the journal, Science Advances, India and Pakistan have, collectively, amassed 2 per cent of the world’s nuclear warheads.

India is believed to have 140 warheads, while Pakistan is estimated to possess around 150. With both countries in a race to amass more, the paper predicts that the two nations may have expanded their arsenals to have 250 warheads each by the year, 2025.

Although the paper doesn’t speculate as to which of the two nations triggers the nuclear war, it states that if India was to target Pakistan’s major cities, it would require around 150 nuclear warheads, factoring in an assumption that, at least, 50 of these may miss their intended target. If Pakistan was to do the same, it would also require 150 warheads.

Assuming each of these warheads had explosion yields of 15-kiltons – the same as the bomb that struck Hiroshima – the paper predicts that, at least, 50 million people would die immediately.

However, we are already aware of the fact the US has nuclear weapons with yields between 100 and 500 kilotons, and it is entirely possible that both, India and Pakistan too, would, at least, have some 100 kiloton warheads. If this was the case, the death toll could rise as high as 125 million people. 

But the immediate deaths are just the beginning. The fallout would see the sky blackened with a cloud of soot that would result in a sharp drop in temperatures. Farmers would no longer be able to grow crops leading to severe food shortages and widespread famine, not just regionally, but across the world. 

The sooty material that blocks out the sun has the capacity to linger in the air for over five years and may see the Earth’s average temperature drop by an alarming 5 degrees Celsius – similar to those witnessed during the Ice Age. Moreover, the thermal energy that will be released from the nuclear war may see huge blazes known as firestorms rage across the region, carried by winds.

Given the scale on which life would be lost, and the extreme consequences that such a scenario would have on the Earth’s atmosphere that one researcher has called “instant climate change,” one can only hope that such a scenario remains firmly lodged solely within the realms of theory and fiction.

What are Saudi Arabia’s nuclear intentions? Nuclear Weapons Silly

What are Saudi Arabia’s nuclear intentions?

Perhaps, now, Saudi Arabia is set on a path intended to lead to the development of its own nuclear weapons program

On August 4, The Wall Street Journal reported its discovery that Saudi Arabia, with help from China, has built a facility for extracting yellowcake from uranium ore. Uranium yellowcake is an ingredient used in fueling nuclear reactors. The sparsely populated site is a remote desert location near the small city of Al Ula.

Just how long the facility – secret until now – has been up and running was not disclosed, but its existence indicates that the kingdom’s nuclear program is moving ahead, perhaps with the aim of Saudi Arabia eventually developing its own nuclear weapons. This possibility has been on the cards ever since the ill-conceived deal that former president Barack Obama, in conjunction with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, masterminded with Iran back in 2015.

Saudi-Iranian rivalry dates back to well before the Iranian Revolution of 1979, but the Iranian nuclear deal undoubtedly aggravated and intensified Saudi Arabia’s concerns about the intentions of the revolutionary regime. Saudi Arabia believes that Iran is seeking to dominate the Middle East politically and to extend Shia Islam across the Muslim world, and that it uses terrorism and subversion to achieve its aims. Logic dictated that the best way to counter these unacceptable objectives would be by matching Iran’s nuclear intentions.

As far back as 2013, the BBC was quoting reports that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia “are now sitting ready for delivery.” In a domestic TV program, the BBC said that Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, “the Saudis will not wait one month. They have already paid for the bomb. They will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring.”

Saudi Arabia’s intention to do just that goes back even further. For years it provided generous financial support to Pakistan’s defense sector, and Saudi Arabia’s defense minister visited Pakistan’s nuclear research center in 1999 and 2002. In 2009, Saudi Arabia’s then-King Abdullah was quoted as saying that if Iran crossed the threshold, “we will get nuclear weapons.”

In that 2013 BBC television program, a Pakistani intelligence officer said he believed “the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred.”

Now, perhaps, Saudi Arabia is set on a path intended to lead to the development of its own nuclear weapons program.

OF COURSE, it was all a foreseeable consequence of Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal. For a president who came to office vowing to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, what Obama achieved was to leave in place Iran’s 5,000 centrifuges and a growing research and development program, and the assurance that in a brief 15 years, Iran would be free to resume its nuclear weapons program. Leaders of the Sunni Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, argued at the time that the long-term effect of the deal would be a drive for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The Washington Post believes that for the present Saudi Arabia is focused on becoming what is known as a nuclear “hedger,” that is, a country without a dedicated nuclear weapons program, but which can weaponize relatively quickly, thanks to an advanced enrichment and reprocessing capability ‒ a status already achieved by Iran. Hedging permits a country to develop peaceful nuclear power that could be switched to military uses, while avoiding the financial and political costs of going for a full-scale nuclear military capability.

Back in 2019, The Washington Post identified positive steps taken by Saudi Arabia in the previous few years to enter the nuclear power market, and to foster competition among potential suppliers. In 2015, as a first step toward achieving full nuclear fuel-cycle capability, Saudi Arabia acquired a research reactor from Argentina.

It then solicited bids for the supply of nuclear power reactors and an enrichment plant. In addition to Pakistan, countries such as France and South Korea began expressing an interest in selling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, and by mid-2019, the US, Russia and China had apparently joined the bidding war. China, perhaps within its Belt and Road Initiative, won the commission to construct Saudi Arabia’s uranium yellowcake facility.

The Trump administration seems agreeable to the idea of supplying nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia without imposing overly severe restrictions on its future use, perhaps as a means of deterring approaches by the kingdom to other potential suppliers who might not be in a position to impose effective leverage in a future crisis.

By early 2020, US companies were in serious negotiations with Saudi authorities about a planned tender for nuclear reactor construction in Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, several US senators have warned the administration against a nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia, fearing it could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But that possibility has been present ever since the nuclear deal with Iran was passed. It is the Obama legacy.

The writer is Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. His new book, Trump and the Middle East: 2016-2020, will be published on August 28. He blogs at