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


apart the continent of Pangaea. The last major episode of geological activity to affect the


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


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


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.

Inside the China Horn’s terrifying nuclear plan: Daniel 7

Inside China’s terrifying nuclear plan

By Danyal Hussain For Daily Mail Australia 11:23 EDT 23 Jul 2022 , updated 20:27 EDT 23 Jul 2022

Chinese scientists have claimed to have developed long-range ‘disposable’ nuclear-powered torpedoes that could hit Australia in just a week.

The Communist superpower wants to use tiny ‘disposable’ nuclear reactors to propel its long-range torpedos, which would make the weapons smaller and harder to detect. 

Under the plans, is proposing to gather a large fleet of low-cost ‘killer robots’ that can be carried by any military ship or submarine and placed into a standard torpedo tube.

China wants to use tiny 'disposable' nuclear reactors to propel its long-range torpedos, which would make the weapons smaller and harder to detect
China wants to use tiny ‘disposable’ nuclear reactors to propel its long-range torpedos, which would make the weapons smaller and harder to detect 
Beijing could use the weapon to 'strike submarines as they leave a port in home waters that is difficult to reach by manned platforms'. It has been compared to Russia's Poseidon nuclear-powered drone (pictured)
Beijing could use the weapon to ‘strike submarines as they leave a port in home waters that is difficult to reach by manned platforms’. It has been compared to Russia’s Poseidon nuclear-powered drone (pictured) 

could use the weapon to ‘strike submarines as they leave a port in home waters that is difficult to reach by manned platforms’, according to the . 

It would be able to drive a swarm of torpedoes across the Pacific Ocean in about a week, researchers have claimed.

Scientist completed a conceptual design for the weapons system in a paper published this month.

Scientist Guo Jian from the China Institute of Atomic Energy says China will build the weapon with ‘mature and simple technology that is easy to use and maintain, inexpensive and suitable for mass production.’

‘We need to think out of the box,’ he explained. ‘Thanks to its high flexibility and low cost, this unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with the nuclear power system can be used as a conventional force like an attack nuclear submarine, rather than as a nuclear missile.’

The scientist likened the weapon system to Vladimir Putin’s notorious Poseidon system. 

Under the plans, China is proposing to gather a large fleet of low-cost 'killer robots' that can be carried by any military ship or submarine and placed into a standard torpedo tube
Under the plans, China is proposing to gather a large fleet of low-cost ‘killer robots’ that can be carried by any military ship or submarine and placed into a standard torpedo tube 
British nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Astute at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 29 October 2021. Britain is to send a fleet of nuclear submarines to the Pacific in a decisive move to thwart Chinese aggression in the region
British nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Astute at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 29 October 2021. Britain is to send a fleet of nuclear submarines to the Pacific in a decisive move to thwart Chinese aggression in the region 

Poseidon is a Russian nuclear weapon that is a blend of torpedo and drone.

Moscow claims it is unstoppable by current nuclear defences, and could be used to destroy coastal cities or blow up aircraft carriers and their battle groups.

The weapon is designed to trigger a tsunami off any coastal city with a nuclear warhead. 

Now, Chinese researchers claim they can deliver their version of the weapon within 10 years. 

They have also insisted it is not a ‘dirty bomb’ or a nuclear weapon in disguise.

The small reactor would be ‘ejected’ to the seabed shortly before the torpedo strikes its target – with an on-board battery pushing it to its target. 

This would leave the radioactive material outside any blast radius.

Guo says the submarine’s high speed and endurance will also allow it to inspect distant waters and track potential targets.

Two Australian Collins class submarines (front) and the UK nuclear-powered attack submarine, HMS Astute (rear) are seen at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth
Two Australian Collins class submarines (front) and the UK nuclear-powered attack submarine, HMS Astute (rear) are seen at HMAS Stirling Royal Australian Navy base in Perth 
The AUKUS deal was signed by the Morrison government and has the backing of Anthony Albanese (pictured)
The AUKUS deal was signed by the Morrison government and has the backing of Anthony Albanese (pictured) 

The revelation comes as Britain prepares to send a fleet of nuclear submarines to the Pacific in a decisive move to thwart Chinese aggression in the region.

The dramatic decision could see UK subs based in Australia until 2040, operating within striking distance of .

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the Armed Forces, will agree the arrangement at a naval conference in next week. Assigning submarines to patrol the South China Sea will be Britain’s most assertive move yet against .

According to reports in Australia, Royal Navy submarines would be based at  on the country’s western coast and Australian submariners would be incorporated into British crews to improve their skills.

Basing the Royal Navy boats thousands of miles from UK shores is part of the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom and United States) security alliance.

AUKUS was set up last year primarily to confront Chinese military expansionism in the Indo-Pacific. 

Then defence minister Peter Dutton signed a formal agreement in November last year alongside the US and UK to allow the countries to share information on nuclear-powered vessels
Then defence minister Peter Dutton signed a formal agreement in November last year alongside the US and UK to allow the countries to share information on nuclear-powered vessels 

Australia has become embroiled in a trade war and diplomatic stand-off with China. 

The deepening of defence ties with the UK is likely to cause further outrage with the Communist regime, which is vehemently opposed to AUKUS.

The Royal Navy declined to say how many of its submarines could be relocated to Australia, as all operational details surrounding Britain’s sub-surface fleet are classified.

The ‘Pacific tilt’ was signalled last year as part of the MoD’s Integrated Review.

The review set the target for the UK to become ‘the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific’.

Why is Australia building nuclear-powered submarines? 

 Why nuclear submarines?

Nuclear submarines are powered by nuclear reactors which produce heat that creates high-pressured steam to spin turbines and power the boat’s propeller. 

They can run for about 20 years before needing to refuel, meaning food supplies are the only limit on time at sea.

The boats are also very quiet, making it harder for enemies to detect them and can travel at top speed – about 40kmh – for longer than diesel-powered subs.

The first nuclear submarines were put to sea by the United States in the 1950s. They are now also in use by Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, and India. 

A senior US defence official told reporters in Washington DC: ‘This will give Australia the capability for their submarines to basically deploy for a longer period, they’re quieter, they’re much more capable. 

‘They will allow us to sustain and to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific.’

Zack Cooper, a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, said nuclear submarines would hugely boost Australia’s military capability.

‘They are going to be much, much more capable in the large, expansive ocean that is Australia has to deal with,’ he told the ABC.  

Will Australia have nuclear weapons? 

Scott Morrison made it clear that the nuclear-power submarines will not have nuclear missiles on board.

Australia has never produced nuclear weapons and signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973 which prevents non-nuclear states which don’t already have them from developing nuclear weapons.

Mr Morrison also said the Australia has no plans to build nuclear power stations which are widely used around the world. 

‘But let me be clear, Australia is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability,’ he said.

‘And we will continue to meet all our nuclear non-proliferation obligations.’  

Are they safe? 

The nuclear reactors are shielded from the rest of the submarine in a separate section to protect the crew from dangerous radiation. 

The US has an excellent safety record with its nuclear-powered fleet although early Russian subs suffered a few accidents which caused 20 servicemen to die from radiation exposure between 1960 and 1985.

At the end of their 20-year lifetimes, the contaminated parts of nuclear reactors need to be disposed deep underground in special waste storage cells. 

Anti-nuclear campaigners say any leaks of radioactive waste could lead to an environmental disaster. 

Greens leader Adam Bandt called the submarines ‘floating Chernobyls’ in reference to the 1986 nuclear power plant explosion in the Soviet Union.

Why now?

Australia needs to replace its six ageing Collins-class submarines. 

In 2016 it signed a deal with French Company Naval Group to build 12 diesel-electric attack subs – but the parties were in dispute over the amount of building that would be done in Australia.

That deal has now been torn up in favour of nuclear powered subs aided by the US and UK who will provide the technology to Australia.

The West is becoming increasingly concerned about the growing assertiveness of China in the Indo-Pacific region where it has made huge territorial claims in the South and East China seas, clashed with Indian troops and repeatedly flown planes over Taiwan.

Mr Morrison wants Australia to have serious defence capability to deter China from encroaching in the Pacific and long-range nuclear submarines are just the ticket. 

China has vastly built up its military in the past few years and now possesses six Shang-class nuclear powered attack submarines, equipped with torpedoes and cruise missiles.

The Iranian Nuclear Horn is Terrifying: Daniel 8

Iran As A Nuclear Weapons State Is Terrifying. Israel May Attack Before That Happens

ByMichael Rubin

22 hours ago

Biden’s Iran Diplomacy Increases Likelihood of Nightmare Scenario – At a speech to the International Student House on July 12, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman demonstrated the Biden administration’s magical thinking toward Iran. State Department Spokesman Ned Price insisted last week there was a deadline for negotiations, but pointedly refused to say whether it was in one day or five years. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now openly mocks such empty brinksmanship.

Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program continues unrestrained. Progressives and the State Department can blame President Donald Trump for walking away from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but this is wrong on three counts:

First, Iran remains subject to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement. The JCPOA did not free Iran from its legal commitments.

Second, the increase in Iranian enrichment occurred not when Trump left the JCPOA, bur rather when the Biden administration ended Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “maximum pressure” campaign. Here, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies timeline is definitive.

Third, the JCPOA did not do what Presidents Obama and Biden said it did.

That Team Biden bases their Iran strategy on fantasy rather than reality may quickly lead to the worst-case scenario: not simply Iranian nuclear weapons acquisition—a moment which Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s advisor Kamal Kharrazi says is now a question of when and not if—but also an open-ended conflict that will destabilize the region.

Team Biden may be sanguine about an Iranian nuclear breakout. Biden likely will not be alive to witness its consequences. Special Envoy Robert Malley never considered the Islamic Republic a threat. Through his lens of moral equivalence, he believes Iran has a right to a nuclear arsenal. Sherman, meanwhile, likely privately believes failure in Iran negotiations will be no worse than her failure with North Korea’s diplomacy. After all, she won a promotion and North Korea has not (yet) used its nuclear bombs.

For Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other regional states, however, the danger is not that a nuclear Iran is suicidal but rather that it is terminally ill. Consider events analogous to the last days of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu. If the regime collapses under its own weight with only a day or two until popular forces overrun Tehran, ideologically vetted Revolutionary Guards units with custody, command, and control over Iran’s nuclear arsenal may launch an attack to fulfill ideological objectives before their power ends.

This makes the Israelis, in particular, less sanguine than the White House against Iran’s nuclear drive. For Biden, an Iranian nuclear breakout would be one more opportunity to bash Trump and eschew responsibility; for the Jewish state, it poses an existential threat.

Might Israel then attack Iran’s nuclear program? This, after all, is what Israel did against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. The problem is Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Whereas Iraq had only Osirak and Syria just had al-Kibar, Iran’s nuclear program is scattered across the country and would involve more than a dozen targets. On top of this, Iran is both larger and farther away than either Syria or Iraq (though the logistical assistance in the guise of Saudi airstrips might mitigate this problem). Iran is almost four times the size of Iraq and about nine times the size of Syria. Militarily, this has several implications:

First, to strike at numerous targets and enable refueling to allow pilots’ return will require first neutralizing Iran’s airfields, anti-aircraft missile batteries, and its command-and-control centers. Because many of Iran’s nuclear sites are underground, even with the use of cruise missiles to relieve pressure on pilots, it will also mean multiple sorties to ensure the destruction of facilities. Israel might also need to insert some special forces units into Iran to take out key individuals, paint targets, and assess damage. Iran would likely retaliate against Israel via Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal and against Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates via Houthi rockets and drones. What this means in short is that a decision to strike at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure militarily will require not a dozen sorties, but rather thousands over the course of several days.

The downside of such a military strike, of course, is that it would justify Iranian rhetoric about Iran’s need for nuclear weapons. Iranians might also rally around the regime. After all, the Islamic Revolution was fraying when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein attacked and allowed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to consolidate power. Finally, the biggest drawback to a military strike that does not oust the regime is that it would delay Iran’s nuclear breakout but not end it.

Israelis talk big and, as their airstrikes on Syria and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and missile engineers show, they are certainly more capable than others in the Middle East, but the sheer scale of the military problem may be a bridge too far. That said, no matter what Biden hopes, it is unlikely that the Israelis will simply stand down in the face of an existential threat. Rather, they may believe that they should do as much as possible against Iran and southern Lebanon and figure that others will simply have to pick up the pieces.

When a hornet’s nest is close by, the best options are to get rid of it or to leave it alone. The worst option would be to whack it a few times with a stick, stir up the hornets, and hope for the best. Unfortunately, this is the scenario where Biden’s Iran policy now leads.

Expert Biography – Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005). You can follow him on Twitter: @mrubin1971.

Australian Nuclear horn risks nuclear proliferation: Daniel 7

AUKUS submarine collaboration risks nuclear proliferation: report

BEIJING, July 21 (Xinhua) — A new research report released by Chinese academic entities says the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine collaboration has set a dangerous precedent for the illegal transfer of weapons-grade nuclear materials and thus constitutes a blatant act of nuclear proliferation.

The United States and Britain said in last September that they would support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines under a newly formed trilateral security pact known as AUKUS.

The report, titled “A Dangerous Conspiracy: The Nuclear Proliferation Risk of the Nuclear-powered Submarines Collaboration in the Context of AUKUS”, was released Wednesday by the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association and the China Institute of Nuclear Industry Strategy. It is the first special report on AUKUS submarine collaboration published by Chinese academic entities.

The report says the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine collaboration runs counter to the spirit of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and also undermines ASEAN countries’ efforts to establish the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.

In addition, it ferments potential risks and hazards in multiple aspects, such as nuclear security and arms race in nuclear submarines, with a profound negative impact on global strategic balance and stability, says the report.

According to the report, though the AUKUS countries have been coy about the details of their nuclear-powered submarine collaboration, international arms-control experts have estimated that Australia’s eight planned nuclear submarines will need a total of 1.6 to 2 tonnes of weapons-grade HEU, which would be sufficient to build as many as 64 to 80 nuclear weapons.

“The United States and Britain are directly giving Australia tonnes of weapon-grade nuclear materials. This is without a doubt an act of nuclear proliferation,” said Zhang Yan, president of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association.

Australia, a non-nuclear-weapon state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, openly accepted such a large quantity of weapons-grade nuclear materials. This is nothing short of “getting one foot across the nuclear threshold,” Zhang added.

After reviewing nearly 100 declassified nuclear files and related materials, the report finds that post-WWII Australian administrations were keen to develop nuclear weapons. In recent years, there have again been people in Australia arguing the case for nuclear possession, and the possibility of Australia seeking the development of nuclear weapons in the future may not be ruled out, it says.

The report urges the United States, Britain and Australia to immediately revoke their wrong decisions, stop their dangerous acts, and faithfully fulfill their international obligations in non-proliferation.

It also calls on the international community to take actions and urge the three countries to revoke their wrong decisions through multilateral platforms so as to jointly safeguard the integrity, authority and effectiveness of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

(Web editor: Wu Chaolan, Liang Jun)

The Iranian Horn Continues to Gallop Ahead: Daniel 8

The atom symbol and the Iranian flag are seen in this illustration, July 21, 2022.
The atom symbol and the Iranian flag are seen in this illustration, July 21, 2022.

Iran’s Nuclear Program ‘Galloping Ahead,’ IAEA Chief Says


Iran’s nuclear program is “galloping ahead” and the International Atomic Energy Agency has very limited visibility into what is happening, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi told Spain’s El Paisnewspaper in an interview published Friday.

In June, Iran began removing essentially all of the agency’s monitoring equipment, which had been installed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Grossi said at the time this could deal a “fatal blow” to the chances of reviving the deal following the pullout by the United States in 2018.

“The bottom line is that for almost five weeks I have had very limited visibility, with a nuclear program that is galloping ahead and, therefore, if there is an agreement, it is going to be very difficult for me to reconstruct the puzzle of this whole period of forced blindness,” Grossi told El Pais.

“It is not impossible, but it is going to require a very complex task and perhaps some specific agreements,” said Grossi, who was visiting Madrid.

In June, Grossi said there was a window of just three to four weeks to restore at least some of the monitoring that was being scrapped before the IAEA lost the ability to understand Iran’s most important nuclear activities.

Iran has breached many of the deal’s limits on its nuclear activities since then-U.S. President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of the agreement and re-imposed sanctions on Tehran in 2018. It is enriching uranium to close to weapons-grade.

Western powers warn Iran is getting closer to being able to sprint toward making a nuclear bomb. Iran denies wanting to.

Indirect talks between Iran and the United States on reviving the 2015 deal have been stalled since March.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian was quoted on Friday as saying his country and the United States were very close to a deal to revive the 2015 accord, but that Tehran needed U.S. guarantees to avoid being “bitten twice.”

“We have a ready text in front of us and we agree on more than 95 to 96 percent of its content, but there’s still an important flaw in this text: we need to get the full economic benefits of the agreement. We don’t want to be bitten twice,” Iranian media quoted Amirabdollahian as saying.

Grossi said he was concerned and worried about the weeks with no visibility.

“The agency needed to reconstruct a database, without which any agreement will rest on a very fragile basis, because if we don’t know what’s there, how can we determine how much material to export, how many centrifuges to leave unused,” he said.

Asked about a Reuters report that Iran was escalating its uranium enrichment further with the use of advanced machines at its underground Fordow plant, Grossi said “the technical progress of the Iranian program is steady.”

Israeli forces kill two gunmen outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israeli forces kill two gunmen in W.Bank clash, strike boat off Gaza

July 24, 20228:45 AM MDTLast Updated an hour ago

NABLUS, West Bank, July 24 (Reuters) – Israeli forces killed two Palestinian fighters in a pre-dawn clash in the occupied West Bank on Sunday and, off the coast of the Gaza Strip, attacked a fishing boat accused of smuggling in Hamas supplies from Egypt after its two crewmen escaped.

The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militant group claimed the two Palestinians slain at a house in Nablus as its members. The Palestinian Health Ministry said six others were wounded.

Israeli security forces on an apparent arrest raid outside the house of a wanted suspect came under fire by gunmen and “responded with live fire and other means until neutralising the terrorists inside the house and on its roof,” police said.

A neighbour, Naser Estitya, 60, said he heard gunshots from inside the house before the Israelis fired at the house. “They were calling the name of one person, asking him to surrender,” he said.

Photos from the scene showed part of the wall at the top floor had been destroyed.

People gather at the scene where two Palestinian militants were killed during clashes with Israeli forces in a raid, in Nablus in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, July 24, 2022. REUTERS/Raneen Sawafta

“Another crime committed by the occupation forces in the old city of #Nablus, where martyrs have fallen and many wounded,” Hussein al-Sheikh, a senior Palestinian official, said on Twitter. “We strongly condemn this crime, and we hold the occupation responsibility for its repercussions.”

U.S.-brokered peace talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza collapsed in 2014 and have shown no sign of revival.

Israeli forces have stepped up raids in recent months in the West Bank after men from the area carried out deadly street attacks in Israel. The Western-backed Palestinian Authority regularly condemns such incursions.

Separately, the Palestinian fishermen’s union said two crew members dove into Mediterranean waters and swam to safety before the Israeli navy fired on their boat. A picture circulated on social media showed black smoke rising close to the Gaza coast.

A military spokesperson said the vessel had come from Egypt and strayed from Israel’s maritime cordon on Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas Islamists. The navy fired on the boat after it did not heed orders to stop, the military said, adding that it carried unspecified supplies for Hamas.

Nizar Ayyash, chairman of the fishermen union, described the two crewmen as fishermen, telling Reuters: “The boat was completely burnt and destroyed, I think it may have sunk but fishermen on board jumped and swam to the shore. It wasn’t the first time they made such allegations and at the end these allegations proved baseless.”