New York Earthquake: City of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New York earthquake: City at risk of ‚dangerous shaking from far away‘
Joshua Nevett
Published 30th April 2018
SOME of New York City’s tallest skyscrapers are at risk of being shaken by seismic waves triggered by powerful earthquakes from miles outside the city, a natural disaster expert has warned.
Researchers believe that a powerful earthquake, magnitude 5 or greater, could cause significant damage to large swathes of NYC, a densely populated area dominated by tall buildings.
A series of large fault lines that run underneath NYC’s five boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island, are capable of triggering large earthquakes.
Some experts have suggested that NYC is susceptible to at least a magnitude 5 earthquake once every 100 years.
The last major earthquake measuring over magnitude 5.0 struck NYC in 1884 – meaning another one of equal size is “overdue” by 34 years, according their prediction model.
Natural disaster researcher Simon Day, of University College London, agrees with the conclusion that NYC may be more at risk from earthquakes than is usually thought.
EARTHQUAKE RISK: New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from far-away tremors
But the idea of NYC being “overdue” for an earthquake is “invalid”, not least because the “very large number of faults” in the city have individually low rates of activity, he said.
The model that predicts strong earthquakes based on timescale and stress build-up on a given fault has been “discredited”, he said.
What scientists should be focusing on, he said, is the threat of large and potentially destructive earthquakes from “much greater distances”.
The dangerous effects of powerful earthquakes from further away should be an “important feature” of any seismic risk assessment of NYC, Dr Day said.

GETTY
THE BIG APPLE: An aerial view of Lower Manhattan at dusk in New York City

USGS
RISK: A seismic hazard map of New York produced by USGS
“New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances” Dr Simon Day, natural disaster researcher
This is because the bedrock underneath parts of NYC, including Long Island and Staten Island, cannot effectively absorb the seismic waves produced by earthquakes.
“An important feature of the central and eastern United States is, because the crust there is old and cold, and contains few recent fractures that can absorb seismic waves, the rate of seismic reduction is low.
Central regions of NYC, including Manhattan, are built upon solid granite bedrock; therefore the amplification of seismic waves that can shake buildings is low.
But more peripheral areas, such as Staten Island and Long Island, are formed by weak sediments, meaning seismic hazard in these areas is “very likely to be higher”, Dr Day said.
“Thus, like other cities in the eastern US, New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances than is the case for cities on plate boundaries such as Tokyo or San Francisco, where the crustal rocks are more fractured and absorb seismic waves more efficiently over long distances,” Dr Day said.
In the event of a large earthquake, dozens of skyscrapers, including Chrysler Building, the Woolworth Building and 40 Wall Street, could be at risk of shaking.
“The felt shaking in New York from the Virginia earthquake in 2011 is one example,” Dr Day said.
On that occasion, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake centered 340 miles south of New York sent thousands of people running out of swaying office buildings.

USGS
FISSURES: Fault lines in New York City have low rates of activity, Dr Day said
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city was “lucky to avoid any major harm” as a result of the quake, whose epicenter was near Louisa, Virginia, about 40 miles from Richmond.
“But an even more impressive one is the felt shaking from the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes in the central Mississippi valley, which was felt in many places across a region, including cities as far apart as Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, and in a few places even further afield including,” Dr Day added.
“So, if one was to attempt to do a proper seismic hazard assessment for NYC, one would have to include potential earthquake sources over a wide region, including at least the Appalachian mountains to the southwest and the St Lawrence valley to the north and east.”

The Islamic State claims responsibility for the deaths of 2 people outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

The Islamic State claims responsibility for the deaths of 2 people in central Israel

By The Associated Press | NPR
Monday, March 28, 2022

Israeli security forces gather at the site of an attack that left two Israeli police dead in the northern city of Hadera on Sunday.

GIL COHEN-MAGEN / AFP via Getty Images

TEL AVIV, Israel — The militant Islamic State group claimed responsibility on Monday after a pair of Arab gunmen killed two people and wounded four in central Israel before they were killed by police.

The two killed in the Sunday night attack were Israeli police officers, authorities said.

It was the second deadly attack carried out by Arab assailants in an Israeli city in less than a week ahead of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On Tuesday, a lone attacker inspired by the Islamic State group killed four people in a stabbing rampage in southern Israel before he was killed by passersby, police said.

The attacks threatened to cast a shadow over a gathering of foreign ministers in the Negev desert, where the Iranian nuclear deal was expected to top the agenda. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett rushed to the scene of the shootings late Sunday.

The Islamic State group in a posting on its Aamaq news agency claims responsibility for the attack, saying two IS members killed two Israeli security forces.

“The heart is broken” by the attacks, Bennett said Monday. The Israeli premier issued the statement from home, after testing positive for the coronavirus. He urged people to be vigilant. Police were expected to set up checkpoints on major roads Tuesday.

Ramadan is expected to begin on Saturday. Last year, clashes between Israeli police and Muslim protesters during the holy month boiled over into an 11-day war between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers.

Condemnation for the attacks poured in from governments around the world.

“Such senseless acts of violence and murder have no place in society,” tweeted U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who attended the gathering in the Negev with the foreign ministers of four Arab countries and Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid.

Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza, praised the attack as a “heroic operation.”

Security camera footage circulating on Israeli media showed two bearded men appearing to open fire in the city of Hadera before they are shot. An Israeli official said two members of the Israeli Border Police counterterrorism unit were in a restaurant near the attack, ran out and killed the assailants.

The Israeli rescue service MADA confirmed the deaths of one man and one woman, and said four people were wounded, two seriously. It released videos showing large numbers of police cars and ambulances in the area.

IS operates mainly in Iraq and Syria, where it has recently stepped up attacks against security forces there carried out through sleeper cells, despite its territorial defeat more than three years ago. The extremist group has also claimed attacks against Israeli troops in the past and has branches in Afghanistan and in Asia and beyond.

---

Another Obama-Iran Deal is Not Imminent

US envoy for Iran says not confident that a nuclear deal with Iran is imminent

27 March 2022, 11:15 AM  |

 Reuters |  @SABCNews

Image: ReutersIran’s and U.S.’ flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

United States (US) Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley said on Sunday that he is not confident that a nuclear deal between Western powers and Iran is imminent.

“The sooner we get back into the deal, which is in our interest, and presumably Iran’s interest, the more faithfully we implement it, and the more we can build on it to address the other issues between us and Iran and between Iran and the region,” Malley said speaking at the Doha Forum international conference.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s parliament failed again on Saturday to vote for a president after Iran-backed groups boycotted the session, in a setback to an alliance led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr which won the election and threatened to remove them from politics.

Sadr had hoped parliament would elect Rebar Ahmed, a veteran Kurdish intelligence official and current interior minister of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region.

But only 202 members of parliament out of 329 were present, which is less than the necessary two-thirds quorum needed to choose a new president for the mostly ceremonial post, while 126 lawmakers boycotted the session.

“It is a storm in a cup. Today is a good proof that the party that had claimed that it has the majority had failed to achieve it. It is a bad situation getting worse” said Farhad Alaaldin, chairman of the Iraq Advisory Council, a policy research institute.

A win for Sadr’s allies would threaten to exclude Tehran’s allies from power for the first time in years.

The delay prolongs a bitter deadlock in Iraqi politics months after an October general election from which Sadr emerged the biggest winner, with his Shi’ite, pro-Iran rivals receiving a hammering at the polls.

Babylon the Great is Worried About a Russian Nuclear Attack

Three-Quarters of Americans Concerned About Russia Targeting U.S. With Nuclear Weapons

As the invasion enters its second month, Americans are worried about the U.S. being drawn into the conflict – and of a nuclear threat to American soil.

By Kaia Hubbard

March 28, 2022, at 1:22 p.m.SaveMore

A leftover fallout shelter sign, one of hundreds in New York, is displayed on a building on August 11, 2017 in New York City. The signs signifying a protective space to sit out a nuclear attack date back to the early 1960s when America was in a Cold War with Russia.(SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES)

Three-quarters of Americans say they are concerned that Russia will target the U.S. with nuclear weapons, a new survey found, revealing that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has stoked anxieties reminiscent of a Cold War-era threat.

The vast majority of Americans are concerned about the U.S. being drawn into the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, while some grow concerned over Russia’s nuclear capabilities. Along with 45% that say they are “very” or “extremely” concerned that Russia will target the U.S. with nuclear weapons, another 30% are at least “somewhat” concerned of a nuclear threat to American soil.

Most Americans think Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has increased the possibility that nuclear weapons might be used anywhere in the world, the AP-NORC poll found. The vast majority are also at least somewhat concerned about Russia directing its nuclear weapons at Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe.

The survey, conducted March 17-21, also found growing concern over Russia’s global influence. The majority of Americans are likewise concerned over China’s global influence, along with an increase in worry over Iran and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, although the survey was notably conducted before the reports of North Korea’s most recent intercontinental ballistic missile test-fire.

The results come as the crisis in Ukraine continues for a second month and as global leaders have walked a fine line by committing their support to the country while looking to prevent a broader conflict. President Joe Biden last week offered what appeared to be the first indication of how the U.S. might enter the war in Ukraine militarily, responding to a question about mounting Western concerns that Russian President Vladimir Putin may use chemical weapons in Ukraine by saying that “It would trigger a response in-kind.”

Biden’s warning came as Western powers have considered how to punish Putin in response to the war. Over the weekend, Biden concluded a European trip to coordinate an allied response to the invasion by revealing perhaps the depths of his frustration with the Russian president, appearing to go off script during an address when he suggested that Putin should not remain in power. Officials later said Biden was not calling for regime change.

“Over the last 30 years, the forces of autocracy have revived all across the globe,” Biden said during the address in Warsaw. “Its hallmarks are familiar ones: contempt for the rule of law, contempt for democratic freedom, contempt for the truth itself. Today, Russia has strangled democracy – has sought to do so elsewhere, not only in its homeland.”

Biden cast the situation in Ukraine as a turning point in the global struggle between democracies and autocracies.

“The battle for democracy could not conclude and did not conclude with the end of the Cold War,” he said.

Two Israeli police dead in ‘terrorist’ shooting in north

Issued on: 27/03/2022 – 22:18Modified: 27/03/2022 – 22:16

Hadera (Israel) (AFP) – Two Israeli police were killed in a “terrorist” attack Sunday in the northern city of Hadera before officers shot the assailants dead, police and medics said.

The deadly attack comes as four Arab foreign ministers and the US secretary of state are gathering in southern Israel in an unprecedented regional meeting.

Police said that “two terrorists arrived at Herbert Samuel Street in Hadera, and began shooting at a police force there,” resulting in two deaths.

Members of “an Israeli counterterrorism force happened to be in a restaurant nearby and they ran out and neutralised the terrorists,” police said in a statement.

Dudu Boani, the police deputy commander for the region, told reporters that the two victims of the attack were police officers.

He said the assailants were shot dead.

The Magen David Adom emergency medical responders said that “two Israelis” were killed in the attack — a man and a woman — with four other people taken to hospital and two more treated at the scene.

Residents in Umm El Fahm, near Hadera, said police had deployed heavily in the Arab Israeli city.

An Israeli official said security forces suspect the perpetrators were Arab Israelis.

Defence Minister Benny Gantz’s office said he was conducting a situation assessment with military, police and intelligence chiefs, while Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s office said the premier was headed to the attack site.

‘Heinous’ attack

Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, praised the attack, calling it a “heroic operation” and a “natural and legitimate response” to Israel’s “crimes against our people”.

Islamic Jihad, another Gaza-based militant Palestinian movement, called the attack “an eloquent message from our people against attempts to break our will”.

On Tuesday, a man wielding a knife stabbed several people and ran over another in southern Israel, killing four, in one of the deadliest attacks in the country in recent years.

Authorities identified the attacker as an Israeli Arab who had previously been convicted for supporting the Islamic State group.

As Sunday’s attack took place, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid was hosting his counterparts from three Arab states that recently normalised ties with Israel, alongside Egypt’s top diplomat and the US secretary of state, at a resort in southern Israel, in a gathering that Israel called “historic”.

“I briefed the participants of the Negev Summit on the details of the Hadera attack,” Lapid said in a statement.

“All the foreign ministers condemned the attack, sent their condolences to the families of the victims and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.”

“Tonight’s heinous terror attack is an attempt by violent extremists to terrorise and to damage the fabric of life here,” Lapid said.

“Israel will uncompromisingly fight terrorism, and we will resolutely stand together with our allies against anyone who tries to harm us.”

An Israeli official told AFP that the attack had not prevented the gathering from taking place.

The ministers were dining together Sunday night, and on Monday were due to hold a series of meetings.

© 2022 AFP

India’s Missile Accident: How It Could Have Caused The First Nuclear War Revelation 8

India’s Missile Accident: How It Could Have Caused a Nuclear War Between India & Pak

Story Highlights

• On March 10, 2022, the director-general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) held a press conference and announced that a supersonic projectile launched from India had travelled 124 kilometres at 40,000 feet into Pakistani airspace and crashed near Mian Channu in the Khanewal
• The incident was formally acknowledged two days later by India’s Ministry of Defence, which stated that a missile was “accidentally” fired during routine maintenance. The government has “taken a serious stance and established a high-level Court of Enquiry” investigate the incident, according to the statement.

On March 10, 2022, the director-general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) held a press conference and announced that a supersonic projectile launched from India had travelled 124 kilometres at 40,000 feet into Pakistani airspace and crashed near Mian Channu in the Khanewal District of Pakistan the day before.

The incident was formally acknowledged two days later by India’s Ministry of Defence, which stated that a missile was “accidentally” fired during routine maintenance. The government has “taken a serious stance and established a high-level Court of Enquiry” investigate the incident, according to the statement.

The news of India “accidentally” shooting a supersonic cruise missile at Pakistan, its nuclear-armed foe, stunned many officials who are aware of the potential ramifications of such an incident. Pakistan’s prompt response has been praised as “adult” and “responsible,” but Islamabad has urged a joint probe, claiming that the incident could have resulted in considerably worse consequences.

First and foremost, the timing is suspicious: an Indian missile lands within Pakistan just a week after the Pakistani Navy detected an Indian Navy submarine in its Exclusive Economic Zone. This raises major doubts about India’s military leadership’s objectives.

Although no system is completely reliable, and accidents might occur for a variety of reasons, the Indian government’s overall handling of the situation has been exceedingly irresponsible. The fact that Indian authorities did not employ the self-destruct option after the “accidental” launch and did not even try to notify Pakistani authorities has raised concerns about India’s command and control apparatus, strategic culture, and ability to handle such sensitive technology.

The type of renegade missile has not been revealed by India’s official statement, but the available information matches the flight profile of India’s BrahMos cruise surface-to-surface missile.

While India has classed BrahMos as a conventional missile (in order to avoid being labelled a violator of the Missile Technology Control Regime criteria), it can also carry a nuclear payload. Because it is impossible to identify which payload an incoming missile is carrying, any incoming missile, regardless of its declared classification, is likely to be viewed as nuclear in a heated security environment.

With India recently softening its No First Use pledge and toying with the idea of preemptive counterforce targeting—for which the Brahmos is likely to be the weapon of choice—Pakistan could have interpreted this missile as a preemptive strike by New Delhi, especially given the current bilateral relationship.

It’s critical to figure out whether the occurrence was caused by a safety flaw or a security flaw. The Pakistan Air Force’s Air Defense Operation Center, according to initial reports, tracked the missile’s flight during its initial phase. It was reportedly fired from an Indian Air Force facility in Haryana’s Sirsa region under the Western Air Command. The missile was discovered at a height of 40,000 feet, indicating that it was launched from the air.

It’s improbable, though, that a test of an aerial variant of Brahmos went awry because no Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) was issued and the location isn’t known for missile tests. The majority of Indian missile testing take place at the Pokhran test range in Rajasthan or the Integrated Test Range (ITR), Chandipur, off the coast of Odisha in the Bay of Bengal. The nature of the incident raises questions about the assertion of an unintentional launch during maintenance, implying possible carelessness or widespread violations of safety regulations by the people in charge.

Many commercial flights, including Qatar Airways and Saudi Airways, were flying on that route at the time of the missile launch, posing a major threat to civil aviation. To avoid a potential air disaster, the Indian government should have sent an emergency NOTAM to the arriving aircraft.

The event also casts doubt on the effectiveness and extent of existing India-Pakistan Confidence Building Measures (CBMs). The 2004 hotline agreement was intended for this exact purpose—to alert one another to any emergency circumstance that could result in an unintentional crisis—but India failed to take the appropriate action.

Pre-notification of ballistic missile flight tests has also been agreed upon by India and Pakistan. In 2005, Pakistan recommended that pre-notification of cruise missile tests be included as well, but India refused.

While a ballistic missile test notification is intended to prevent inadvertent escalation because a missile’s ballistic trajectory can be misinterpreted as a preemptive strike by an adversary, a cruise missile test notification serves no such purpose because the missile remains on low-flying trajectories that are difficult to track anyway.

It’s worth noting that India broke the spirit of this mutually agreed CBM by failing to tell Pakistan about its ballistic missile tests from submarine platforms, despite the fact that it believes the 2005 agreement solely applies to surface-launched missiles. Given these gaps, it’s critical to think about broadening the scope of the Pakistan-India missile test agreement.

The element of logic underpins nuclear responsibility. Given India’s post-Balakot attack jingoism and following jingoism by the BJP’s Hindutva leadership, Pakistan has even more reason to be concerned about the Indian side’s reasoning slipping away. After Pakistan shot down an Indian plane in an airstrike in February 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi threatened to launch “a night of murder” if the arrested pilot was not returned.

As a result, it’s extremely possible that this wasn’t an accident at all, but rather a deliberate conduct by an overzealous Hindutva commander. The Indian military has a history of engaging in terrorist acts in order to bring Pakistan to justice.

A case in point is the involvement of Lt. Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit, who helped in carrying out terrorist attacks like the Samjhauta Express blast (2007) and Malegaon bomb blast (2008).

All these developments are taking place when India is consistently increasing its alert level, especially in the missile domain. In order to reduce its launch time, India has been steadily doing away with different steps that may slow down a launch especially during a crisis, such as the canisterization of missiles, thereby increasing the risk of accidental or inadvertent launch. With a problematic strategic culture and the absence of a strong command and control system, such developments are a recipe for disaster for regional peace.

Whether the missile launch was unintentional or not, it serves as a sobering warning that South Asia remains a nuclear flashpoint, with each Broken Arrow having the potential to morph into a NucFlash. It also highlights Western scholars’ and governments’ disproportionate focus on Pakistan alone, as well as their blatant disregard for India’s dismal nuclear safety and security record.

One hopes that this occurrence causes the Indian security apparatus to reflect and that the Indian government is willing to address some tough questions.

The Ayatollahs Have Already Weaponized Their Uranium: Daniel 8

Updated: MARCH 28, 2022 16:35

With the Iran deal delayed, will ayatollahs weaponize their uranium? – analysis

If Tehran took this step, it would force Israel to make a new unprecedented kind of choice.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB

Published: MARCH 27, 2022 21:33

A general view of the Bushehr main nuclear reactor, Iran

(photo credit: REUTERS/RAHEB HOMAVANDI)

Both Iran and the US thought there would be a return to the JCPOA 2015 nuclear deal sometime between early February and early March when the IAEA quarterly meeting was held.

Now that this did not happen, several more weeks have gone by, and there is no new obvious way to set a deadline before the next big International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in June, will the Islamic Republic finally weaponize its uranium?

If Tehran took this step, it would force Israel to make a new unprecedented kind of choice.

Or would Prime Minister Naftali Bennett rely on Israeli intelligence to thwart and follow the progress of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s clandestine weapons group, hoping there would be a later opportunity to thwart the firing of a nuclear missile – even if this meant an increased risk of Iran crossing the threshold in secret?

Some of this decision is gauging which risk is worse: the blowback from attacking Iran or the dangers of inaction.

IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers a televised speech in Tehran earlier this month. (credit: OFFICIAL KHAMENEI WEBSITE/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

But the controversy goes back to a dispute within the defense establishment about whether a preemptive strike to stop Iran’s nuclear program would need to be launched to be effective.

Some say a strike needed to happen 10 years ago, before Iran had operating underground facilities.

Some say it could still be effective before or immediately after Iran enriches its uranium to the weapons level of 90%?

Finally, some say it could still be effective six months to two years after uranium weaponization.

The dispute over six months to two years is rooted in different guesses about how long it would take Iran to master detonation, miniaturization and delivery of a nuclear warhead on a missile – all of which are separate tasks from uranium enrichment.

However, weapons-testing issues are much easier to hide in smaller facilities. This is why the focus has always been on not letting the Islamic Republic get to the 90% level in the first place.

So that is the dilemma that Israel would face.

But will Khamenei roll the dice and cross the 90% threshold, or will he see that as too risky, not wanting to see what Bennett would decide?

To date, there is evidence to argue both ways.

THE MAJORITY of the evidence is that Khamenei will not jump to 90%, and that he is still fishing for a return to the JCPOA but feeling if there are any more concessions he can peel out of the US.

First, the most effective time to have jumped to weaponized uranium, if he wanted to pressure the West into more concessions, would have been in early March.

This would have been right after the IAEA Board of Governors got cold feet and failed to condemn Iran despite having threatened to do so if there was still no deal.

Apparently, Khamenei got cold feet about going to the mat, and his representatives have continued to send positive messages about hoping for a deal.

Also, Khamenei has taken many other actions to pressure the West; while provocative, they were much less provocative than weaponizing uranium.

These include in mid-March, converting some of the 60% uranium hexafluoride into a form closer to the weaponized state and harder to dispose of if there is a deal, but in tiny amounts and still far short of weaponizing it.

In addition, Tehran launched attempted drone strikes on Israel and has engaged in an escalating mixed physical and cyber conflict with Jerusalem in recent weeks and months.

In recent days, Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen also launched multiple drone attacks on Saudi Arabia.

All of these measures are in line with Khamenei trying to blackmail the West into more concessions. However, that Iran tried to blackmail the West but did so in weaker ways than weaponizing uranium shows Khamenei is still being cautious. He is still worried about going too far in Bennett’s eyes.

On the flip side, Iran was supposed to send the IAEA updated answers about past military dimensions of its nuclear program by March 20, after a hard-negotiated deal between the sides.

The Islamic Republic broke the deal, produced nothing, and there is no sign it will restore normal inspections with the IAEA if the JCPOA is not restored.

This means Khamenei is preserving an off-ramp where he drops the JCPOA negotiations and acts in a more confrontational manner.

What is most likely from US and Iranian official statements over the weekend is that the sides are doing final negotiations about the status of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

US negotiator Rob Malley on Sunday said even if the IRGC is dropped from the terrorist list, non-nuclear sanctions will remain.

In diplomatic speak, this was the clearest sign yet that the US is ready to drop the IRGC from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said an IRGC official told him that taking the group off the terrorist list should not hold up the deal. He then added paradoxically that he would still press for removal from the list.

All of this suggests that the IRGC will be removed from the list, but that the sides are negotiating over what guarantees Khamenei will give the US in return about refraining from attacking Americans and possibly turning down the heat in the Yemen conflict.

So at this moment it appears Khamenei still wants a deal more than jumping to weaponizing his uranium.

Yet, the dynamics are fluid, and Israel will need to be on its guard more than ever the longer Iran remains at the 60% enrichment level with no new deal imminent.