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.


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.


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.

The Antichrist calls Russia-Ukraine war ‘absolutely useless’

Syria funeral

Iraqi populist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr calls Russia-Ukraine war ‘absolutely useless’

Regional alignments solidify after the invasion of Ukraine, as Iraqi politicians call for peace while four-way collaboration on dealing with the Islamic State and border security continues with Russia, Iran and Syria.

AFP via Getty Images

February 26, 2022

BAGHDAD – Hours after the news broke that Russia had begun an invasion of Ukraine at dawn on Feb, 24, Iraq’s national security advisor took part in a meeting of a four-nation joint intelligence center that Western nations have long eyed warily.

The center on Thursday officially discussed Iraq’s concerns following a prison break in neighboring Syria that freed hundreds of alleged Islamic State (IS) leaders and fighters, many of them Iraqi nationals.

The Baghdad center, officially referred to as the Quartet Information Exchange and Coordination Center, comprises representatives from Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq to coordinate intelligence against IS in the region.

National Security Advisor Qasim al-Araji stressed during the meeting that Iraq fears “there is a plot for the return of terrorists and their spread in the region, which will generate a state of instability.”

Photographs were circulated after the meeting of Araji standing in front of Iranian and Russian flags next to men in military uniform.

Araji lived for many years in Iran, received training from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and reportedly fought on the side of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. He returned to Iraq after 2003 but was later imprisoned by US forces for almost two years on suspicion of smuggling and distributing explosives used to target US forces. He was interior minister of Iraq from early 2017 until late 2018 and is current National Security Advisor.

In the conflict that has just begun, the EU and the US clearly support Ukraine, though thus far mostly with statements and sanctions. Thousands of US troops have been sent to Poland, Germany and Romania.

However, Syria, Iran and China instead back Russia.

Many Iraqi positions on the invasion have thus far been mild, with calls for the UN and “the international community” to take action.

The head of the Hikma Movement, Ammar Hakim, wrote on Thursday that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “heralds a major global crisis that is difficult to contain.” He called on the international community, the United Nations and the Security Council to take urgent steps to encourage negotiations.

Russia holds a permanent position at the UN Security Council and veto power, which some claim it should be stripped of.

The popular Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political alliance got the most support in the October 2021 elections, wrote on Twitter before the start of the Russian operation: “I am still looking forward to the principle of dialogue prevailing between the two Christian neighboring countries” and that war is “absolutely useless.”

Though Sadr maintains his contacts with Iran, his movement is seen as more of a nationalist one compared to many other Shiite political factions with armed wings, which have long been supported by IRGC training, weapons, and funding and are known as the “muqawama” or resistance factions.

These political parties fared relatively poorly in the October elections, however. A party under the IRGC-linked Kataib Hezbollah armed faction, which has government-salaried brigades in the Popular Mobilization Units, only got one seat out of 329 in the parliamentary assembly.

A government has not yet been formed in Iraq almost five months after the vote.

Sadr has also long been against Iraqi IRGC factions crossing into Syria and fighting on the side of the Syrian government, where Russia also played a major role on the side of the Bashar al-Assad government.

The Baghdad Quartet center was announcedin late September 2015, only days before Russia officially entered the Syrian conflict.

It had been established after Iranian general Qassem Soleimani visited Russia some months before, who had “served as Iran’s main point of contact with the Russians for military operations in Syria until his assassination in January 2020,” according tothe Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed by a Jan. 3, 2020 US drone attack as they were leaving the Baghdad airport. Russia in 2020 reportedly awarded a medal to Muhandis for “strengthening military cooperation.”

In northeastern Syria, the US-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in territorial control of the area have long engaged in talks with Russia and are widely seen as drawing closer to the country in recent months.

The SDF were in control of the prison housing thousands of IS detainees that was attacked in late January.

One source from eastern Syria told Al-Monitor in November 2021, shortly after a plan to attack the same prison was thwarted, that: “some Russian nationals who had been in SDF-run detention facilities in northeastern Syria for allegedly being IS fighters had recently been moved to Damascus ‘to ensure that they do not escape’, presumably after negotiations with the Syrian government.”

Though IRGC-linked factions are officially on the opposite side of the SDF, fighting between the two is rare. IRGC-linked factions have, however, often used territory officially under the Syrian central government to target bases in SDF territory housing US forces.

A barrage of rockets that in early January hit the Conoco and Green Village military facilities in eastern Syria’s Arab-majority Deir al-Zor province, for example, were attributed to these IRGC-linked groups.

Why the bowls of wrath are about to happen: Revelation 16

Putin has threatened nuclear action. Here’s what Russia is actually capable of

March 8, 20224:27 PM ET

NPR’s Sarah McCammon asks Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, what we know about Russia’s nuclear stockpile and capabilities.


Moments before Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his attack on Ukraine, he shot a stern warning to the rest of the world. Any country that interfered, he said, would, quote, “face consequences greater than any you have faced in history.” He also bragged about Russia’s nuclear arsenal and, several days later, put Russia’s deterrent forces, including nuclear weapons, on high alert. So what are Russia’s nuclear capabilities three decades after the Cold War? I put that question to Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

HANS KRISTENSEN: The best estimate, I would say, is that they have just about 4,500 nuclear warheads in their military stockpile. They have some others that have been retired and await dismantlement. But those are the ones they could actually use.

MCCAMMON: That’s a big number. It sounds like a lot. What is the impact of that? What does that mean?

KRISTENSEN: Well, it’s split between sort of long-range strategic forces – that’s the focus of it – that can be used in an exchange with the United States long-distance. But they also have a large inventory of short-range, so-called tactical nuclear weapons that are intended for use sort of locally, more in regional scenarios.

MCCAMMON: It’s been a long time since the Cold War era. Do we know what kind of shape these weapons are in?

KRISTENSEN: Yeah, they’re fully operational or fully functioning. The strategic forces are, most of them, deployed on their launchers. But the tactical weapons, they’re in central storage – or at least the warhead’s in central storage. So if Russia decided to use nuclear weapons in a scenario in Europe, it would first have to haul these warheads out and bring them to the launchers. But despite Russia’s threats, the intelligence community has not seen any changes in the way that the Russians operate their nuclear forces. So it’s a verbal threat, but they don’t see any movement on the ground that indicate he’s actually making preparations for that.

MCCAMMON: If Russia were to deploy nuclear weapons, you’ve talked about two different types. What type do you think they would be?

KRISTENSEN: Oh, of course, they will start small if it came to that. And then depending on where things going, they could turn up the heat. And if it goes all the way, it would reach strategic force levels, and that would be the big one.

MCCAMMON: In the past, this has been regulated through treaties. A number of Cold War-era treaties that regulated the use of nuclear weapons have fallen by the wayside in recent decades. What is left, and does the U.S. need to do more to reestablish those kinds of protocols?

KRISTENSEN: Yes, absolutely. It is both in our interests and, as a matter of fact, also in the Russian interest to keep lids on the nuclear force structures of the world. Right now, in terms of those limits, there’s only one left, which is the New START treaty. It’s over a decade old, and it’s just been extended, but it will expire in 2026. After that, if it’s not replaced, there will be no treaty limits on any nuclear forces. So it’s very, very important that this war does not derail efforts to continue to control and limit nuclear forces.

MCCAMMON: You talk about the importance of not derailing those efforts, and there’s a delicate balance here with diplomacy as it concerns this Russian invasion into Ukraine. How much do you think that the decisions and statements that the U.S. is making are being dictated by concerns about Russia’s nuclear capabilities?

KRISTENSEN: Partly so, I think – no doubt about it. I think it’s a deliberate decision on the part of the Biden administration and also the Pentagon. They do not want to play along with Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling, and so their responses have actually been moderate and very responsible, I would say. The United States has even delayed a test launch of a long-range ballistic missile. So those are the right kinds of steps to take. Nobody doubts that U.S. forces are fully capable of responding to whatever scenario comes out, so they don’t need to play that game.

MCCAMMON: You mentioned earlier that reestablishing some protocols regulating nuclear weapons would be obviously in the interest of the U.S., but also in Russia’s interest. Do you think Putin would even be amenable to that kind of conversation at this point?

KRISTENSEN: I think before this conflict erupted, yes, they were interested, and there were several rounds of talks going on between Russia and the United States about sort of strategic security issues, but they’re unlikely to be resumed until this war in Ukraine settles. But I think, yes – I think both sides, ironically, have an interest in continuing those talks.

MCCAMMON: That’s Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. Thank you.

KRISTENSEN: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2022 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissionspages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Concern Rising That Russia Could Use Nuclear Weapons

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines listens during a House Intelligence Committee hearing March 8, 2022.

Concern Rising That Putin Could Use Nuclear Weapons

Russian “escalate to de-escalate” doctrine suggests Putin is thinking the unthinkable.

March 8, 2022 04:21 PM ET

The world should take Russia’s escalating nuclear threats very seriously, senior intelligence officials told lawmakers Tuesday, while noting that they have not yet seen clear indications that Russian leader Vladimir Putin would respond to military setbacks in Ukraine with nukes.

Putin sparked alarm among nuclear watchers last month when he ordered the country’s nuclear forces be put on a “special regime of combat duty.” Speaking to lawmakers on Tuesday, Avril Haines, the director of Office of the Director for National Intelligence, said that move was mostly “signaling” to keep NATO from intervening in Ukraine.

“He is effectively signaling that he’s attempting to deter and that he has done that in other ways. For example, having the strategic nuclear forces exercise that we indicated had been postponed until February, again, then as a method of effectively deterring,” Haines said.

It’s not the first time Russian officials have said NATO activity in Ukraine could prompt them to use nuclear weapons. In 2017, Russian parliamentarian Vyacheslav Nikonov made a similar statement. But Haines and others told U.S. lawmakers that as the Russian invasion stalls, the threat of nuclear use is rising.

At the hearing, CIA director William Burns said the Russian military doctrine contemplates the use of smaller tactical nuclear weapons.

“You know, Russian doctrine holds that you escalate to de-escalate, and so I think the risk would rise, according to the doctrine,” Burns said. 

Army Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers that Putin may think such weapons give him an asymmetric advantage. 

“I also believe that when he says something, we should listen very, very carefully and maybe take him at his word. So this question is the one that analysts are pondering right now, and I think we really do some more work on it,” Berrier said. 

A former senior White House official familiar with Russian nuclear security issues told Defense One that the risk of a Russian first nuclear use is rising, largely because Putin doesn’t view such weapons in the same way as the United States, or even the former Soviet Union.

“The [United States] has newer weapons to deter conventional conflict…Russia has nuclear weapons as part of a warfighting battle plan,” said the official, who called them just a “warfighting tool” for Russia. The former official said the danger is increasing “precisely because the conflict in Ukraine is going badly.” 

The official outlined a scenario in which Putin consolidates some gains in southern Ukraine but fails to install a new puppet regime. 

“Ukrainians may or may not cease and desist. The West may or may not continue to arm the Ukrainian insurgency and [Putin] might decide, ‘OK. I’m going to set off a bomb somewhere in western Ukraine to send a message that I have crossed the nuclear threshold, and you can follow me if you want.”

World War III Has Already Started: Revelation 16

Bill Ackman, founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management.

Bill Ackman says Russia’s attack on Ukraine means World War III has likely already started

Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman has warned that World War III has “likely started already” amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“In January 2020, I had nightmares about the potential for a pandemic, but everyone seemed to think I was crazy. I am having similar nightmares now,” Ackman said via Twitter late Saturday.

In early 2020, when fewer than 7,000 coronavirus cases had been confirmed in the U.S., Ackman — who is CEO of Pershing Square Capital — called for a 30-day national lockdown and warned that “hell is coming” in an interview with CNBC.

Ackman later defended his comments after his fund announced shortly thereafter that it had made more than $2 billion on bets against the markets.

On Saturday, Ackman said that “WWIII has likely started already, but we have been slow to recognize it,” although he added that there was “much more we can do before we enter a hot war with Russia.”

The U.S. “could stop the absurdity of buying oil from Russia and funding the war, [and] Europe could follow suit once demand for gas declines in the Spring,” Ackman said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday issued a fresh call for an international boycott of Russian oil, with EU officials Tuesday set to discuss proposals for ending the bloc’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels.

International benchmark Brent crude futures and U.S. WTI oil futures both soared to 13-year highs on Monday as investors considered the prospect of a Russian oil embargo.

West has ‘already provoked Putin’

Supplying Ukraine with the West’s best weaponry, intelligence and drones would allow NATO members to assist Ukraine without putting troops on the ground, Ackman said.

“The Ukrainians with the right weapons and resources have proven that they have what it takes to win the war, unless and until Putin goes nuclear,” he said. “Our reason for not doing more appears to be our fear of provoking Putin.”

But he said the West has already provoked Russian President Vladimir Putin by giving the Ukrainians the weapons that were enabling them to thwart Russia’s advances.

A slew of countries all over the world has supplied weapons and funding to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from invading Russian forces. U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has asked Congress to approve billions of dollars worth of funding for Ukraine since Russia launched its attack on Feb. 24.

But Ackman contended that NATO’s reluctance to intervene due to the nuclear threat posed by Russia was a poor strategic move.

“What then do we do when [Putin] wants more?” Ackman asked. “The nuclear threat is no different when he takes his next country, whether it is part of NATO or not, and by then we are strategically worse off.”

Last week, Putin put Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alert, saying it was a defensive response to Western condemnation of his invasion of Ukraine, and warning that any country that tried to interfere in Ukraine would suffer consequences unseen before in history.

But Ackman said Saturday that Putin’s aspirations had grown because “we did nothing to stop him” during Russia’s previous invasion campaigns.

Russian forces invaded neighboring Georgia in 2008, a move that saw a “remarkably muted” international response and gave Moscow “an informal invitation for further acts of aggression in Russia’s traditional sphere of influence,” according to the Atlantic Council. In 2014, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a peninsula in southern Ukraine.

According to Ackman, “we are in the early innings of Putin’s global aspirations.”

“With each ‘victory,’ he is emboldened to take more,” Ackman said. “He is testing us, and we are failing the test each time.”

Biden, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson have all ruled out putting troops on the ground or enforcing a no-fly zone above Ukraine, arguing that either move would lead to an escalation in the conflict and further human suffering.

However, Biden has said the U.S. and its allies would defend “every inch of territory of NATO countries with the full force of our collective power.”

“By setting a hard line based only on NATO membership, doesn’t this give Putin carte blanche to invade and subjugate Sweden, Finland, Cyprus, Ireland, Austria, Malta, and Switzerland, and the rest of the former Soviet Union?” Ackman questioned Saturday.

China’s role

Speculating that the conflict in Ukraine was “only going to get worse,” Ackman said the only way to deter Russia from attacking more countries was for the West to use every economic sanction it had available, and give the Ukrainians every weapon they needed to defend itself.

If sanctions failed to have an impact on Putin’s actions, Ackman added, NATO should reconsider enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Ultimately, though, Ackman argued that the key to ending the crisis in Ukraine sat with China.

“The only optimistic way I can see out of this war is for China to step in and broker a real ceasefire and a settlement,” he said. “In the settlement, the Ukrainians could agree that they will never join NATO. Russia, in turn, can withdraw and the sanctions can be reversed.”

“Putin respects and likely fears China,” Ackman added. “China can elevate itself on the world stage by helping to resolve this crisis. Time is running short before many more 18-month-old children die.”

China, an economic and strategic ally of Moscow, has not imposed any sanctions on Russia or, at least initially, categorized its attack on Ukraine as an invasion. Beijing has, however, called for diplomacy and an end to the hostilities in Ukraine.

Speaking to CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Monday, economist Stephen Roach said China “is holding the trump card” in the pursuit of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

“There’s only one person in the world, I think, who has leverage over Vladimir Putin — and that’s [Chinese President] Xi Jinping,” Roach said.

Correction: This story has been updated with the correct day that Ackman’s tweet was posted.

India Responds to Threats of the First Nuclear War: Revelation 8

Under PM Modi, India More Likely To Respond To Pak Provocations: US Intel

Under PM Modi, India More Likely To Respond To Pak Provocations: US Intel

The annual threat assessment of the US Intelligence Community also said “expanded military posture by both India and China…elevates the risk of armed confrontation between two nuclear powers”

All IndiaPress Trust of IndiaUpdated: March 08, 2022 10:39 pm IST

by Taboola

Indian Air Force jets bombed a terror camp in Pakistan’s Balakot in February 2019


Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is more likely than in the past to respond with military force to any real or perceived Pakistani provocations, the American intelligence community has told the US Congress.

The annual threat assessment of the US Intelligence Community released by the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) also said that the “expanded military posture by both India and China along the disputed border elevates the risk of armed confrontation between two nuclear powers that might involve direct threats to US persons and interests and calls for US intervention.”

“Crises between India and Pakistan are of particular concern because of the risk- however low – of an escalatory cycle between two nuclear-armed states,” it said.

“Pakistan has a long history of supporting anti-India militant groups; under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is more likely than in the past to respond with military force to perceived or real Pakistani provocations, and each side’s perception of heightened tensions raises the risk of conflict, with violent unrest in Kashmir or a militant attack in India being potential flashpoints,” it said.

The ODNI said that relations between New Delhi and Beijing will remain strained in the wake of the lethal clash in 2020, the most serious in decades.

“Previous standoffs have demonstrated that persistent low-level friction on the Line of Actual Control has the potential to escalate swiftly,” the report said.

The eastern Ladakh border standoff between the Indian and Chinese militaries erupted following a violent clash in the Pangong lake areas and both sides gradually enhanced their deployment by rushing in tens of thousands of soldiers as well as heavy weaponry.

The tension escalated following a deadly clash in the Galwan Valley on June 15, 2020.

In its report, ODNI said Beijing sees increasingly competitive US-China relations as part of an epochal geopolitical shift and views Washington’s diplomatic, economic, and military measures against it as part of a broader US effort to prevent China’s rise and undermine Communist Party rule.

China uses coordinated, whole-of-government tools to demonstrate strength and compel neighbours to acquiesce to Beijing’s preferences, including its territorial and maritime claims and assertions of sovereignty over Taiwan, it said.

“Beijing will press Taiwan to move toward unification and will react to what it views as increased US-Taiwan engagement. We expect that friction will grow as China continues to increase military activity around the island, and Taiwan’s leaders resist Beijing’s pressure for progress toward unification,” it added.

China views Taiwan as a rebel province that should be reunified with the mainland, even by force.

China’s control over Taiwan probably would disrupt global supply chains for semiconductor chips because Taiwan dominates production, the report said.

The Russian Horn Threatens the Obama Deal

Iran regime’s nuclear talk at a ‘sharp and dangerous turn’


MARCH 7, 2022

With the nuclear talks reaching their final hours, and the Iranian regime remaining steadfast in promoting positive progress, Iran’s state media are now expressing scepticism and despair. They have stated that the negotiations, at its ‘final turn’, have reached a ‘dangerous, sharp and bumpy turn.’ A turn that has increased the possibility of the regime’s demise.

The media outlets are now speaking about the failure of the Vienna talks. In an interview with the state-run daily Jahan-e Sanat on March 3, Ali Bigdeli, one of the regime’s international affairs experts, said: “The status of the talks has changed slightly since Tuesday afternoon. The reason for this change may be partly due to our comments and positions on Russia. In other words, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine greatly affected the negotiating environment, which is why Mr. Ulyanov has left the negotiating path. On the other hand, the Westerners have said because of the positions and statements of our senior officials in support of Russia that they may leave the negotiating table by the end of the week if the talks do not reach the desired result.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also called for inspections of undisclosed sites with their own inspectors. If the agency does not report positively on the inspections, the negotiation process will be greatly affected.

The result of this critical situation has put the Iranian regime in a strange position. This coupled with the prospects of European and American sides withdrawing from the negotiation process, we will get a clearer picture of the regime’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s weakness.

Bigdeli has also admitted that the regime’s efforts to lift all sanctions have completely failed. He said, “The Americans have separated the four areas of the (nuclear) sanctions, human rights, missiles, and regional issues, and are now ready to lift the sanctions (related to the JCPOA), but in three other areas, they suggest that negotiations continue after the JCPOA. But Iran does not want to accept this. Given that by no means it is possible that the Americans close their eyes on none JCPOA sanctions, the situation has become increasingly difficult in many ways.

The state-run daily, Javan, affiliated with the regime’s Revolutionary Guards, also expressed the same frustration. It wrote, “Evidence shows that the US-based mafia has not responded positively to any of Iran’s legal demands and continues to beat the drum with its arrogant and mafia-style bullying and refuses to be flexible and give Iran the slightest concessions.”

The dailywarned of the regime’s ‘sheer loss’ and ‘chain JCPOAs until the complete erosion of (the regime’s) power’, noting that that it would have to address the missile, regional, and human rights issues In the next phase of negotiations.

As such, it can be said that with the start of the current war in Ukraine, the regime mistakenly thought it could play an offensive role in the nuclear talks by supporting Russia and changing the situation in its own favor. However, now it is worried that Russia will use the regime as its card in the negotiations to strike a balance with the West.

As it stands right now, the regime is on a deadly path. Either it chooses to accept the current situation and makes ‘tough decisions’ under the threat of its western counterparts leaving the negotiations, or it will leave the talks itself and accepts the danger awaiting them.

The last scenario, as Bigdeli said, is equivalent to the regime’s confrontation with the IAEA, which would likely lead to the IAEA’s Board of Governors urging the adoption of a resolution by the UN Security Council, as well as the return of all six previous sanction resolutions.
If the regime does not comply with the demands of its western interlocutors will be crushed under the weight of increasing social crises and protests, and the hammer of international political and economic pressures. The accelerating developments will not just stop here, and the situation will change from bad to worse. It is apparent that the newly created parameters show us that time is against the regime.