East Coast Quakes and the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

Items lie on the floor of a grocery store after an earthquake on Sunday, August 9, 2020 in North Carolina.

East Coast Quakes: What to Know About the Tremors Below

By Meteorologist Dominic Ramunni Nationwide PUBLISHED 7:13 PM ET Aug. 11, 2020 PUBLISHED 7:13 PM EDT Aug. 11, 2020

People across the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic were shaken, literally, on a Sunday morning as a magnitude 5.1 earthquake struck in North Carolina on August 9, 2020.

Centered in Sparta, NC, the tremor knocked groceries off shelves and left many wondering just when the next big one could strike.

Fault Lines

Compared to the West Coast, there are far fewer fault lines in the East. This is why earthquakes in the East are relatively uncommon and weaker in magnitude.

That said, earthquakes still occur in the East.

According to Spectrum News Meteorologist Matthew East, “Earthquakes have occurred in every eastern U.S. state, and a majority of states have recorded damaging earthquakes. However, they are pretty rare. For instance, the Sparta earthquake Sunday was the strongest in North Carolina in over 100 years.”

While nowhere near to the extent of the West Coast, damaging earthquakes can and do affect much of the eastern half of the country.

For example, across the Tennesse River Valley lies the New Madrid Fault Line. While much smaller in size than those found farther west, the fault has managed to produce several earthquakes over magnitude 7.0 in the last couple hundred years.

In 1886, an estimated magnitude 7.0 struck Charleston, South Carolina along a previously unknown seismic zone. Nearly the entire town had to be rebuilt.

Vulnerabilities

The eastern half of the U.S. has its own set of vulnerabilities from earthquakes.

Seismic waves actually travel farther in the East as opposed to the West Coast. This is because the rocks that make up the East are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years older than in the West.

These older rocks have had much more time to bond together with other rocks under the tremendous pressure of Earth’s crust. This allows seismic energy to transfer between rocks more efficiently during an earthquake, causing the shaking to be felt much further.

This is why, during the latest quake in North Carolina, impacts were felt not just across the state, but reports of shaking came as far as Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 300 miles away.

Reports of shaking from different earthquakes of similar magnitude.

Quakes in the East can also be more damaging to infrastructure than in the West. This is generally due to the older buildings found east. Architects in the early-to-mid 1900s simply were not accounting for earthquakes in their designs for cities along the East Coast.

When a magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck Virginia in 2011, not only were numerous historical monuments in Washington, D.C. damaged, shaking was reported up and down the East Coast with tremors even reported in Canada.

Unpredictable

There is no way to accurately predict when or where an earthquake may strike.

Some quakes will have a smaller earthquake precede the primary one. This is called a foreshock.

The problem is though, it’s difficult to say whether the foreshock is in fact a foreshock and not the primary earthquake. Only time will tell the difference.

The United State Geological Survey (USGS) is experimenting with early warning detection systems in the West Coast.

While this system cannot predict earthquakes before they occur, they can provide warning up to tens of seconds in advance that shaking is imminent. This could provide just enough time to find a secure location before the tremors begin.

Much like hurricanes, tornadoes, or snowstorms, earthquakes are a natural occuring phenomenon that we can prepare for.

The USGS provides an abundance of resources on how to best stay safe when the earth starts to quake.

Iran Steps Closer to a Nuclear Weapon: Daniel 8

Another Step Towards Nuclear Weapons? Iran Operating Advanced Centrifuges

The nuclear watchdog of the United Nations has confirmed that Iran has started operating a cascade of advanced centrifuges at an underground location.

Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), recently told member delegations that the Middle Eastern country has “begun feeding a newly installed cascade of 174 IR-4 centrifuges” to enrich uranium hexafluoride gas up to 5 percent U-235 uranium.

The use of the advanced centrifuges in the Natanz facility is considered to be another violation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was the Iranian nuclear deal that gave Iran economic relief from sanctions in return for limits to its burgeoning nuclear program.

That agreement allows the nation to only enrich with first-generation IR-1 centrifuges.

The chief purpose of the deal was to prevent the Islamic republic from building a nuclear weapon, which the country insists it does not intend to do. Tehran has long contended that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

In the watchdog’s report, Grossi said an additional cascade of IR4 centrifuges has been installed in the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant near Natanz. Tehran also has suggested that it plans to install a second cascade in the Natanz facility, although that project has yet to begin.

Grossi was able to confirm in November that Iran had started the process of enriching with IR-2m type centrifuges at the Natanz site. Last month, Iran announced that it had installed two cascades of IR-4 centrifuges but did not elaborate on the location.

The new Joe Biden administration has acknowledged that it won’t lift sanctions unless Tehran reverses its breaches of the nuclear deal. Meanwhile, Iran has demanded that the United States lifts it sanctions first before engaging in any further talks.

Last week, a bipartisan group of a hundred forty representatives sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, urging the Biden administration to address Iran’s growing military threat.

“As Democrats and Republicans from across the political spectrum, we are united in preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon and addressing the wide range of illicit Iranian behavior. Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action entered into force, Iran has continued to test ballistic missile technology that could potentially be applied to nuclear capable missiles, funded and supported terrorism throughout the Middle East, and engaged in cyberattacks to disrupt the global economy,” the lawmakers wrote.

“Diplomacy with Iran must limit not only the production of nuclear material but also ensure that Iran cannot develop a nuclear-capable ballistic missile,” they added.

Earlier this week, the Iranian Khorgo underground ballistic missile site was discovered to be nearly operational after satellite images revealed that new launch positions were built there. This particular site, which is located in southwestern Iran, is situated roughly five hundred miles from Kuwait, a country that is home to more than thirteen thousand U.S. soldiers. It is also less than two hundred miles from the United Arab Emirates.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Failure to stop Iran’s terror support might lead to war outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Failure to stop Iran’s terror support might lead to Israel-Hezbollah war

To understand the new complex Middle Eastern puzzle, it is first necessary to recognize the fact that the Biden administration is dealing with Iran on two fronts.

The Middle East has entered a new and significant stage in recent weeks, as all regional actors position themselves around the key question of whether or not US President Joe Biden’s administration renews the Iran nuclear agreement. Failure to achieve an improved nuclear deal and cause Iran to downgrade its regional destabilizing activities will have long-lasting effects, could create an economic disaster in Iran and could lead to a military escalation between Iran and America’s regional allies.

The issue of whether sanctions on Iran will be lifted and the outline of a possible new agreement is the leading factor that will shape the face of the Middle East in the coming years.

The new American administration is maneuvering through a minefield in which various developments could impact its decisions on the region.

To understand the new complex Middle Eastern puzzle, it is first necessary to recognize the fact that the Biden administrations is dealing with Iran on two fronts. The first is Tehran’s radical activities and support for armed movements that stretches from Yemen through to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as part of a grand strategic attempt to change realities in the region. The second is Iran’s nuclear program.

Every attempt by the US to solve one of these fronts without linking it to the other is doomed to fail. 

Iran strives to become both a nuclear regional power and to shape a new geopolitical era through the rise of terror armies and militias, of which Hezbollah in Lebanon is the most powerful. Hezbollah is in fact the most heavily-armed non-state actor in the world and is in possession of advanced weapons systems.

The moment of reckoning for American policy in the Middle East is approaching in the form of the decision on the nuclear agreement, and this central junction is also influenced by other important events: The upcoming Israeli elections, and the scheduled presidential elections in Iran in June, before which the Islamic Republic may suspend any major decisions.

The formation of a regional bloc made up of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Israel has, in the wake of the Abraham Accords – a successful leftover from the policy of former US president Donald Trump’s administration – created a challenge to American flexibility on the Iranian issue.

Now, the new administration is presenting a cold shoulder to Israel, and at the same time is reassessing its relationship with Saudi Arabia.

As it reviews its regional policies, Washington should take into account long-term consequences of the way it deals with its central partners in its maneuvering with Iran.

The main threat to the Abraham Accords bloc now could come due to tensions between Washington and Riyadh, which was the main silent partner enabling Israeli-Gulf relations.

Iran meanwhile is actively working to beef up the terrorist-military channels that it has built throughout the Middle East, leading the entire area into an escalatory dynamic. Nevertheless, most decisions are still being made in the political-diplomatic sphere, with all sides complimenting their postures with cyberattacks and other low signature activities. All sides are keen to avoid pressing the “escalation button” too soon. 

Iran however may choose to escalate significantly after a new nuclear agreement is reached, and such a development could certainly ignite the region.

Washington must take into consideration the core interests of its allies, Israel and the Gulf states, who in the meantime are setting up their own independent capabilities for taking on the Iranian nuclear threat. These efforts could in future take individual-state form, or be coordinated under the framework of an alliance.

As a result, no one should be surprised if local military solutions surface as being highly realistic options to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

Ultimately, Washington should view the spread of the Shi’ite axis, its weapons proliferation, and proxy consolidation program, as being inseparable from the nuclear deal.

The Iranians have proven and continue to prove that despite severe pressure from multiple directions – the pandemic and economic distress – their scheme to expand terror tentacles and their murderous radical ideology will not stop even for a second.

Only a combination of a firm stance in negotiations, the listing of conditions, a show of force and leaving space for maneuver will pave the path to a contraction of Iran’s nuclear program and a curtailment of its regional activities. A US failure on these counts could well lead Israel to consider a variety of operations against Iran and its militias, including the option of launching a preventive offensive against Hezbollah. 

The writer, a retired IDF major-general, is a publishing expert at The MirYam Institute and formerly served as military secretary to three defense ministers, as well as chief of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories. 

The Expansion of the Chinese Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

Why is the military worried about China expanding into South America?

South of the border.

By Jeff Schogol March 21, 2021

Do you lose sleep at night worrying about China dominating South and Latin America? Neither do I, but the head of U.S. Southern Command claims this is actually a thing.

“The Chinese Communist Party’s insidious, and corrosive and corrupt influences at work globally and in this region,” Navy Adm. Craig Faller said at a March 16 Pentagon news conference.

Faller’s comments raise a few questions. First of all: Why do military leaders always single out the “Chinese Communist Party” when describing China’s nefarious activities? There is no other party in China, so it’s redundant to mention that the country is run by communists – unless the John Birch Society is somehow represented in the Standing Committee of the Central Political Bureau.

Secondly: How would Americans be put at risk if China became a hegemon in the Western Hemisphere? Is the U.S. military concerned that if we don’t stop the Chinese from encroaching in Paraguay, the Godless communists will not stop until they’ve conquered Peoria, Illinois?

Being a professional jerk, I asked Faller if SOUTHCOM was concerned that if China made inroads in Venezuela, other South American countries would fall like dominoes – a reference to the Cold War “Domino Theory” about how communism spreads.

“I don’t know – don’t really know or understand the part of your question, Jeff, on the domino analogy,” Faller replied.

Faller argued that China is trying to exert more control on water and food resources in the Western Hemisphere so they can “use that leverage in international forums to push towards China’s view of a rules-based world order.”

I’m not exactly sure what that means but it doesn’t have quite the ring of “Better dead than Red!”

Before any of you accuse me of being “woke,” please understand that I am no fan of communism. But I’m also not so terrified of communist subversion that I suspect fluoridation is a plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

That brings us to the elephant in the room: Is the U.S. military being paranoid about China’s growing influence south of the border? Since there is no easy way to ask that question, I put it directly to defense officials by asking: “If I were to describe SOUTHCOM and DOD’s position toward China as ‘paranoid,’ would I be wrong? Why?”

In response, a Defense Department spokesperson repeated the Pentagon’s mantra that China is the strategic pacing challenge globally and the Defense Department supports monitoring all current and potential risks to U.S. security in South and Central America, including Chinese political and economic engagement with countries such as Venezuela.

Moreover, China’s increasing economic power in Latin America and the Caribbean risks undermining transparency and the rule of law in the Western Hemisphere, the spokesperson said.

Another reason Americans should care about China’s increasing influence in the Western Hemisphere is their security – and the security of the United States – is linked to the wellbeing of Latin American and Caribbean countries, a SOUTHCOM spokesperson said.

China’s investments and loans in critical infrastructure and commodities in South America and elsewhere in the hemisphere are siphoning money from local companies, the spokesperson said. China’s increasing access to maritime, cyber, and space infrastructure also poses increasing risks to the United States as well as its allies and partners.

Even though not all of China’s activities are malign, Beijing is actively working against the United States in the region, in part by supporting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the spokesperson said. That’s why the United States imposed sanctions on China National Electronics Import & Export Corporation last year for restricting internet service in Venezuela and conducting digital surveillance on Maduro’s political opponents.

All of those comments are much more toned down than what Faller said when he indicated that Chinese investments in ports around the world could be part of its strategy to establish new bases for its growing fleet of warships.

“We look with growing alarming concern at the expansive massive blue water navy that China is using and question the intent and use of that Navy going forward,” Faller said. “So, I absolutely think that they’re on a march to do what they need to ensure the communist party stays intact. And I ask the question, why would they be looking at so many ports, including deep water ports in this hemisphere?”

My God. He’s right. If the Chinese can send their warships to South America, what’s to stop them from sailing right up the Potomac and claiming Washington, D.C., as their summer residence?

Please forgive me for sounding so dismissive but the Pentagon’s rhetoric reminds me of the 1967 movie Battle Beneath the Earth about a Chinese general’s plot to dig tunnels underneath the United States and explode nuclear weapons below American cities.

“They’re crawling under us, I tell you,” one character says. “Just like ants.”

Now, just because the Pentagon may be overhyping the threat China poses to the United States doesn’t mean that the Beijing regime is warm or cuddly. In June 1989, People’s Liberation Army tanks crushed pro-democracy protestors in Tiananmen Square and not a single Chinese leader has been prosecuted for murder.

China is currently strangling the remnants of representative government in Hong Kong, showing that its methods have become more subtle over the past 30 years but no less effective.

It is also worth noting that China’s foreign policy involves bending leaders around the world to its will, said Patrick Cronin, Chair for Asia-Pacific Security at the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, D.C.

“China would like to win friends and influence people to help rewrite global rules and institutions to make them more agreeable to China’s interests,” said Cronin, who added that the United States neglects the Western Hemisphere at its own peril.

However, China’s activities in South and Central America do not pose a direct military threat to the United States, he said.

Rather, China’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere are part of its global strategy to dominate commerce and communications at physical and informational choke points, he said.

Long story short: The final battle against communism is likely not going to be won or lost in South America. If the Pentagon is really looking for a fight to the death, it should start combating the spread of QAnon and other conspiracy theories within the ranks. Those types of lies pose a much greater threat to our democracy than China.

But to make sure that China is not trying any funny stuff in Latin America or the Caribbean, I am publicly volunteering to go on a six-month fact-finding mission in Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic to make sure the People’s Liberation Army is not trying to interfere with our precious alcohol supply.

Featured image: Chinese police trained in riot control arrive at the National airport in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on Oct.17, 2004. It is Beijing’s first contribution to a U.N. mission in the Western Hemisphere. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)

Biden Contests the Russian and Chinese Nuclear Horns: Daniel 7

That Was Fast: Blowups With China and Russia in Biden’s First 60 Days

It may look like the bad old days of the Cold War, but today’s bitter superpower competition is about technology, cyberconflict and influence operations.

WASHINGTON — Sixty days into his administration, President Joe Biden got a taste of what the next four years may look like: a new era of bitter superpower competition, marked by perhaps the worst relationship Washington has had with Russia since the fall of the Berlin Wall and with China since it opened diplomatic relations with the United States.

It has been brewing for years, as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping of China took sharp turns toward authoritarianism. But it blew up in open fashion this month after Biden agreed with the proposition that Putin is a “killer” and the Chinese, meeting with the United States for the first time since the new administration took office, lectured Americans about the error of their arrogant view that the world wants to replicate their freedoms.

A lot of it was for show on both sides, with cameras whirring. All of the participants were playing to their domestic audiences, the Biden team included. But it was not entirely an act.

While the Cold War has not resumed — there is little of the nuclear menace of that era, and the current competition is over technology, cyberconflict and influence operations — the scenes playing out now have echoes of the bad old days. As a moment in theatrical diplomacy, the meeting Thursday and Friday in Anchorage, Alaska, between the Americans and Chinese was reminiscent of when the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, made headlines around the world 60 years ago by banging his shoe on a desk of the United Nations and shouting about American imperialists.

But as veterans of the old Cold War will suggest, the superpower rivalries today bear little resemblance to the past. Putin himself has lamented that the Russia of the early 21st century is a shadow of the Soviet Union that trained him to be a KGB agent. Russia’s economy is roughly the size of Italy’s. Its greatest power now is to disrupt and instill fear, using nerve agents like Novichok to silence dissenters around the world or deploying its cyberability to bore deeply into the networks that keep the United States humming.

Yet for all his country’s economic weakness, Putin has proved highly resilient in the face of escalating international sanctions imposed since he took over Crimea in 2014, which accelerated after he turned to nerve agents and cyberattacks. It is hard to argue they have curbed his behavior.

Sanctions “are not going to do much good,” Robert Gates, a former CIA director and defense secretary, said recently in a public interview with David Ignatius of The Washington Post. “Russia is going to be a challenge for the United States, a national security challenge for the United States, and maybe, in some respects, the most dangerous one, as long as Putin is there.”

For the Chinese, who were still coping with the failures of the Great Leap Forward when Khrushchev was banging shoes and intimidating President John F. Kennedy in a first meeting in Vienna, the story is drastically different.

Its pathway to power is building new networks rather than disrupting old ones. Economists debate when the Chinese will have the world’s largest gross domestic product — perhaps toward the end of this decade — and whether they can meet their other two big national goals: building the world’s most powerful military and dominating the race for key technologies by 2049, the 100th anniversary of former Communist Chairman Mao Zedong’s revolution.

Their power arises not from their relatively small nuclear arsenal or their expanding stockpile of conventional weapons. Instead, it arises from their expanding economic might and how they use their government-subsidized technology to wire nations — be it Latin America or the Middle East, Africa or Eastern Europe — with 5G wireless networks intended to tie them ever closer to Beijing. It comes from the undersea cables they are spooling around the world so that those networks run on Chinese-owned circuits.

Ultimately, it will come from how they use those networks to make other nations dependent on Chinese technology. Once that happens, the Chinese could export some of their authoritarianism by, for example, selling other nations facial recognition software that has enabled them to clamp down on dissent at home.

Which is why Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, who was with Secretary of State Antony Blinken for the meeting with their Chinese counterparts in Anchorage, warned in a series of writings in recent years that it could be a mistake to assume that China plans to prevail by directly taking on the U.S. military in the Pacific.

“The central premises of this alternative approach would be that economic and technological power is fundamentally more important than traditional military power in establishing global leadership,” he wrote, “and that a physical sphere of influence in East Asia is not a necessary precondition for sustaining such leadership.”

The Trump administration came to similar conclusions, though it did not publish a real strategy for dealing with China until weeks before it left office. Its attempts to strangle Huawei, China’s national champion in telecommunications, and wrest control of social media apps like TikTok ended up as a disorganized effort that often involved threatening and angering allies who were thinking of buying Chinese technology.

Part of the goal of the Alaska meeting was to convince the Chinese that the Biden administration is determined to compete with Beijing across the board to offer competitive technology, like semiconductor manufacturing and artificial intelligence, even if that means spending billions on government-led research and development projects and new industrial partnerships with Europe, India, Japan and Australia.

Biden alluded to this last month in his two-hour conversation with Xi, telling him, aides said, that the Chinese narrative of the U.S.’s decline was badly mistaken. But it will take months, at best, to publish a broad new strategy, and it is unclear whether corporate America or major allies will get behind it. “It’s not going play out in a day or a week or a month,” said Kurt Campbell, the president’s top Asia adviser, who is leading the strategic review. “This is probably a multiadministration effort.”

Campbell was at the table in Anchorage, sitting next to Sullivan and Blinken, when the Chinese began their effort to put the U.S. delegation on the defensive. They accused the United States of a “condescending” approach and argued that the country’s leaders had no right to lecture others on human rights abuses or the preservation of democracy. They talked about Black Lives Matter and the contradictions in a U.S. democratic system that leaves so many behind.

“I don’t think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognize that the universal values advocated by the United States or that the opinion of the United States could represent international public opinion,” Yang Jiechi, China’s most senior diplomat, said in a lengthy statement at the opening of the session.

He added, “Those countries would not recognize that the rules made by a small number of people would serve as the basis for the international order.”

The subtext of his message was that China would speed up its effort to dominate the forums that set the rules, whether that is the World Trade Organization or lesser-known groups that set technological standards.

In some of those forums, the Chinese have a new ally: the Russians, who are equally eager to diminish U.S. influence and bolster authoritarianism. Increasingly, the two nations share an affinity for a short-of war weapon to which the United States is particularly vulnerable: cyberintrusions into the complex networks that are the lifeblood of U.S. government and private industry.

The two big breaches in recent months, one believed to be run by the Russians and the other by the Chinese, are examples of how the two countries have grown far more sophisticated over the past 10 years in making use of their digital skills for political ends.

They are learning to hack on an industrial scale, to prove they can insert malware into systems on which the United States depends for day-to-day life. The Russian intrusion into network management software made by a company called SolarWinds got them into roughly 18,000 private and government networks, from which they chose just a few hundred to extract data. Microsoft says it was a Chinese state-sanctioned group that gained access to its Exchange servers, also used by tens of thousands of companies and government entities.

The question is whether the two countries were simply stealing secrets or whether they had another agenda: reminding U.S. leaders of their power to bring down these systems and paralyze the country.

It is a mind game, much as moving missiles around the country during the Cold War was. But it can also spin out of control.

Sometime in the next few days to weeks, Biden’s aides say, the United States will respond. Some of that response will involve more sanctions. But Gates said recently, “I think we need to be more aggressive with our own cybercapabilities” and find creative ways to raise the cost for U.S. adversaries. Biden expressed similar sentiments during the transition.

The risk, of course, is one familiar from the Cold War: escalation.

Russian Horn angry over planned expansion of British nuclear weapons

Russia angry over planned expansion of British nuclear weapons | Now

Thelma Binder

Russia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom on Saturday reacted angrily to a British decision to expand the country’s nuclear arsenal from 215 to 260. In conversation with LBC Andre Kellin has accused the UK government of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

According to the NPT, which has been in force since the 1970s, countries with nuclear weapons must reduce their stakes. The United Kingdom, like Russia, signed the international treaty after the fall of the Soviet Union’s Cold War superpower.

On Tuesday, however, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that he wanted to strengthen the UK’s nuclear arsenal for the first time since the end of the Cold War. The head of the British government wants to stop the Russians and North Koreans.

The British already had more than the self-imposed ceiling of 180 warships. Johnson has raised that ceiling to 260, which has come under criticism both domestically and abroad.

The United Kingdom disagrees with this criticism. A spokesman for the country said, “Nuclear deterrence is an important part of the UK view of their role in the world.”

Colin enjoys the unpleasant surprise of British action. According to the Russian ambassador, the political relationship between the British and the Russians was “as good as dead”.

‘United Kingdom rejects goodwill’

According to Kelin, the Russians have repeatedly offered to talk to the British about things like digital espionage. The United Kingdom is said to have rejected all Russian diplomatic approaches.

According to Kelin, Russia’s twin agent Sergei Skribal’s poisoning in 2018 is behind British operations. Moscow continues to deny all involvement in the assassination attempt on the Scribes.

In October, the United Nations ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither the United Kingdom nor Russia has signed the agreement. This also applies to the major powers in the Netherlands and the United States and China.

Khamenei calls Babylon the Great’s maximum pressure policy failure

Khamenei calls US’ maximum pressure policy failure

Gopi

Tehran, March 21 (SocialNews.XYZ) Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Washington’s maximum pressure policy against Tehran has been a failure.

The enemies of Iran, led by the US, sought to bring the Iranian people to their knees, Khamenei said in his Iranian New Year message on Saturday.

However, the Iranian nation stood up, and the failure of the maximum pressure policy was a sign of national capability, Xinhua news agency quoted the Supreme Leader as further saying.

In response to the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and the re-imposition of sanctions, Iran has suspended implementing parts of its obligations under the agreement.

The incumbent US administration under President Joe Biden has said that if Iran returns to full compliance with the nuclear deal, Washington would do the same.

But Iran insisted its compliance would only take place once US sanctions were removed.

Source: IANS

Gopi Adusumilli is a Programmer. He is the editor of SocialNews.XYZ and President of AGK Fire Inc.

He enjoys designing websites, developing mobile applications and publishing news articles on current events from various authenticated news sources.

When it comes to writing he likes to write about current world politics and Indian Movies. His future plans include developing SocialNews.XYZ into a News website that has no bias or judgment towards any.

He can be reached at gopi@socialnews.xyz