This is The Prophecy. The Prophecy is much more than seeing into the future. For The Prophecy sees without the limits of time. For The Prophecy sees what is, what was, and what always shall be.
More than a year after that deadline, the study hasn’t been released and its status remains unclear. [Editor’s note: In June the state released the executive summary of the report.]
After repeated efforts to pry loose the document through Freedom of Information Law requests, activists are urging Cuomo and local officials to do something. Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion (SAPE), formed as the pipeline plans took shape, is among the groups that will take part in an “interfaith climate vigil” for Feb. 25 outside Cuomo’s Mount Kisco home.
Known as the Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) project, the 42-inch pipeline began operation in January 2017 despite opposition from environmentalists and scientists who argued that a high-pressure pipe cannot be safely snaked through 2,300 feet of a nuclear power complex, much less one, like Indian Point, in an earthquake fault.
Although Indian Point is scheduled to close by spring 2021, critics contend that dangers of a pipeline accident will remain because spent radioactive fuel will be stored at the facility indefinitely.
Constructed by Spectra Energy, AIM is a link in a system to carry natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania into New York, beneath the Hudson River, and across Putnam County into Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the pipeline, although critics contend that its decision was based on erroneous data.
On Feb. 1, Philipstown resident Paula Clair asked the Town Board to call for the study to be released, saying that “we who live close to the nuclear plant have a right to know” of the hazards. Clair, who sits on the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, said that the proximity of the gas pipeline to spent nuclear fuel means that “if there was an explosion or a fire, it would be a catastrophe.”
A draft resolution she proposed noted that a radioactive release caused by an explosion could “render Philipstown uninhabitable for generations.”
Philipstown Supervisor Richard Shea agreed that the study, paid for with taxpayer funds, should be released, and promised that the board would consider passing a measure soon. “I don’t think it’s going to be a problem” approving it, he said.
Susan Van Dolsen, co-founder of SAPE, said her organization has been attempting to get a copy of the study through FOIL and other means since mid-2016, without success. Instead of the study, the state sent stacks of emails and other items, often of dubious relevance, she said, with large portions blacked out.
Sandy Galef, who represents Philipstown and Beacon in the state Assembly and serves on the task force looking at the impact of Indian Point’s closure, also wants the assessment released.
In a Jan. 19 letter to Cuomo, she reminded the governor that she had previously asked to see the document, which, she said, becomes especially important as the task force looks at possible re-uses of Indian Point after its nuclear operations cease. “I don’t think we can move forward without all possible information,” she wrote.
As of Thursday (Feb. 22), the governor’s office had not responded to questions posed a week earlier by The Current about the study. The state Office of General Services, which oversaw the contract for the study, on Feb. 14 referred inquiries to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, which also did not respond.
Many Speakers Condemn Russian Federation’s Dangerous Rhetoric, Veiled Threats
The Russian Federation’s recent announcement of plans to station non-strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus represents the first “nuclear sharing” agreement made since the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in 1970, the senior United Nations disarmament official told the Security Council today, emphasizing that — against the backdrop of the Ukraine conflict — the risk such arms will be used is higher today than at any time since the end of the cold war.
Izumi Nakamitsu, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, reported that on 25 March, Moscow announced its agreement with Minsk to station its non-strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus. “I wish to be clear at the outset — all States must avoid taking any actions that could lead to escalation, mistake or miscalculation,” she stressed, adding that all States parties must strictly adhere to their obligations under the landmark Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is also known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
While the issue of the hosting by a non-nuclear-weapon State of a nuclear-weapon State’s nuclear arms is one that has existed for decades, she said all such arrangements predate the Non-Proliferation Treaty — “with the exception of the recent announcement [by the Russian Federation]”. Stressing that the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is currently higher than at any time since the depths of the cold war, she said the war in Ukraine represents “the most acute example of that risk”. The absence of dialogue and the erosion of the disarmament and arms control architecture, combined with dangerous rhetoric and veiled threats, are key drivers of this potentially existential risk, she added.
As Council members took the floor, the representative of the United States described the Russian Federation’s suggestion that its intention to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus is somehow justified as “ludicrous”. The 25 March announcement was not about nuclear burden-sharing, as some have claimed, and there is no credible reason for Moscow to station nuclear weapons in Belarus. Rather, he stressed that “the Kremlin is attempting to manipulate the spectre of nuclear conflict to help win its illegal war against Ukraine, while it further tramples on the UN Charter”. He called on Moscow to cease its war of aggression against Ukraine and on the regime of Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko to cease its complicity.
Albania’s representative said that the latest provocative announcement by the Russian Federation that it plans to transfer tactical nuclear weapons to another country would, at any time, be troubling news; however, in the context of that country’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is “a clear and irresponsible threat”. Emphasizing Moscow’s lack of respect for international commitments, he turned to Belarus’ role in recent developments, noting that its citizens will judge whether the change in its nuclear policy will make them more secure or “just turn their country into a nuclear hostage, becoming more and more a Russian appendix”.
The representative of Japan joined other speakers in condemning Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement, adding that Moscow is abusing its status as a nuclear-weapons State with its irresponsible rhetoric. As the only country that has ever suffered atomic bombings during war, Japan is strongly committed to leading international efforts towards a world without nuclear weapons. “The record of 77 years of non-use of nuclear weapons must not be broken by Russia,” he stressed, calling on all Member States to renew their commitment to the global disarmament and non-proliferation regime.
Ukraine’s representative said the movement of nuclear weapons to Belarussian soil is a matter of concern for the entire international community. Noting that “nuclear blackmail” is a tool the Russian Federation has exploited since the start of the war — along with threats of attacks at nuclear power facilities — he said that, in contrast, Ukraine has always been a responsible member of the international community, having fully abandoned the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. By its recent actions, the Russian Federation is indicating once again that it regards nuclear weapons as tools of threats and intimidation, not deterrence, he said, declaring: “The Kremlin is ready to threaten the world with nuclear apocalypse.”
Meanwhile, the representative of the Russian Federation said recent years have seen a severe erosion of the global security architecture and noted efforts by the United States and its allies — “those that proclaim themselves victors in the cold war” — to systematically dismantle key arms-control agreements and confidence-building structures. Also citing the United States decisions over recent years to withdraw from several strategic security agreements, he said President Putin has made clear that Moscow is not transferring nuclear weapons. Rather, “we are talking about” the transfer of tactical missile systems, the retrofitting of Belarusian aircraft, the training of teams and the construction of a storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, he said.
Striking a similar tone, the delegate of Belarus said his country has been a consistent advocate for nuclear disarmament, recalling its conscious choice in 1993 to renounce nuclear weapons and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty — making it the first post-Soviet State to refuse the possession of such arms without preconditions. Citing trade and banking bans, as well as other restrictions, recently imposed on his country by some other States — a “direct, gross interference” into its domestic affairs — he said Belarus is taking actions to shore up its own defensive capacity, in line with international law, in response to legitimate security concerns.
The representative of Brazil said nuclear disarmament seems to have gone into reverse since the 2020 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. All nuclear-weapons States are upgrading their arsenals, either quantitatively or qualitatively, or both. Brazil has long maintained that any nuclear sharing arrangement is inconsistent with Articles I and II of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, he stressed, voicing concern about any such arrangements — including those by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries — and emphasized that “two wrongs do not make a right”.
Also speaking today were the representatives of Switzerland, Gabon, China, Malta, United Kingdom, Ghana, Ecuador, United Arab Emirates, France, Mozambique, Poland and Estonia (speaking also on behalf of Latvia and Lithuania).
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, also participated.
The meeting began at 10:04 a.m. and ended at 12:13 p.m.
IZUMI NAKAMITSU, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, reported that on 25 March, the Russian Federation announced that it reached an agreement with Minsk to station its non-strategic nuclear weapons in Belarusian territory. “I wish to be clear at the outset — all States must avoid taking any actions that could lead to escalation, mistake or miscalculation,” she stressed. All States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, must strictly adhere to their commitments and obligations under that instrument. She emphasized that the fulfilment of those commitments lies at the core of the maintenance of international peace and security, adding that the elimination of nuclear weapons remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations and a goal to which all its Member States remain committed.
The issue of the hosting by a non-nuclear weapon State of a nuclear-weapon State’s nuclear weapons is one that has existed for decades, she continued. Such arrangements predate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, “with the exception of the recent announcement [by the Russian Federation]”. The issue of so-called “nuclear sharing” was debated intensely during the negotiation of the that Treaty, and has been the subject of subsequent discussions, including at the Treaty’s Review Conferences. States parties’ have taken different positions and interpretations on that issue, and those positions are well-known to all.
Emphasizing that the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is currently higher than at any time since the depths of the cold war, she said the war in Ukraine represents “the most acute example of that risk”. The absence of dialogue and the erosion of the disarmament and arms control architecture, combined with dangerous rhetoric and veiled threats, are key drivers of this potentially existential risk. Calling on States to return to dialogue to urgently de-escalate tensions, she said that, for the sake of human security, the Russian Federation and the United States should return to full implementation of the New Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START) Treaty and commence negotiations on its successor. She also appealed to all States parties of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to fully adhere to their obligations and immediately engage in serious efforts to reduce nuclear risk and de-escalate tensions.
Statements
FERIT HOXHA (Albania) said that the latest provocative announcement by the Russian Federation to transfer tactical nuclear weapons to another country would, at any time, be troubling news; however, in the context of that country’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is “a clear and irresponsible threat”. Such actions are coherent with the Russian Federation’s persistent, stubborn course of actions from February 2022 onwards, when it placed its nuclear weapons on “war alert”, to the suspension of its obligations under the New START Treaty in February 2023, which threaten its neighbours and endanger regional and global stability. Saying that the Russian Federation does not respect its commitments is “just an understatement”, he stressed, pointing to its lack of respect for the Charter of the United Nations, violations of international law since the start of the conflict and its paying no heed to the call of the International Court of Justice to halt its invasion of Ukraine. Turning to Belarus’ role in these developments, he noted that its citizens would judge whether this change in its nuclear policy will make them more secure or “just turn their country into a nuclear hostage, becoming more and more a Russian appendix”. Such behaviour is meant to instil fear among the European public, he said, calling “laughable” Belarus’ justification that it needs such weapons to protect itself against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Russian Federation’s actions contribute to proliferation, which contradicts its role as a permanent member of the Council.
ROBERT A. WOOD (United States) underscored that the Russian Federation’s suggestion that its intended deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus is somehow justified because of the use of armour-piercing ammunition is “ludicrous”. The announced deployment has nothing to do with such ammunition — which has been in use for decades and is possessed by Moscow itself — but has everything to do with the Kremlin’s attempts to limit or deter international security assistance for Ukraine. He went on to point out that, while Moscow does not want Ukraine to be able to defend itself against Russian tanks, the reality is that “Russian tanks would not come into contact with these armour-piercing munitions if Russian tanks were not within Ukraine’s sovereign territory in the first place”. Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’s 25 March announcement was not about nuclear burden-sharing, as there is no credible reason for Moscow to station nuclear weapons in Belarus. Rather, he stressed that “the Kremlin is attempting to manipulate the spectre of nuclear conflict to help win its illegal war against Ukraine while it further tramples on the UN Charter”. He therefore called on the Russian Federation to cease its war of aggression against Ukraine, and on the Lukashenko regime to cease its complicity in the same.
ADRIAN DOMINIK HAURI (Switzerland) stressed that statements regarding the intention to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus are particularly troubling when they come from a party to an international armed conflict. If the Russian Federation were to establish a nuclear sharing system, this would contradict its repeated condemnations of this practice and raise questions regarding its commitment to implement measures leading to nuclear disarmament. All nuclear-weapon States are required to advance disarmament and reduce nuclear risks, he reminded, calling also on Belarus to show responsibility by refraining from hosting such arms on its territory. As any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences and risk uncontrolled escalation — whether intentionally or through miscalculation, misunderstanding or accident — and must be avoided. In that regard, Switzerland calls on all States with nuclear weapons to reduce their role in military and security doctrines; work towards nuclear disarmament as well as the reduction of any associated risks; and strengthen the Council’s role and responsibility. All parties to the New START Treaty must also redouble their efforts to conclude a new agreement before its expiration in 2026, he added.
MICHEL XAVIER BIANG (Gabon) said the rhetoric of using nuclear weapons makes the world feel worse, especially the people most directly affected by this war. It also goes against the international goals of disarmament and the goals of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. “It is a step back from making the world more secure,” he said. It also sends a contradictory statement to countries without nuclear weapons. Making nuclear weapons acceptable is dangerous for humankind. His delegation never supports the use, or the threat of use, of nuclear weapons. He affirmed his delegation’s opposition to this absurd war that has lasted for far too long. The Council must be an epicentre of new ideas to find solutions and bring peace and security to Ukraine. All countries must respect international humanitarian law and refrain from any escalating actions. It is unacceptable to threaten the use of nuclear weapons. “The channels of diplomacy must replace the use of force,” he said.
GENG SHUANG (China) said nuclear weapons are the “sword of Damocles hanging over our head”. Since its first day as a possessor of such weapons, China has honoured the pledge of non-first use under any circumstances and has committed unconditionally not to use such weapons against any non-nuclear-weapons States or zones — the only nuclear weapons-possessing State to have done so. China supports the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the gradual, complete elimination of nuclear weapons. He called for the abolition of nuclear-sharing arrangements, as well as for the withdrawal of all such weapons deployed abroad. In 2002, five nuclear-weapon States reaffirmed that none of their nuclear weapons are targeted at each other, or at any non-nuclear-weapons States. Urging all nuclear weapons possessors to abide strictly by that statement and avoid any conflict between them, he added that China’s position on Ukraine is clear and consistent. It has put forward a proposal for a political settlement, which rejects any attacks against nuclear weapons facilities or power plants, and stresses that “nuclear wars must not be fought”. He reiterated that dialogue towards a political settlement should happen “sooner than later” and called for the urgent resumption of dialogue.
DARREN CAMILLERI (Malta), affirming his country’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, said the world has held its breath since the start of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine just over a year ago as it conducts reckless military activity within and around Ukraine’s civilian nuclear facilities and continues to occupy Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, creating a significant risk of a radiological incident. Moscow has wielded nuclear threats against its neighbour, a non-nuclear-weapon State that voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal almost 30 years ago, he said, adding: “Ukraine did this in good faith and in exchange for security assurances from Russia, assurances which have been betrayed.” Recalling that, at the start of 2022, the five permanent members of the Council, including the Russian Federation, declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”, he pointed out that that country’s “reckless nuclear rhetoric contradicts this declaration”. He urged Minsk to understand the repercussions of its actions if it chose to accommodate Moscow’s plans, pointing out that the storage or deployment of the Russian Federation’s nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory would raise nuclear tensions and drastically increase the possibility of an escalation to nuclear war. “Such risks are unacceptable. They should never be considered, let alone taken,” he stressed.
JAMES KARIUKI (United Kingdom), noting that no other country has raised the prospect of nuclear use in the conflict against Ukraine, emphasized that no one is threatening the Russian Federation’s sovereignty. Rather, it is Moscow who has violated the Charter of the United Nations by invading another sovereign country. Mr. Putin’s 25 March announcement is his latest attempt to intimate and coerce, he said, stressing that “this has not worked and will not work — we will continue to support Ukraine to defend itself.” That leader’s claim — that the trigger for this announcement was London supplying depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine alongside challenger tanks — is yet another example of a deliberate attempt to mislead. The Russian Federation is well aware that this is conventional ammunition and not nuclear munitions, he underscored before spotlighting that Government’s steady undermining of the arms control architecture, its persistent violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and its suspended participation in the New START Treaty. He then called on Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko — who has made no secret of his wish to see Moscow base nuclear weapons in his country — to stop enabling the Russian Federation’s reckless and escalatory actions.
HAROLD ADLAI AGYEMAN (Ghana) reiterated his delegation’s principled position that the ongoing aggression is a serious violation of international law and contradicts the prohibition against the use of force under article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. While the Ukrainian people bear the primary brunt of this brutal war, the war’s repercussions are reverberating far beyond the borders of Ukraine. Many countries in the Global South are greatly concerned about the situation and the global economic system’s incapacity to respond to their overwhelming needs. The ongoing war is undermining relations between States and creating disruptive and undesirable consequences. His delegation has always stood against the possession of nuclear weapons and opposes emerging strategic doctrines for the modernization of arsenals. “All of us should be aware of the danger that arises when we blur the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and the abyss it can drive the world into,” he said. “We must pull back and change course.” He advocated for the peaceful settlement of disputes through the pursuit of negotiations on the basis of the Charter and international law.
VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said that recent years have seen severe erosion of the global security architecture, noting efforts by the United States and its allies — “those that proclaim themselves victors in the cold war” — to systematically dismantle key arms-control agreements and confidence-building structures. This was dictated exclusively by the aspirations of the United States to cement its own geopolitical domination and oppose the emergence of a multipolar world. He confirmed that “a nuclear war cannot be won”, but recalled the fate of several strategic stability agreements, including the withdrawal by the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 and the Treaty on Open Skies in 2020. Further, the United States has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and has yet to implement its commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention. He also stressed that NATO’s expansion “effectively buried” the principle of indivisible security enshrined in the 1999 Charter for European Security.
He went on to recall that, in 2021, his country initiated dialogue with the United States regarding strategic stability, proposing consideration of all security issues and possible avenues for their regulation — including arms-control mechanisms. However, the United States rejected this, and a similar fate befell Moscow’s proposals on establishing a European security architecture based on Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) principles. Stressing that there are no objective reasons to convene today’s meeting, he recalled that his country repatriated all nuclear weapons from the countries of the former Soviet Union and called on the United States to return all nuclear weapons to its national territory. The Russian Federation also called on the United States to eliminate nuclear-sharing missions, which are at odds with both the letter and the spirit of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Underscoring that his country is pursuing cooperation with Belarus without violating international non-proliferation obligations, he said that President Putin has made clear that the Russian Federation is not transferring nuclear weapons. Rather, “we are talking about” the transfer of tactical missile systems, the retrofitting of Belarusian aircraft, the training of teams and the construction of a storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus, he said.
RONALDO COSTA FILHO (Brazil) said it seems that nuclear disarmament has gone into reverse since the 2020 Review Conference and all nuclear weapons States are upgrading their arsenals, either quantitatively or qualitatively or both. When Brazil ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1998, its Parliament understood that the decision to join the Treaty was linked to the fulfilment of Article VI disarmament obligations by nuclear weapons States. Yet Article VI is not the only article that has not been fully observed. His delegation has long maintained that any nuclear sharing arrangement is inconsistent with both Articles I and II of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Brazil is not persuaded by arguments that seek to carve loopholes around the Treaty’s language. “We take both of these articles very seriously and we have long been opposed to any nuclear-sharing arrangements,” he said. He is also concerned with the nuclear-sharing arrangements of NATO and stressed that “two wrongs do not make a right”. The Article VI obligation is to curb the arms race and engage in disarmament. Most importantly, the risks in this area are higher than those in almost any other. “Tit-for-tat breaches of obligations in nuclear arms control and disarmament threaten to set off unpredictable processes of arms racing that greatly increase the risks of voluntary and involuntary escalation,” he added.
ANDRÉS EFREN MONTALVO SOSA (Ecuador), stressing that the only way to resolve the issue of nuclear weapons is through their total elimination, voiced his regret that the Russian Federation’s narrative and actions have continued to escalate global concerns. Any measure involving a nuclear threat must not only consider the consequences for the region and the world — especially any misinterpretation or miscalculation — but also end. Expressing his regret over the Russian Federation’s suspension of its participation in the New START Treaty, he urged that country to resume its obligations within the international security architecture. Ecuador, as part of the first densely populated nuclear-weapon-free zone established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean and as a State party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, rejects nuclear weapons wherever they are found and their modernization. In that vein, his Government condemns the announcement by the Russian Federation to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus; cautions that Moscow’s actions and narrative fuel the risk of nuclear war; and calls for de-escalation to reduce risks and avoid accidents. Moscow must end the invasion, return to legality and honour the security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, he stressed.
MOHAMED ISSA ABUSHAHAB (United Arab Emirates), noting many of the horrors of the war in Ukraine, said the conflict has also forced the international community to confront the dangers and complexities associated with nuclear weapons, inactive nuclear material and armed conflict at and near nuclear power plant sites. On their own, such activities pose significant risks, but taken together, they perpetuate a dangerously escalatory cycle with potentially unfathomable repercussions. “Responsible States need not limit themselves to parsing the legality of each individual action, when it is the sum total of these actions that brings us ever closer to a nuclear catastrophe,” he stressed. All States must exercise prudence and caution. The Russian Federation and Ukraine’s recent agreement to extend the Black Sea Grain Initiative illustrates the benefits of dialogue, he said, urging that same spirit to drive more focused diplomacy, including in the vital arenas of nuclear safety and security. “We must begin to lay the foundation for the conflict’s resolution,” he said, noting that the United Arab Emirates stands ready to support diplomatic efforts.
NICOLAS DE RIVIÈRE (France), voicing his condemnation of the agreement between the Russian Federation and Belarus to deploy nuclear weapons in the latter, said that this is a further blow to the arms control architecture, Europe’s strategic stability and international peace and security. Since 2018, Moscow has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which directly led to its demise. It also suspended its participation in the New START Treaty in February, he reminded, calling on that Government to revisit this decision. By announcing its intention to deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders, it is once again contravening its international commitments — particularly those of the Budapest Memorandum — and aggravating an already unstable situation. The Russian Federation must demonstrate the responsibility that is expected of a nuclear-weapon State and reverse this destabilizing agreement with Belarus, he insisted. As nuclear weapons must only be used for defensive purposes, deterrence and war prevention, it is unacceptable for that Government to threaten nuclear weapon use for the purposes of coercion as part of its war of aggression against Ukraine. Reiterating his support to that embattled country, he condemned the use of Belarus’ territory as a launching pad for Russian Federation strikes on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and called on Minsk to reconsider its decision.
ISHIKANE KIMIHIRO (Japan) condemned remarks by Mr. Putin regarding his decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, which further increases tensions even as Moscow continues its aggression against Ukraine. The Russian Federation is abusing its status as a nuclear-weapons State with its irresponsible rhetoric, he stressed, calling on all States to refrain from supporting such actions either directly or indirectly. He also voiced regret over Moscow’s recent announcement of a suspension of the New Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START) Treaty and called upon it to immediately reverse that decision. As the only country that has ever suffered atomic bombings during war, Japan is strongly committed to leading international efforts towards a world without nuclear weapons. “The record of 77 years of non-use of nuclear weapons must not be broken by Russia,” he stressed, calling on all Member States to renew their commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as arms control.
PEDRO COMISSÁRIO AFONSO (Mozambique), Council President for March, spoke in his national capacity, recalling that his country has consistently sounded alarm about the risk of strategic miscalculation and the potential of the war in Ukraine to escalate into a wider and more dangerous situation. Asking the Council to reflect upon the example set by the African continent — where a nuclear-weapon-free zone exists under the Treaty of Pelindaba — he said the continent does not possess any nuclear weapons and is committed to preserving that status. A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought, he stressed, calling on all parties involved to engage in constructive dialogue and to work together to find peaceful solutions in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which among other things prohibits the use or threat of use of force in international relations.
Mr. WOOD (United States), taking the floor again, said the representative of the Russian Federation totally distorted the facts around the unfortunate demise of several nuclear treaties. Regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, he recalled that, in 2013, the United States engaged Moscow and made clear that it had evidence that the Russian Federation was in violation of the treaty through its deployment of an out-of-range missile. Moscow denied the existence of such a missile, and the United States worked hard to bring the Russian Federation back into compliance with the treaty. In 2017, Moscow finally acknowledged the existence of such a missile, and the United States ruled that the Russian Federation was in breach of the treaty. The United States therefore “had no choice” but to withdraw from the treaty, he said. Regarding the issue of nuclear-sharing, he said the Russian Federation never fundamentally objected to NATO’s existing arrangements, for many decades. It was only after Moscow’s invasion of Crimea that it sought a reason to accuse the United States of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Emphasizing that the United States is in full compliance with that instrument, he rejected any allegations to the contrary as “patently false”.
Mr. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation), also taking the floor again, responded that the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, as the country’s delegate just admitted. The Russian Federation will send a letter to the Security Council describing the series of steps that led to that outcome, he said, noting that the United States and other NATO States ignored several past invitations to dialogue on those matters in an attempt to conceal their violations. Finally, he asked the representative of the United States to clarify once and for all whether his country has nuclear weapons stationed on European soil.
SERGIY KYSLYTSYA (Ukraine) said his delegation requested today’s meeting in response to the recent announcement by the Russian Federation of its provocative decision to station nuclear weapons on the territory of a non-nuclear-weapon State, namely Belarus. That matter is a concern for the entire international community, he said, noting that “nuclear blackmail” is one tool the Russian Federation has exploited since the start of the war, along with threats of attacks at nuclear power facilities. Moscow continues to demonstrate its failure to prevail on the battlefield, so it is once again resorting to waiving its nuclear bludgeon. “The Kremlin is ready to threaten the world with nuclear apocalypse,” he stressed, noting that the recent announcement provided yet more proof that “papers that Putin signs mean nothing to him” — including a 2022 joint statement by put forward by five nuclear-weapons States committing to certain strategic reductions.
He noted that Moscow also violated another nuclear pledge made recently alongside China, which declared that all nuclear-weapons States should refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their territory. China sensibly reminded Moscow of the need to pursue nuclear proliferation, and Beijing’s commitment to the agreement is firm and clear. However, in February, Moscow also announced its decision to suspend its participation in the New START Treaty. Its recent actions speak volumes about the Russian Federation’s willingness to engage meaningfully. For its part, Ukraine has always been a responsible member of the international community, having joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty and signed the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and having fully abandoned the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. In contrast, the Russian Federation is indicating once again that it regards nuclear weapons as tools of threats and intimidation, not deterrence, he said.
VALENTIN RYBAKOV (Belarus) said that his country has been a consistent advocate for the process of nuclear disarmament, recalling its conscious choice in 1993 to renounce nuclear weapons and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, making it the first post-Soviet State to refuse the possession of such arms without preconditions. Also recalling the Budapest Memorandum, whose signatories promised to refrain from the use of political or economic coercive measures, he said that his country has been subjected to pressure for a long time, in violation of the agreements’ provisions. Trade and banking bans and other restrictions have been introduced against the Belarus Government, and on legal and natural persons, by the United States, United Kingdom and European Union States. Such measures constitute a “direct, gross interference” into his country’s domestic affairs and are aimed at changing its domestic configuration, he stressed. Belarus is undertaking actions to shore up its own defensive capacity in stringent compliance with international law in response to legitimate national security concerns around the ramping up of military capacity in direct proximity to its territory. His country has therefore felt “compelled” to cooperate with its “main military and political ally”, the Russian Federation, in response to these national security risks. Cooperation in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is “nothing new”, he said, adding that the international community must focus on the “real threat” posed by NATO’s nuclear-sharing missions and the deployment by the United States of weapons outside its borders, in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
OLOF SKOOG, Head of Delegation of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, said the bloc condemns the Russian Federation’s 25 March announcement of its intention to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus and that an agreement to this end has been reached with Minsk. This announcement is yet another irresponsible step that is escalating an already tense situation, in view of the Russian Federation’s illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. Just one month ago, the General Assembly adopted a resolution on a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, calling on all Member States to cooperate in the spirit of solidarity to address the global impacts of the war, including on nuclear security and safety. The Belarusian regime is an accomplice in the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine. The deletion of Belarus’ declared stance as a non-nuclear territory from the revised Constitution adopted in 2022 was a worrying development. The announcement last week that the Russian Federation intends to deploy nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory would be yet another dangerous step. “Threats with and use of nuclear weapons are inadmissible,” he said.
He recalled that on 3 January 2022, the Russian Federation signed a joint statement by the nuclear weapon States in the Non-Proliferation Treaty that reaffirmed that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. It reiterated this commitment just three days before its 25 March announcement in a 22 March joint statement with China. Yet through its unacceptable and dangerous nuclear rhetoric, and its 25 March announcement on deploying nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus, the Russian Federation starkly contradicts the commitments of which it has undertaken to be a guardian. This announced step also runs counter to Belarus’ commitment in the Budapest Memorandum “to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory”. The European Union calls on the Russian Federation and Belarus to reverse this decision and to abide by all their aforementioned commitments. The Union also calls on the Russian Federation to resume implementation of the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The bloc and its member States will continue to monitor the situation closely, coordinating with like-minded partners.
KRZYSZTOF MARIA SZCZERSKI (Poland) underscored his country’s desire for its region to be one in which all nations can make free choices regarding their domestic and foreign policy, free from domination, suppression and external threats. He therefore expressed serious concern over the Russian Federation’s plans to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, and their means of delivery, to Belarus. Such a decision would constitute an irresponsible escalation and would only further increase ongoing tensions in Europe stemming from Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine. Further, it would pose a major risk to the integrity of the global non-proliferation system. He went on to emphasize that Moscow’s strategy — echoed today by Mr. Lukashenko — is clear. The Russian Federation intends to intimidate, to provoke and to impede efforts aimed at ending its war on Ukraine. “It is clearly the rhetoric of confrontation,” he observed, as it undermines efforts to find a successful peace formula. He also spotlighted the Russian Federation’s continued efforts to “fully subordinate” Belarus, stating that it is “deplorable” that the authorities in Minsk chose to enable Moscow’s illegal war in Ukraine in the first place and, now, have decided to further pursue this role “to the detriment of the security of us all”.
REIN TAMMSAAR (Estonia), speaking also on behalf of Latvia and Lithuania, said “nuclear blackmail does not work — we will not be intimidated nor deterred; we will continue to support Ukraine as long as it takes.” Just days after the joint statement with China in which the Russian Federation committed to reduce the risk of nuclear war and ease tensions, Moscow resorted again to dangerous and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric by revealing its alleged plan to deploy nuclear weapons to Belarus. “The masks were off again,” he observed, adding that this latest statement signals that Government’s desperation on the battlefield. Under the threat of nuclear escalation, the Kremlin is hoping to deter Ukraine form exercising its inherent right to self-defence and intimidate States from helping that embattled country. Mr. Putin’s statement proves once again how unreliable, untrustworthy and worthless the Russian Federation’s commitments to its partners and the international community are. The world has watched how Moscow has systematically undermined international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. It is now time for the international community to recognize this destructive pattern and stand firmly against it, he insisted, urging that State to return to full compliance with the New START Treaty.
He then voiced his regret that Belarus is increasingly losing its sovereignty as it becomes more integrated into the Russian Federation’s military plans. Mr. Lukashenko must stop being an accomplice to Moscow’s desperate moves to threaten its neighbours and destabilize Europe, he stressed. For its part, the Belarusian democratic movement and civil society must prevent their country from becoming another victim of the Russian Federation’s imperial ambitions by continuing to stand up for a free, independent and democratic Belarus. Turning to the Russian Federation’s assumption of the Council’s presidency on 1 April, he stressed that this is shameful, humiliating and dangerous to the organ’s credibility and effective functioning. A country that fights a war of aggression against its neighbour, commits the most horrendous atrocities, threatens the world with nuclear weapons and has a war criminal with a standing arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court as its leader should have no place leading a body whose primary purpose is to preserve international peace and security. Responsible Council members must counter the Russian Federation’s attempts to transform the primary venue of international diplomacy into a mockery and a platform of disinformation, he emphasized.
Abedin participated in the activities of the Hamas-affiliated Islamic bloc student group at Birzeit University.
The Shin Bet and police thwarted a planned shooting attack planned by Hamas to target police officers near the Temple Mount, the Shin Bet and police announced on Sunday.
According to a joint statement, Omar Abedin, a 21-year-old resident of east Jerusalem, was communicating on Facebook and Telegram with a terrorist operative from Lebanon. The Shin Betstatement did not specify if the terrorist operative in Lebanon was affiliated with a specific terrorist group.
During their conversations, Abedin was asked to carry out a shooting or bombing attack and was told he would receive financial aid for this purpose through additional operatives from the West Bank. Abedin agreed to the request and planned to carry out a shooting attack on a bus carrying police officers near the Temple Mount.
Abedin participated in the activities of the Hamas-affiliated Islamic bloc student group at Birzeit University.
An indictment is expected to be filed against Abedin later on Sunday.Israel Police squad car. (credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Shin Bet thwarts attack in the West Bank
The announcement comes just a few weeks after the Shin Bet announced that it had thwarted a West Bank terrorist cell organized by Palestinians from the Gaza Strip that planned to carry out a shooting attack in Jerusalem within a matter of days.
According to the Israel security agency, two operatives from the Popular Resistance Committees terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip headed the establishment of the cell: Iman Youssef Khalil Zakot and Zabri Mohammad Zabri Aram, both from Rafah.
The Shin Bet was monitoring the cell from the moment the Gaza terrorists began planning it and revealed it once it came close to carrying out attacks.
The Popular Resistance Committees terrorist organization is backed and funded by Hamas.
In early March, the Shin Bet announced that four Palestinian students from the West Bank were arrested after working with Hamas to advance terrorist attacks against Israelis.
A Shin Bet investigation found that Ahmed Mahmoud Abu Salah, 24, a resident of the West Bank, traveled to Turkey and was recruited to the Hamas terrorist organization with the help of Hamas operative Iyad Aldin Akra.
Abu Salah received military training in Turkey and Syria, including weapons training and learning how to produce explosives. Before returning to the West Bank, Abu Salah met with Hamas official Azzam Akra who asked him to receive weapons and funds and to recruit and train additional terrorists in order to establish a cell to carry out terrorist attacks.
After Ahmed was arrested, three other Palestinians, Oyes Mahmoud Abu Salah, 20, Salah Mahmoud Abu Salah, 23, and Hasin Fauz Akra, 25, were arrested by the IDF for interrogation by the Shin Bet.
The Shin Bet found that Oyes and Hasin had agreed to be recruited into Hamas and even intended to go through training in the Gaza Strip. Oyes planned to carry out multiple terrorist attacks, including a bombing attack together with Salah. The three were also involved in throwing stones at police officers at al-Aqsa Mosque in April 2022 during Ramadan.
US intelligence community says China ‘reorienting its nuclear posture for strategic rivalry with the United States’
March 30, 2023 3:06pm EDT
China spoke out in favor of nuclear disarmament Thursday in a Foreign Ministry press conference, counter-signaling the U.S. assessment of its expanding nuclear programs.
“As a principle, China follows a policy of ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons. We advocate for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons and actively engage in talks and communications over arms control,” Mao said.
“The U.S., with the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, should take the lead in fulfilling its nuclear disarmament obligations,” Mao concluded.
The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence claimed in its 2023 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community that China is bolstering its nuclear capabilities for international leverage in case of a first strike.
“China is reorienting its nuclear posture for strategic rivalry with the United States because its leaders have concluded that their current capabilities are insufficient,” the ODNI wrote in its report. “Beijing worries that bilateral tension, U.S. nuclear modernization, and the PLA’s advancing conventional capabilities have increased the likelihood of a U.S. first strike.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning gestures during a press conference in Beijing, Oct 13, 2022. (AP Photo/Liu Zheng, File)
China is reportedly building hundreds of new ICBM silos within its borders.
“Beijing is not interested in agreements that restrict its plans and will not agree to negotiations that lock in U.S. or Russian advantages. Beijing’s heightened confidence in its nuclear deterrent is likely to bolster its resolve and intensify conventional conflicts,” the ODNI concluded.
He was followed in the polls by Iran-backed Shia militia leader Hadi Al Amiri, while incumbent Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi, initially predicted to win re-election, trails in third.
Published 11:45 AM ET Mon, 14 May 2018 Updated 9:54 AM ET Tue, 15 May 2018 CNBC.com
HAIDAR HAMDANI | AFP | Getty Images
Iraqi Shiite cleric and leader Moqtada al-Sadr (C-L) shows his ink-stained index finger and holds a national flag while surrounded by people outside a polling station in the central holy city of Najaf on May 12, 2018 as the country votes in the first parliamentary election since declaring victory over the Islamic State (IS) group.
More than 91 percent of Iraq’s votes have been tallied after polls closed over the weekend in Iraq’s first election since defeating the Islamic State (ISIS) late last year. And they reveal a shock win for firebrand Iraqi cleric Moqtada al Sadr, who wasn’t even running for prime minister, along with his coalition allies, the Iraqi Communist Party. He was followed by Iran-backed Shia militia leader Hadi Al Amiri, while incumbent Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi, initially predicted to win re-election, trailed in third. Voter turnout was a low 44.5 percent, indicating widespread voter apathy and pessimism, observers said.
Reports show that Sadr’s “Sairoon” alliance won more than 1.3 million votes, translating to 54 seats in the country’s 329-seat parliament, taking the greatest share among a broad and fractured array of parties.
A win for Sadr, the populist Shia leader known for his anti-American campaigns and his populist appeal to Iraq’s young and poor, could dramatically change Iraq’s political landscape and its relationship with external powers like the U.S. and Iran. In addition to pushing for the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Sadr is avidly opposed to Iranian influence in his country. That influence has grown significantly thanks to the pivotal role played by Iran-backed militias in driving out ISIS. The influential cleric, who has millions of religious followers, cannot become prime minister as he did not run for the position himself — but his electoral success means he will likely have a key role in deciding who does.
Powerful charisma
Sadr has spearheaded a number of political movements in Iraq, gaining infamy for directing attacks on U.S. troops in the wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion. His charismatic sermons have drawn hundreds of thousands into the streets over a range of causes. More recently, he’s led campaigns and protests against corruption within the Shia-led government as well as against Iranian influence, and pledged to overcome sectarianism by leading a secular coalition that includes Iraq’s communists. Sadr in 2003 created the Mahdi Army, which executed the first major armed confrontation against U.S. forces in Iraq led by the Shia community — and it posed such a threat that U.S. forces were instructed to kill or capture him. The group, which numbered up to 10,000, was also accused of carrying out atrocities against Iraq’s Sunnis. It was disbanded in 2008, but re-mobilized in 2014 to fight ISIS. The cleric owes much of his religious following to the legacy of his father, an influential Iraqi ayatollah murdered in the 1990s for opposing former President Saddam Hussein, and has spent much of his career championing Shia causes.
AHMAD AL-RUBAYE | AFP | Getty Images
But in the last year, he’s undergone something of a reinvention: he has reached out to Sunni Gulf neighbors, most notably in 2017 visits to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where he met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) powers typically shunned Iraq’s Shia, but are now making headway in the country through investment and economic aid, seen partially as an attempt to counter arch-rival Iran’s entrenched influence in the country. Ahead of the election, Sadr pledged a commitment to abandon sectarianism by forming a coalition with secular Sunnis and Iraq’s Communist Party, who have as a result seen their best election performance ever. “Sadr‘s strong showing suggests that he maintains a relatively loyal following and that his nationalist, cross-sectarian platform was effective at mobilizing voters in challenging conditions,” said Ryan Turner, a senior risk analyst at London-based PGI Group. He has also stopped advocating violence, said Renad Mansour, an Iraq researcher and fellow at U.K. policy institute Chatham House. “He passed the use of violence for his political agenda,” Mansour said. “But say if the U.S. come back and occupy Iraq, I imagine that this would change.”
Possible kingmaker
Because of the fractured nature of Iraqi politics, no candidate or bloc has won an outright majority. The winners of the most seats must negotiate a coalition government within 90 days, during which a long complex process of compromise will have to unfold. Winning the greatest share of votes does not directly translate to leading the government. “Depending on the final tallies and political jockeying, Sadr may find himself in a position to play kingmaker, which could see Abadi reappointed prime minister,” Turner said, referring to the current prime minister, who was widely praised for leading the fight against ISIS and for balancing relationships across sects and external powers. But to do so, Sadr would likely have to outmaneuver Iran, which would prefer to see Amiri — the candidate who finished second place — assume the premiership. Tehran wields much of its influence by pushing its preferred policies through Iranian-backed candidates and political players like Amiri. A major objective of Iran’s is to push the U.S. out of Iraq, where some 5,000 troops still remain.
Department of Defense photo
U.S. Army paratroopers assigned to Bravo Troop, 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, maneuver through a hallway as part of squad level training at Camp Taji, Iraq.
The extent to which the reforms Sadr has championed can take place will be determined by these fractured politics, said Mansour. “So far Sadr has been a very vocal voice demanding change — the question becomes whether he’ll actually be able to maneuver around the system that Iraq is, which is one where power is so diffuse among different entities that it’s hard for one group to have complete control. But I think he certainly will try and be more dramatic about it.” Labeled one of the most corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International, Iraq is still mired in poverty and dysfunction following its bloody, three-year battle against ISIS. Officials estimate they’ll need at least $100 billion to rebuild the country’s destroyed homes, businesses and infrastructure, and improvised explosive devices and landmines remain scattered throughout the country. The composition of the new government will be crucial in determining how Iraq moves forward. “It’s not clear that Sadr‘s rising political influence will undermine Iraq’s recent progress,” Turner said, noting that despite the cleric’s past, he has cooperated with Abadi and backed changes intended to reduce corruption. “Much will depend on what happens next, and whether Sadr is able to quickly form a governing coalition or Iraq enters a period of prolonged deadlock as after the 2010 election.”Natasha TurakCorrespondent, CNBC
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it does. The Biden administration is working on a plan that would make the world a far more dangerous place.
March 19, 2022 10:09pm
It’s a plot with three steps, all terrible and each arguably worse than the previous one.
Step One is the determination to make a new sweetheart nuclear deal with Iran. There is no good reason, only the fetish to undo everything Donald Trump did.
Step Two in the budding disaster is that the White House is letting the butcher of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, broker the talks between America and Iran. As I noted last week, on one hand, Putin is a war criminal raining death and destruction on millions of civilians, and on the other hand, we trust him to make an ironclad deal that blocks the mad mullahs from getting the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, and in consideration of Putin’s efforts for world peace, any construction work Russia does in Iran related to the nuke deal would be exempt from sanctions imposed over Ukraine. As Biden would say, no joke.
If this sounds absolutely insane, get a load of Step Three. The Biden bots are actively considering, as a bonus to the mullahs, removing the terrorist designation of their main military group, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Recall that Trump droned the longtime commander of the Guards’ elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, who was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. Soleimani had spread terror in the region for decades, yet Biden said during the 2020 campaign he would not have ordered the hit.
Under the Iran deal, the dangerous Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps force will no longer be designated as terrorists.
His objection is probably relevant to the fact that Iran added the demand about removing the terror label. They figured they were pushing on an open door with the appeaser in chief.
Reports say all the group must do is pledge to make nice and stop killing Iran’s enemies across the Middle East and a separate agreement will lift the sanctions blocking its financing, travel, etc., as if it’s the Chamber of Commerce.
The whole notion is so far off the charts that the Jewish News Syndicate reports that Israeli leaders, already unhappy about the prospect of any deal with Iran, initially refused to believe the White House would even consider giving a free pass to the Revolutionary Guards.
Iranians still honor Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Cmdr. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis two years after former President Donald Trump ordered their assassinations.
Convinced the proposal is real, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid issued a furious statement denouncing the group as “responsible for attacks on American civilians and American forces throughout the Middle East” and said it was “behind plans to assassinate senior American government officials.”
Bennett and Lapid continued: “The IRGC were involved in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians; they destroyed Lebanon and they are brutally oppressing Iranian civilians. They kill Jews because they are Jews, Christians because they are Christians, and Muslims because they refuse to surrender to them.”
Former American diplomats who have advised both Democrats and Republicans in the region agreed the idea stinks.
Dennis Ross tweeted that the concept “makes us look naive” and, citing the group’s recent rocket attacks in Iraq that nearly struck an American consulate, added: “For the IRGC, which admitted this week to firing rockets into Erbil, to promise to de-escalate regionally is about as credible as Putin saying Russia would not invade Ukraine.”
Iran claimed responsibility for firing ballistic missiles near the US consulate in Erbil, Iraq, in response to an Israeli strike on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Syria.
Ambassador Martin Indyk tweeted that removing the Guards from the terror list would be seen as a “betrayal” by many US allies who suffered from their brutal terrorism.
Nonetheless, it looks as if Biden wants to give the terrorists a pass in exchange for a vague promise. The White House has said no decision has been reached, which probably means it has but officials won’t defend it publicly until the agreement is signed.
There is one potential roadblock to all the madness, and that is the Senate. Because the entire package is new, Senate approval is required.
Many people believe it should be considered a formal treaty, which would require two-thirds support. Instead, Democrats are likely to try to use an end run similar to the one they used in 2015 to get the first deal through.
After a GOP-led filibuster effort failed, 58 to 42, the pact was deemed approved through what one critic called “brilliant political subterfuge.” That critic, Eric R. Mandel, director of the Middle East Political Information Network, writes in The Hill: “So, let’s recap: Forty-two senators were able to bind America to an agreement that should have required the votes of 66 senators for a treaty.”
If the Senate lets anything like that happen again, it will prove that Biden’s love of extremely bad ideas is contagious.
The Prophecy Blog 