Earthquake activity in the New York City area


Although the eastern United States is not as seismically active as regions near plate boundaries, large and damaging earthquakes do occur there. Furthermore, when these rare eastern U.S. earthquakes occur, the areas affected by them are much larger than for western U.S. earthquakes of the same magnitude. Thus, earthquakes represent at least a moderate hazard to East Coast cities, including New York City and adjacent areas of very high population density.

Seismicity in the vicinity of New York City. Data are from the U.S. Geological Survey (Top, USGS) and the National Earthquake Information Center (Bottom, NEIC). In the top figure, closed red circles indicate 1924-2006 epicenters and open black circles indicate locations of the larger earthquakes that occurred in 1737, 1783 and 1884. Green lines indicate the trace of the Ramapo fault.

As can be seen in the maps of earthquake activity in this region(shown in the figure), seismicity is scattered throughout most of the New York City area, with some hint of a concentration of earthquakes in the area surrounding Manhattan Island. The largest known earthquake in this region occurred in 1884 and had a magnitude of approximately 5.For this earthquake, observations of fallen bricks and cracked plaster were reported from eastern Pennsylvania to central Connecticut, and the maximum intensity reported was at two sites in western Long Island (Jamaica, New York and Amityville, New York). Two other earthquakes of approximately magnitude 5 occurred in this region in 1737 and 1783. The figure on the right shows maps of the distribution of earthquakes of magnitude 3 and greater that occurred in this region from 1924 to 2010, along with locations of the larger earthquakes that occurred in 1737, 1783 and 1884.


The NYC area is part of the geologically complex structure of the Northern Appalachian Mountains. This complex structure was formed during the past half billion years when the Earth’s crust underlying the Northern Appalachians was the site of two major geological episodes, each of which has left its imprint on the NYC area bedrock. Between about 450 million years ago and about 250 million years ago, the Northern Appalachian region was affected by a continental collision, in which the ancient African continent collided with the ancient North American continent to form the supercontinent Pangaea. Beginning about 200 million years ago, the present-day Atlantic ocean began to form as plate tectonic forces began to rift apart the continent of Pangaea. The last major episode of geological activity to affect the bedrock in the New York area occurred about 100 million years ago, during the Mesozoic era, when continental rifting that led to the opening of the present-day Atlantic ocean formed the Hartford and Newark Mesozoic rift basins.

Earthquake rates in the northeastern United States are about 50 to 200 times lower than in California, but the earthquakes that do occur in the northeastern U.S. are typically felt over a much broader region than earthquakes of the same magnitude in the western U.S.This means the area of damage from an earthquake in the northeastern U.S. could be larger than the area of damage caused by an earthquake of the same magnitude in the western U.S. The cooler rocks in the northeastern U.S. contribute to the seismic energy propagating as much as ten times further than in the warmer rocks of California. A magnitude 4.0 eastern U.S. earthquake typically can be felt as far as 100 km (60 mi) from its epicenter, but it infrequently causes damage near its source. A magnitude 5.5 eastern U.S. earthquake, although uncommon, can be felt as far as 500 km (300 mi) from its epicenter, and can cause damage as far away as 40 km (25 mi) from its epicenter. Earthquakes stronger than about magnitude 5.0 generate ground motions that are strong enough to be damaging in the epicentral area.

At well-studied plate boundaries like the San Andreas fault system in California, scientists can often make observations that allow them to identify the specific fault on which an earthquake took place. In contrast, east of the Rocky Mountains this is rarely the case.  The NYC area is far from the boundaries of the North American plate, which are in the center of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Caribbean Sea, and along the west coast of North America. The seismicity of the northeastern U.S. is generally considered to be due to ancient zones of weakness that are being reactivated in the present-day stress field. In this model, pre-existing faults that were formed during ancient geological episodes persist in the intraplate crust, and the earthquakes occur when the present-day stress is released along these zones of weakness. The stress that causes the earthquakes is generally considered to be derived from present-day rifting at the Mid-Atlantic ridge.

Earthquakes and geologically mapped faults in the Northeastern U.S.

The northeastern U.S. has many known faults, but virtually all of the known faults have not been active for perhaps 90 million years or more. Also, the locations of the known faults are not well determined at earthquake depths. Accordingly, few (if any) earthquakes in the region can be unambiguously linked to known faults. Given the current geological and seismological data, it is difficult to determine if a known fault in this region is still active today and could produce a modern earthquake. As in most other areas east of the Rocky Mountains, the best guide to earthquake hazard in the northeastern U.S. is probably the locations of the past earthquakes themselves.

The Ramapo fault and other New York City area faults

The Ramapo Fault, which marks the western boundary of the Newark rift basin, has been argued to be a major seismically active feature of this region,but it is difficult to discern the extent to which the Ramapo fault (or any other specific mapped fault in the area) might be any more of a source of future earthquakes than any other parts of the region. The Ramapo Fault zone spans more than 185 miles (300 kilometers) in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It is a system of faults between the northern Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont areas to the east. This fault is perhaps the best known fault zone in the Mid-Atlantic region, and some small earthquakes have been known to occur in its vicinity. Recently, public knowledge about the fault has increased – especially after the 1970s, when the fault’s proximity to the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York was noticed.

There is insufficient evidence to unequivocally demonstrate any strong correlation of earthquakes in the New York City area with specific faults or other geologic structures in this region. The damaging earthquake affecting New York City in 1884 was probably not associated with the Ramapo fault because the strongest shaking from that earthquake occurred on Long Island (quite far from the trace of the Ramapo fault). The relationship between faults and earthquakes in the New York City area is currently understood to be more complex than any simple association of a specific earthquake with a specific mapped fault.

A 2008 study argued that a magnitude 6 or 7 earthquake might originate from the Ramapo fault zone, which would almost definitely spawn hundreds or even thousands of fatalities and billions of dollars in damage. Studying around 400 earthquakes over the past 300 years, the study also argued that there was an additional fault zone extending from the Ramapo Fault zone into southwestern Connecticut. As can be seen in the above figure of seismicity, earthquakes are scattered throughout this region, with no particular concentration of activity along the Ramapo fault, or along the hypothesized fault zone extending into southwestern Connecticut.

Just off the northern terminus of the Ramapo fault is the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, built between 1956 and 1960 by Consolidated Edison Company. The plant began operating in 1963, and it has been the subject of a controversy over concerns that an earthquake from the Ramapo fault will affect the power plant. Whether or not the Ramapo fault actually does pose a threat to this nuclear power plant remains an open question.

More Nuclear Threats in South Asia

China & India: Border Clash Sparks Fears of Renewed Conflict | National Review

Daniel TenreiroJune 16, 2020 2:22 PM

For decades, China and India have managed to maintain an uneasy peace on their disputed border. That peace may now be in jeopardy.

For the first time since 1975, the long-running Sino–Indian border dispute has turned deadly, claiming the lives of at least 20 troops. For decades, the two sides have avoided active military hostility, despite occasional brinkmanship. While China and India appeared to be pulling back in recent weeks, the deaths could reignite the border stand-off that started in early May.

“During the de-escalation process underway in the Galwan Valley, a violent face-off took place yesterday with casualties on both sides,” the Indian Army said in a statement Tuesday. An Indian officer and two soldiers died in the clash, and another 17 Indian troops later succumbed to their injuries due to the sub-zero temperatures of the Himalayan border region.

The editor of the Global Times, a Chinese state-run newspaper, said that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had also suffered casualties, but did not specify whether any of its troops had died. “I want to tell the Indian side, don’t be arrogant and misread China’s restraint as being weak,” Hu Xijin said in a tweet. “China doesn’t want to have a clash with India, but we don’t fear it.”

On June 6, the two sides agreed to a de-escalation plan in commander-level talks. The agreement reportedly included a roadmap to disengagement from three of the four stand-off points in the disputed border zone, according to Dhruva Jaishankar, the director of the Observer Research Foundation’s U.S. Initiative. In the ensuing days, officials in the border region conducted further dialogue to facilitate de-escalation.

Now, each side is accusing the other of having violated the agreement.

On Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian accused Indian border patrols of crossing into Chinese territory and “provoking and attacking Chinese personnel.” The Indian government responded that the face-off “happened as a result of an attempt by the Chinese side to unilaterally change the status quo” in the Galwan River Valley. While the situation on the ground is unclear, the failure of bilateral diplomacy raises the specter of a protracted confrontation.

The proximate cause of the renewed hostilities is the construction of a road in the Galwan River Valley by the Indian Border Roads Organization in May. The road extends up to the “Line of Actual Control,” which loosely demarcates the disputed border, and gives Indian border patrols access to the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airstrip, a strategically vital supply point. China, which has long maintained military superiority in the remote Himalayan region, sees India’s successful infrastructure program as a territorial threat — especially given the Galwan River Valley’s proximity to a highway between the Chinese regions of Xinjiang and Tibet.

On May 5, Chinese and Indian troops engaged in fisticuffs and stone-throwing on the banks of Pangong Lake, and on May 12 a similar clash broke out in the Naku La region near Tibet. In the subsequent days, the PLA mobilized at least 5,000 troops to the region. According to Ajai Shukla, a former Indian colonel, the PLA also deployed artillery guns in six locations in Ladakh.

The mobilization of artillery violates protocols that effectively demilitarized the border in 1993. Two subsequent agreements that solidified those protocols have helped limit casualties in the long-simmering conflict. While the last death in the region occurred in 1975, confrontations have periodically flared up since Xi Jinping rose to power in China eight years ago. Most recently, in 2017, China’s construction of a road through Doklam, near Bhutan, set off two months of brinkmanship, ending with a Chinese retreat and heightened caution on both sides. Before that, the Chinese twice encroached on Indian territory in Ladakh, in 2013 and 2014.

Monday night’s fatalities mark a turning point in the conflict, calling into question the ability of military protocols to prevent hostilities. While the skirmish did not include the use of weapons, the recent military buildup has positioned both sides to escalate the situation rapidly. Jaishankar says that Chinese and Indian leaders frequently point out that they have “found a way to be responsible and make this a peaceful, if unsettled, border.” But that uneasy status quo may no longer be sustainable.

How Iran Swayed Babylon the Great Into Leaving Iraq

American soldiers board an Air Force C130 at Baghdad Airport.

Getty Images

How Iran Swayed the U.S. Into Leaving Iraq

Iran’s prevailing persistence and political subterfuge

By Warren Reinsch • June 15

The United States promised to withdraw its forces from Iraq during a video conference on June 11. The joint statement by the State Department said that the U.S. “reiterated that it does not seek nor request permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq” and that it “would continue reducing its forces from Iraq.” As a result of Iran’s persistence and political subterfuge, its goal of driving the U.S. out of Iraq is about to be fully realized.

NEA Press Office


Under Secretary of State David Hale leads U.S. delegation during June 11 virtual U.S.-Iraq Strategic Dialogue meeting. The United States and Iraq re-committed to their broad and strategic partnership.

See NEA Press Office’s other Tweets

Despite previous statements by U.S. President Donald Trump, he is now expediting America’s withdrawal. In February 2019 on cbs This Morning, Mr. Trump expressed no desire to leave Iraq. In fact, he said he wanted to keep the Al Asad Air Base in order “to watch Iran.”

Again, in January, when tensions between Iran and the U.S. were at a peak, Mr. Trump said the U.S. military wouldn’t leave Iraq anytime soon, calling a U.S. withdrawal “the worst thing that could happen to Iraq.” Two months later, however, the U.S. began consolidating its troops and handing over its military bases to Iraq. And now, the State Department says it has no desire for a permanent base or military presence in Iraq as it continues to withdraw troops.

Why is the U.S. suddenly leaving Iraq?

Controlling Parliament

Decades of Iranian infiltration have given Iran a spider’s web of diplomatic relations inside the Iraqi government. This has created a highly corrupt government that is largely controlled by and strongly influenced by Iran.

Iraq expert Michael Pregent discussed the outcome of the May 2018 parliamentary elections in an interview on the Debbie Aldrich Show in April. He described how Moqtada al-Sadr, who leads Iraq’s largest militia, won the largest number of seats. Pregent said Sadr “says he is not pro-Iran, but Iran gets to tell him what do to, and he does what they say.”

The Fatah Alliance—which was formed by several U.S.-designated terrorist militias, is pro-Iran, and calls for the ousting of U.S. and all foreign forces—won the second-largest number of seats. A few hours before the U.S.-Iraq dialogue began, the Fatah Alliance issued a statement “reminding the head and members of the Iraqi negotiating delegation of the unanimous parliamentary vote that stressed the need for foreign forces to leave Iraq.” Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, another leader in Iran’s back pocket, won third place.

These three parties created a coalition that saturates Iraq’s government. This same pro-Iran parliament unanimously voted on January 5 to expel all U.S. and foreign forces from Iraqi territory. Since the U.S. is in Iraq by the mandate of the prime minister, the parliament does not have the authority to banish U.S. forces. Nevertheless, the act was symbolic of the government’s position.

Pro-Iran Prime Minister

When Iraq’s parliament passed the resolution to oust U.S. forces, no prime minister was in office—only a caretaker. That changed on May 7 when Mustafa al-Kadhimi and his cabinet received a vote of confidence from the parliament and was sworn into office. Since his nomination on April 9, Kadhimi has received widespread support from both Iran and the U.S. Claiming to be an independent and having a history with the U.S. made him appear to be a compromise candidate. However, there was a huge giveaway that Kadhimi was Iran’s selection.

A few days before he was nominated, Iranian Quds Force Cmdr. Ismail Qaani made his first visit to Iraq since assuming the role after the January 3 assassination of Qassem Suleimani. Such a public visit is uncommon for Qaani, who prefers to avoid media coverage. Nevertheless, the visit shows how much importance Iran placed on ensuring that its candidate would be nominated. The timing also suggests that Kadhimi could be in Iran’s back pocket.

U.S. forces are in Iraq for two reasons: 1) to defeat the Islamic State; 2) because of the request of Iraq’s prime minister. If the U.S. is suddenly leaving Iraq, logically, it must be leaving because of one or both of these reasons no longer exists.

The U.S. claims it is leaving because it has defeated the Islamic State, but facts suggest otherwise. According to the Financial Times, the Islamic State “staged at least 566 attacks in Iraq in the first three months of the year and 1,669 during 2019, a 13 percent increase from the previous year.” Contrary to being “defeated,” the Islamic State has increased its number of attacks. Islamic State spokesperson Abu Hamzah al-Qurayshi said the jihadists increased attacks “after your [Iraq’s] American masters began withdrawing their forces.”

This rationale for the U.S. withdrawal was likely a political cover. It seems Iran’s persistence is finally paying off and the new prime minister may have told President Trump, Leave Iraq and we’ll take care of the Islamic State.

Iran’s Plan Continues

Mysteriously, on June 1, prominent Shiite militia leader and head of the Fatah Alliance Hadi al-Amiri submitted his letter of resignation, which was approved by Iraq’s parliament. According to Rudaw, “Though it remains unclear as to what prompted Amiri to resign from the parliament, it is rumored that he is vying for the post of head of the pmu [Popular Mobilization Units], known as the Hashd al-Shaabi in Arabic.” Two days later, Iran flew Commander Qaani into Iraq to meet with Prime Minister Kadhimi and pmu leaders—one week before the U.S.-Iraq dialogue.

Elijah J. Magnier


Head of #Iran #IRGC-Quds force Esmail Qaani ended his 3 days visit to #Iraq and met with PM Mustafa Khadimi, Hashd al-Shaabi commanders and other Iraqi political leaders. Qaani arrived in #Iraq with a visa, along with an Iranian delegation.

11:45 PM – Jun 5, 2020

The pmu is an Iraqi paramilitary umbrella organization comprised of more than 50 majority Shiite militias, which formed in 2014 to combat the emergence of the Islamic State. The pmu has an estimated 150,000 militiamen. Iraqi Executive Order 91, enacted by former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in 2016, made the Iran-backed militias an official state organization as a branch of the Iraqi Security Forces. On July 1, 2019, then Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi issued a decree ordering the Iran-backed militias to fully integrate with the Iraqi Armed Forces. Many of its leading militias openly welcomed the decree. Full integration with the Iraqi military would provide the militias access to American-made weapons and vehicles, as well as an extra layer of protection. Now, striking these designated terrorist militias is seen as an attack on the Iraqi government.

If Amiri, head of the largest Iraqi Shiite militia—Badr Corps—and a U.S.-designated terrorist for his involvement in the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in January, were to become head of the pmu, he would control Iraq’s most lethal organization and Iran’s most effective tool for controlling Iraq—the same organization created to fight the Islamic State. On June 13, Amiri made a public statement: “We will not forget Iran’s support for Iraq in the fight against” the Islamic State.

Playing ‘Whack-a-Mole’

Perhaps America has finally come to terms with the reality that no matter how many terrorist organizations it “destroys,” another one will always rise in its place (likened in geopolitical circles as playing “whack-a-mole”).

After spending an estimated $2 trillion and approximately 4,500 American soldiers’ lives in Iraq, the U.S. has decided to leave Iraq to be dictated by Iran and its proxies. As the U.S. continues its retreat, leaving behind a large power vacuum, Iran will gain even more control.

In our March 2019 issue, Trumpet Jerusalem correspondent Brent Nagtegaal described the effects of the inevitable American withdrawal from the Middle East. In “America Is Back…ing Out,” he wrote: “Every important biblical prophecy that takes place in the Middle East occurs in a power vacuum created by America’s exit. In fact, Bible prophecy indicates that the U.S. will have vacated so entirely from the Middle East that it will not impact it at all.”

One of those critical Bible prophecies is recorded in Daniel 11:40, which states: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”

This prophetic clash occurs between a group of radical Islamic extremist nations, led by Iran (the king of the south), and a united, German-led European superpower (the king of the north).

The King of the South

In his booklet The King of the South, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry identifies this pushy king of the south as the radical Islamic terrorist snake, led by Iran. Historically, Iran, or the Persian Empire, was never great without Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq. The same is true today. In order for Iran to dominate the region, it must control Iraq.

In The Iranian Time Bomb (2007), Michael Ledeen wrote, “If the Islamic Republic can drive the United States out of Iraq, destroy the fledgling democracy in Lebanon, and damage or destroy Israel, the mullahs believe they can dominate the area …. If they are seen to fail, however, their destiny is uncertain. That is why they are pushing so hard on all fronts, hoping to score their own victories before they fall.”

The Trumpet Network

For more than 20 years, the Trumpet has warned about this biblical king of the south’s rise and how Iraq would fall to Iran. In December 1994—while Saddam Hussein was still in power—Mr. Flurry asked, “Is Iraq About to Fall to Iran?” In the July 1998 Trumpet, he wrote, “The stage is being set for an Islamic group of nations to be led by Iran as the prophesied king of the south …. Iran has a foreign policy with a lot of ‘push.’”

Driving the U.S. out of Iraq is Iran’s first step to domination—that is why it is pushing so hard.

In the January 2018 Trumpet feature article “America’s Greatest Defeat—Iran’s Victory,” Mr. Flurry wrote:

America may have helped drive the Islamic State out of Iraq and Syria—but now America is about to be driven out of Iraq and Syria by Iran! We are about to see a vicious turnaround. In many ways, it has already started.

Written over a year ago, we are now seeing this forecast become reality. Iran’s persistent rocket salvo against U.S. bases and its diplomatic infiltration into Iraqi politics have clinched its control over the nation.

Ever since the U.S. entered Iraq, it has been Iran’s goal to drive it out. This goal is now coming to fruition. As the U.S. continues to withdraw, watch for Iran to rise in power and become more emboldened than ever.

For more information about Iraq’s prophetic fall to Iran, please read Mr. Flurry’s article “America’s Greatest Defeat—Iran’s Victory” and request your free copy of The King of the South.

The Growing Chinese Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

China boosts its nuclear arsenal as world’s stockpile shrinks

China, India and Pakistan are modernising their weapons while Russia and the US shed old nuclear arms, say monitors

New threats such as chemical and biological weapons emerge, adding to global instability, finds peace research institute

Kristin Huang

Published: 7:30pm, 15 Jun, 2020

Updated: 10:25pm, 15 Jun, 2020

China is one of the six countries that increased its nuclear arsenal in the past year, adding 30 warheads since a 2019 tally, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute on Monday.

The five other countries were India, Britain, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, the report said, but all increased by fewer than 20 warheads.

“China is in the middle of a significant modernisation and expansion of its arsenal, and India and Pakistan are also thought to be increasing the size of their nuclear arsenals,” the report said.

In China, military vehicles carrying DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missiles pass Tiananmen Square in October, 2019. Photo: Reuters

Despite six countries having increased the number of their nuclear warheads, global inventories continue to decline, according to the report. This is mainly because the owners of the two largest arsenals – Russia and the United States – have decreased their number of warheads, mostly to dismantle retired stocks.

“At the same time, both the USA and Russia have extensive and expensive programmes under way to replace and modernise their nuclear warheads, missile and aircraft delivery systems, and nuclear weapon production facilities,” the report said.

The US has 1,750 deployed warheads – placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces – and 4,050 reserve warheads or retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. Russia has 1,570 deployed warheads and 4,805 warheads either stored or to be dismantled.

At the start of 2020, nine states – the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – had an estimated total of 13,400 nuclear weapons, of which 3,720 were deployed with operational forces. About 1,800 of these were kept in a state of high operational alert, the report said.

India is capable of striking anywhere in China with a nuclear warhead, India’s government has said. Photo: Universalashic

Though six countries had increased their stocks, the combined number of their nuclear warheads was little more than 2,000, less than one-third of Russia’s total stockpile.

Outside nuclear armaments, new threats such as chemical and biological weapons kept emerging, making the world less stable than before, according to the report.

The report also warned of an arms race in outer space. Since 2017, the US has notably declared space to be a domain of war or an area for both offensive and defensive military operations, and France, India and Japan have followed the American lead by announcing dedicating military space units.

The SIPRI report comes after US President Donald Trump’s officials in May discussed conducting the first US nuclear test since 1992.

Zhou Chenming, a military expert based in Beijing, said the changes in the world’s military build-up signalled an increasingly precarious balance of peace.

“Many countries are now developing their own anti-missile systems that protect countries from being hit by a nuclear warhead, but once the systems are highly developed, it will lead to military adventurism – some countries might take the initiative to attack other nations – and make the world even more dangerous,” Zhou said.

Sign up now for a 50% early bird discount on the 100+ page China Internet Report 2020 Pro Edition, which includes deep-dive analysis, trends, and case studies on the 10 most important internet sectors. Now in its 3rd year, this go-to source for understanding China tech also comes with exclusive access to 6 webinars with C-level executives. Offer valid until 30 June 2020.

Israel Fires Back Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

IDF tanks roll towards Gaza. July 2014

IDF Firing on Gaza Target Following Rocket Attack

Jewish Press News Desk

24 Sivan 5780 – June 15, 2020

A rocket was launched at Israel from the Gaza Strip on Monday evening, at around 9 PM. The rocket landed in the Eshkol region. No one was injured or damaged from the attack. The Red Alert siren did not sound as tracking indicated the rocket would land in an open area.

The IDF began retaliating around 10 PM on Monday nigh. The IDF reports that tank fire was used against targets in Gaza, and Israeli aircraft hit Hamas underground infrastructures.

On Sunday, a bundle of balloons with an attached suspicious package was discovered in Moshav Tidhar near Ofakim in southern Israel. A sapper was called to the scene and neutralized the suspicious object that was connected to the bundle. According to Israel, this was the first incendiary balloon launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel since February, but some reports suggest otherwise.

Israel had reportedly agreed to allow Qatar to transfer $50 million to Gaza, and in return, the terrorist organizations in Gaza have agreed to stop the launching of incindeary balloons from the Gaza Strip to Israel. According to another Arab report, Hamas instructed the balloon teams to halt their operations for the time being after receiving guarantees about the Qatari money entering Gaza.

According to al Akhbar, the Israeli approval came one day after Hamas carried out an experimental launch into the sea of an Iranian Fajr 5C, a long-range rocket developed by Tehran during the 1990s. The Fajr 5 multiple launcher fires four 6.48 meter long, 333 millimeter Fajr-5 artillery rockets, with a range of 50 miles, weighing 915 kilograms each and carrying 175-kg fragmentation warheads with 90 kg of high explosive. In 2017, Iran introduced a variant of the Fajr 5C equipped with GPS guidance.

Iran is Now a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:8)

Iran now has enough enriched uranium, weapons grade, to produce a nuclear weapon of mass destruction

June 15, 2020 – by Jimmy DeYoung –

JD: There is a report out that Iran is close to a nuclear weapons breakout. In other words they should have nuclear weapons ready to mount on one of those Shahab-3 missiles to send it anywhere especially towards Israel. What do you know?

KT: This is a recent report from the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency who has been sending inspectors to Iran, but they’ve not been allowed by the Iranians to visit many of the sites that they want to see. What we see now is kind of a mixture between what the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency itself has said about Iran and their stock piles of low enriched uranium and what the Iranians say. The Iranians say that they have enriched more than what they’ve shown to the United Nations. In fact they have low enriched uranium which would be enough if they enriched it up to weapons grade to give them nuclear breakout capability. That is not the Iranian plan.

The Iranian plan which was discovered by Israeli interagency two years ago when they found a secret nuclear warehouse outside of Tehran. The Iranian plan was to build five weapons. To break out rapidly with an arsenal of five weapons. They are not there yet. They have enough now for a single warhead and they have also been enriching beyond that low enrichment amount. They’ve been going up 20% something else they have not told the IAEA. So this is a mixed bag if you wish.

The Iranians have gone way further than they were supposed to go under the bad Iran deal which the United States pulled out of. They now have about five times the amount of enriched uranium that they were allowed to have under that regime. But they have not yet broken out entirely from the restrictions of the non proliferation treaty.

JD: Ken Timmerman with the details on Iran’s enriched uranium, enough weapons grade uranium to make a nuclear weapon of mass destruction.

We report this information because it is setting the stage for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled.

Under the cloud of the coronavirus pandemic in Iran they have been able to enrich uranium, weapons grade uranium enough to be able to produce a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. We’ve heard this story before but Ken’s report of Iran’s statements on the reality of a weapon of mass destruction and the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency indicate that Iran is ready to produce at least one nuclear weapon of mass destruction. This report enhances the potential for the prophetic passage of Iran’s threat to Israel, Ezekiel 38:5 and Psalm 83:4 to be fulfilled.

Iran’s Prophetic Plan B

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addresses the United Nations in New York on September 25, 2018. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Iran’s Risky Plan B

The Media Line Staff


Al-Rai, Kuwait, June 12

Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium indicates that it is pursuing a Plan B for its expansionist project, which it can no longer afford. The only way in which the mullah regime can guarantee its survival is by pursuing this alternative plan. In essence, the Iranian leadership is replicating the North Korean experience, which has pushed the Korean people into deprivation, starvation and oppression. However, the mullahs don’t care about the price – their only priority is to preserve the Islamic Republic that emerged after the fall of the shah in 1979. Granted, this doesn’t mean that Iran’s expansion project will stop. But it will likely take a different form in the coming month, in the wake of the Iranian financial downturn. In this regard, the so-called Plan B is more of a parallel project than an alternative project. The question is this: How will the Iranian regime reconcile its expansionist project with its immense costs? How will the mullah regime preserve itself without leading to its ultimate downfall? The mullah’s move toward Plan B is a direct response to this dilemma. The Iranian regime won’t be able to rescue itself from its financial crisis even if Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the [US] presidency in November. Biden’s staff would consist of the same people who negotiated the JCPOA under president Barack Obama. Iran’s problem is that its possession of nuclear weapons will not protect it at all. Plan B is nothing but a crazy adventure that could lead to war in the region at a time when the Islamic Republic is losing its cards one by one. This is already apparent in Iran’s increasingly-diminished role in Iraq, where a new government, headed by Mustafa al-Kadhimi, has taken power. This government no longer allows Ismail Qani, the successor of Qasem Soleimani, to act in Iraq as if it were a suburb of Tehran. Similarly, Syria provides another example of the diminished Iranian role. Iran is no longer the main player in Syria, as it was in recent years. It appears that the Russian-Israeli understandings regarding the future of Syria are much greater than the mullahs believe, especially with Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in the position of prime minister over the course of the next few years. In Lebanon, it is clear that Hizbullah, which is nothing but a brigade in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, is not experiencing its best days. Despite controlling the government, the party is unable to fulfill any of the public’s demands. This includes Lebanon’s Shi’ite population, where there is latent anger because of the financial situation the country has reached. A large part of the misfortunes of the Lebanese people is credited to Hizbullah, which isolated Lebanon from its Arab and international allies. Would escaping to Plan B benefit Iran? If we exclude the suffering that the Iranian citizen will face, taking a step toward obtaining nuclear weapons seems more like an unwarranted adventure. The nuclear weapon appears to be a redemption card for the Iranian regime, at least on the surface. But the question arises: What about the reaction of the American-Israeli alliance, which is stronger than ever before? – Kheir Allah Kheir Allah (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)