The Sixth Seal: More Than Just Manhattan (Revelation 6:12)

New York, NY – In a Quake, Brooklyn Would Shake More Than Manhattan
By Brooklyn Eagle
New York, NY – The last big earthquake in the New York City area, centered in New York Harbor just south of Rockaway, took place in 1884 and registered 5.2 on the Richter Scale.Another earthquake of this size can be expected and could be quite damaging, says Dr. Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.
And Brooklyn, resting on sediment, would shake more than Manhattan, built on solid rock. “There would be more shaking and more damage,” Dr. Kim told the Brooklyn Eagle on Wednesday.
If an earthquake of a similar magnitude were to happen today near Brooklyn, “Many chimneys would topple. Poorly maintained buildings would fall down – some buildings are falling down now even without any shaking. People would not be hit by collapsing buildings, but they would be hit by falling debris. We need to get some of these buildings fixed,” he said.
But a 5.2 is “not comparable to Haiti,” he said. “That was huge.” Haiti’s devastating earthquake measured 7.0.
Brooklyn has a different environment than Haiti, and that makes all the difference, he said. Haiti is situated near tectonic plate.
“The Caribbean plate is moving to the east, while the North American plate is moving towards the west. They move about 20 mm – slightly less than an inch – every year.” The plates are sliding past each other, and the movement is not smooth, leading to jolts, he said.
While we don’t have the opportunity for a large jolt in Brooklyn, we do have small, frequent quakes of a magnitude of 2 or 3 on the Richter Scale. In 2001 alone the city experienced two quakes: one in January, measuring 2.4, and one in October, measuring 2.6. The October quake, occurring soon after Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “caused a lot of panic,” Dr. Kim said.
“People ask me, ‘Should I get earthquake insurance?’ I tell them no, earthquake insurance is expensive. Instead, use that money to fix chimneys and other things. Rather than panicky preparations, use common sense to make things better.”
Secure bookcases to the wall and make sure hanging furniture does not fall down, Dr. Kim said. “If you have antique porcelains or dishes, make sure they’re safely stored. In California, everything is anchored to the ground.”
While a small earthquake in Brooklyn may cause panic, “In California, a quake of magnitude 2 is called a micro-quake,” he added.

The South Korean Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

President Yoon, Suk-yeol spends time with Soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division/ROK-U.S. Combined Division at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea. Source: Cpl. Seong-yeon Kang/http://bit.ly/3MEbacA

The (South) Korean Nuclear Threat

13 APR 2023

By Dr Jeffrey Robertson

South Korea is in the midst of a debate to secure nuclear weapons and few outside realise the seriousness and level of the debate. Few inside realise the question is much bigger than just South Korea, with great implications for the region, including Australia.

Debate on securing an independent nuclear weapons capacity once sat on the fringe of mainstream politics in Seoul. The extreme left and right, ex-military, religionists, and mavericks seeking attention were its champions. This is no longer the case. Today it is widely accepted, even common. Polls taken over the last year put public support in the 70-80 percent range. Securing nuclear weapons is now mainstream, viable, and if trends continue, even likely.

What makes South Korea want nuclear weapons? There’s a ready response from those pushing the agenda. North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and concerns regarding a rising China. Each can readily be used to justify the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet, each are just squalls on the surface of the sea. Underneath, more powerful currents are pushing the pursuit of nuclear weapons: national pride, the desire to be more independent, and a healthy dose of domestic political opportunism.

National pride is a core contributor to the decision to pursue nuclear weapons. For both Koreas, there’s a keen sense of historical injustice marked by invasions from all sides, including occupation, and division. For South Koreans, there’s also a competitive streak that stretches from the individual to the national desire to be number one. There’s even speculation that the U.S. would be willing to allow Seoul to secure nuclear weapons in order for it to play a larger role in balancing China, placing South Korea at a new level of partnership with Washington. Among many, securing a nuclear weapons capacity provokes a certain element of national pride: more than just a middle power – a member of the nuclear weapons club.

The desire to be more independent is also an important contributing factor. Donald Trump, and the fear of a second Trump administration, may have given the extra push, but the desire for greater independence is much older. From the earliest negotiations between the U.S. and South Korea to secure agreement on a Korean War ceasefire, Seoul fought not just for the promise of U.S. support in the event of another North Korean invasion, but also for the capability to make its own decisions. Since the 1950s, South Korea clawed back this capability, steadily removing U.S. restrictions on its armed forces and building an independent armed forces capacity. It is now a leading global arms supplier, ship (and submarine) builder, has an indigenous jet fighter program, and is developing its own military satellite and missile defense programs.

South Korea is now the tenth largest economy in the world. The desire for a greater capability to act independently is an inevitable trend – and some see nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of independent action.

Domestic political opportunism is the icing on the cake. Already, civic groups with professors, former public servants, students, journalists, and other budding politicians have emerged to push for an independent nuclear weapons capacity. Ostensibly, such groups are formed to coordinate and educate citizens on nuclear weapons. In reality, they are used to pursue political power. They exploit latent nationalism with popular concerns and fears, exacerbate and muddy debate, and ultimately position group leaders into positions of political power. Any subject that mixes national pride and independence is ripe for exploitation. The current president, Yoon Suk-yeol, has made remarks supporting the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the Mayor of Seoul – a position that is a stepping stone to the presidency – has also stated his support. Nuclear weapons will see multiple candidates jump on the bandwagon in the lead-up to the April 2024 legislative elections, and likely more than one candidate in the 2027 presidential elections.

Proliferation, from France to North Korea, is a story of national pride, independence, and political opportunism. South Korea is no different.

It is likely the consequences of this momentous decision to pursue an independent nuclear weapons capacity have not been fully thought through. The short to medium-term impact can be easily ascertained. South Korea will face global condemnation and potentially political and economic sanctions. Yet, South Korea’s diplomatic credentials as a state that exercises substantial restraint may also give pause for thought. So, too, will its role in global supply chains. In the current political climate, a well-coordinated diplomatic campaign, demonstrating that much of the blame lies not in Seoul but in Pyongyang and its enablers, could limit sanction severity and longevity.

In the 1960s, Australia made the decision to forego nuclear weapons in the context of a global diplomatic and strategic understanding that proliferation could be controlled. Since that time, debates about Australia securing nuclear weapons have arisen, but they’ve never been mainstream. Debates in recent years have been more brain-storming and speculation than serious policy-specific programming. A South Korean decision to pursue nuclear weapons would substantially transform strategic outlooks across the region and lead to a more serious debate in Australia. The current nuclear submarine debate would look like a Sunday School picnic.

Jeffrey Robertson is an Associate Professor of Diplomatic Studies at Yonsei University and a Visiting Fellow at the Asia Institute, University of Melbourne. He researches the diplomatic practice and foreign policy of middle powers with a focus on the Korean Peninsula. He writes and updates research at https://junotane.com and on Twitter @junotane.

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.

It’s Time to Prepare for Nuclear War: Revelation 8

It’s Time for a New Nuclear Posture Review

By Robert Peters
April 12, 2023

U.S. Air Force photo by Michael Jackson

With Vladimir Putin’s announcement that Russia is suspending its New START treaty obligations, the United States is entering a new era in international relations, where the United States and Russia have no active arms control agreements. Or perhaps it is the reemergence of an old era of international relations—the era of Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. For the opening decades of the Cold War, nuclear powers were unlimited in their ability to build and deploy nuclear weapons.

While some argue that Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty is an opportunity to think about the treaty that comes after New START, the prospects for nuclear arms control, for the foreseeable future, are extremely low. They should be for good reason.

The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls out arms control as one of the central pillars of its comprehensive, balanced approach to reducing nuclear risks. Indeed, the NPR correctly states that “expiration of the treaty without a follow-on agreement would leave Russia free to expand strategic nuclear forces.” This is problematic for the United States because the United States simply does not have the capacity to match a Russian expansion.

Given Russia’s suspension of New START, coupled with its renewed nuclear sabre rattling, it is fair to say that the world Americans were warned about in the Nuclear Posture Review is now here. Reassessing assumptions from 2021 is now necessary.

In fact, it is possible that the world today is even worse than the NPR foresaw. In addition to Russia’s massive non-strategic nuclear weapons arsenal, China’s nuclear arsenal has expanded at a breathtaking pace that was not fully understood even eighteen months ago. Not to be outdone, North Korea continues to steadily increase the size of its arsenal and demonstrate new and more effective delivery capabilities.

Moreover, much of the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean expansion is taking place not only with strategic systems that are designed to strike at an adversary’s homeland, but also in theater range, often low-yield systems that are designed to fight a limited nuclear war on the battlefield. These systems can range American Pacific and European allies with whom the United States has extended deterrence guarantees.

Without question, the development and fielding of such systems are designed not only to deter the United States from conducting military operations within those regions but are meant to give Russia, China, and North Korea a credible theater nuclear warfighting capability that directly challenges America’s extended deterrence commitments in Europe and the Pacific. With the current strategic environment sharing more similarities with 1962 than with 2002, it is easy to wonder if it is not time for a new Nuclear Posture Review that rejects disarmament tenets of faith for a more sober focus on American security.

While it is unquestionably atypical to call for a new Nuclear Posture Review within twelve months of one being released, these are atypical times—and time is not on America’s side. The pace of developments in the nuclear arena is faster than ever before.

What should a new Nuclear Posture Review examine that is different from the one released last year? It should focus on three issues: 1) relook at the security environment through the lens of expanded nuclear arsenals coupled with the death of nuclear arms control; 2) explore various scenarios in which the United States can see sustained nuclear modernization and expansion on the part of our competitors due to the absence of arms control; 3) identify the required capabilities (nuclear and non-nuclear), policies, and postures necessary to operationalize integrated deterrence that is effective for the post-arms control world.

What specific analyses might an updated review include? To begin with, it must conduct a baseline analysis of deterrence capability requirements. Such an analysis might well recommend continuing the current strategic deterrent modernization programs of the warhead arsenal and the associated Sentinel follow on to the Minuteman ICBM force, the Columbia-class submarine, and the B-21 Raider programs—but it must also take a hard look at American theater nuclear capabilities.

Theater nuclear capabilities assure allies of America’s extended deterrence commitments and are essential for countering the growing theater nuclear capabilities of Russia and China in particular. Specifically, the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) air launched cruise missile should continue and the nuclear Sea Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) should remain as a program of record. But what else is needed to strengthen American deterrence in a post-arms control world?

The next Nuclear Posture Review should examine how large and diverse a strategic arsenal is required. The New START treaty limit of 1550 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons is the starting point for analysis. More analysis is needed to see if the United States requires reexamining old concepts. This might include multiple warheads and re-entry vehicles on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), a greater diversity of yields, and potentially a larger strategic arsenal.

A new NPR must examine whether the theater range air-launched and sea-launched theater nuclear cruise missiles are sufficient. Specifically, a mobile, theater range, nuclear tipped land attack cruise missile—like the ground launched cruise missile (GLCM) concept—is needed. Such a mobile, land-based theater-range system could prove extremely useful in deterring nuclear aggression in both Europe and the Pacific and better assure allies in those regions of American extended deterrence commitments.

Other capabilities, such as the ability to find, fix, and finish enemy ships under steam with a nuclear weapon may prove highly effective in managing escalation pathways should a limited nuclear war erupt. Indeed, the ability to strike enemy ships in the open ocean gives the United States the ability to respond to a nuclear attack without necessarily striking the enemy’s homeland with a nuclear weapon.

This is not to say that the United States needs mirror the capabilities of the Russians, Chinese, or North Koreans, but the status quo may very well be wrong. Analytic rigor, not politics, is needed. Designing, building, and fielding the arsenal that will deter aggression and assure allies deserves nothing less than an unbiased effort free of preconceived answers. Preserving strategic stability and ultimately deterring America’s adversaries requires nothing less.

Bob Peters is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. He previously spent a career at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, National Defense University, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Terrorists kill 4 Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Photo: Flash90

Terrorists kill 4 in Israel

April 11, 2023 — NEWS Tags: Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Alessandro Parini, Gaza Strip, Hamas Spokesman Abdel-Latif Al-Qanoua, Hamas Terror Group, IDF, Islamic Ramadan Holy Month, Israel, Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Israel News, Israel Now, Israel Today, Israel-Palestinian conflict, Israel-US Bond, Israeli Anti-Judicial Reform Protests, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Israeli Judicial Reform Delay, Israeli Police, Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli security, Israeli-Palestinian Clashes, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Jerusalem, Jewish Passover Festival, Jordan Valley Terror Attack, Kafr Qassem, Leah Lucy Dee, Maia Dee, Old City of Jerusalem, Palestinian Shooting Attacks, Palestinian Terror Attack, Palestinian Terrorism, Palestinians, Passover 2023, Rina Dee, West Bank, Yousef Abu Jaber

The surge of Palestinian terror attacks continues to murder civilians in Israel.

By Erin Viner

Gunmen opened fire at short range on a dual Israeli-British family during a Passover holiday trip at the Hamra Junction in the Jordan Valley on Friday morning. The terror cell then fled westward toward the Palestinian city of Nablus.

Rina, 15, and her sister Maia Dee, 20, were killed on the spot. Their mother Leah “Lucy,” 48, was evacuated in critical condition by military helicopter to a Jerusalem hospital, where passed away last night despite efforts to treat her injuries.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant arrived at the scene of the heinous attack for a situational assessment.

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attack, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “At this moment our forces are acting in the field in a ‘hot manhunt’ after the terrorists. It is only a matter of time, and not much time, that we will settle scores with them in the same manner in which we settled scores with all the murderers (terrorists) in the past several months.”

The Israeli leader was among the first to express sadness last night following the death of Mrs. Dee. Also extending condolences, President Isaac Herzog said in a statement. “How much we hoped, how much we prayed, but tragically Leah, mother of Rina and Maia of blessed memory, who was fatally wounded in the terror attack in the Jordan Valley, has died of her injuries. On behalf of the entire people of Israel, I send my warmest condolences to the Dee family and pray that they will know no more sorrow. May her memory be a blessing.”

The Hadassah Medical Center expressed sorrow “that despite our relentless efforts, and due to her extensive injuries, we had to declare her (Leah’s) death,” adding that, “Her organs were donated by her family to assist others in need.”

The victims were survived by the father Rabbi Leo Dee and three siblings, residents of the Judean mountain community of Efrat.

During a tearful eulogy for his daughters in a room of weeping mourners on Sunday, Rabbi Dee evoked the Passover holiday now being celebrated and the story of the biblical Exodus of Jews from slavery in Egypt to freedom.

“The journey to redemption is a slow one – three steps forward and two steps back. And Maia and Rina, with your loss, our world has taken two steps back,” he said, extending an arm in the direction of their bodies that lay covered in cloth. “You have inspired us, you’ve loved us, and in turn we will love you forever.”

Their sibling Keren lamented not being able to protect her younger sister. “I would do anything to have been in the car instead of you,” she said.

Security services continue to search for those responsible for the murders, including investigation of an abandoned car in Nablus that resembles security footage of the vehicle used during the attack.

“Our security forces work day in and day out, in order to ensure the security of our citizens,” said stated Defense Minister Gallant, underscoring that “any terrorist who thinks they may elude the IDF during the holy days, is gravely mistaken. Anyone who attempts even the slightest harm, will be brought to justice.”

According to a Defense Ministry statement obtained by TV7, General Gallant completed a tour of the Menashe division in northern Samaria, together with the relevant commanders in the region; where he was briefed on the troops’ operational activities and held an open discussion with the soldiers and officers stationed in the area. The briefing focused on counterterrorism activities, the search for the terrorists who conducted attacks in the region, and the need to contend with infiltration attempts.

“No one will escape,” stressed Jerusalem’s top defense official, vowing, “we will settle accounts and bring them to justice.”

Minister Gallant later briefed his American counterpart on the recent wave of terror attacks in Israel, and the missiles fired by Palestinian terror groups from both Gaza and Lebanese territory, with the backing of Iran.

He detailed the ongoing efforts of the defense establishment to thwart terrorism and respond effectively to any threat toward Israeli citizens and troops; while also addressing ongoing efforts to enable freedom of prayer at the Temple Mount, which he told United States Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has been “hijacked by groups of extreme rioters.”

He concluded by thanking Secretary Austin for his friendship and partnership and solidarity with Israel’s right to defend itself.

In contrast, Hamas Spokesman Abdel-Latif Al-Qanoua hailed the fatal shootings of the Dee family as “an heroic operation,” claiming it came as part of “united resistance by the Palestinian people.”

Just hours after the Dee murders, an Italian tourist was killed and seven people were wounded in a car-ramming attack on the seaside promenade in Tel Aviv.

Security camera footage shows Yousef Abu Jaber, 45, an Arab Israeli from the nearby city of Kafr Qassem, speeding into a bicycle lane in a “clear” manner to run over the pedestrians, said Tel Aviv police chief Amichai Eshed. He was shot and killed by a police officer who rushed to the scene while exiting his overturned car and reached for a firearm that later turned out to be a toy gun, law enforcement sources later told local media.

Victims included a 17-year-old girl, 74-year-old man and a 39-year-old man who sustained moderate injuries in the attack, while a 50-year-old man and a 70-year-old woman were also lightly injured.

Alessandro Parini, 35, was a lawyer visiting from Rome. Hospital officials said the wounded victims were also tourists from Italy and the United Kingdom.

“Deep sorrow and condolences for the death of one of our nationals, Alessandro Parini, in the terrorist attack that took place in the evening in Tel Aviv. Condolences to the victim’s family, to the wounded, and solidarity with the State of Israel for the cowardly attack that hit him,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wrote in a message posted on Twitter, adding that her government is in contact with Israeli authorities about the welfare of the wounded Italian victims.

“On behalf of the government and the people of Israel, I send our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Alessandro Farini, the Italian citizen who was murdered in yesterday’s terror attack in Tel Aviv, and to the government and the people of Italy,” said Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen.

Also condemning the attacks, US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel saying that the US “stands with the government and people of Israel.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu said relations with the United States, which appeared strained over the government’s planned judicial overhaul, remained “stronger than ever” and the two countries enjoyed security and intelligence cooperation.

Three IDF soldiers were also injured in a separate car-ramming attack on Saturday, and two other troops hurt in different shooting attacks last week. Two additional soldiers were injured, one seriously, in a Palestinian stabbing attack near the Tzrifin military base in central Israel.

Friday’s terror attacks came in the wake of cross-border strikes in Gaza and Lebanon, adding to escalating Israeli-Palestinian tensions following Israeli police raids in Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque this week.

The rising hostilities threatened to widen when Israel responded to a barrage of rockets by hitting targets linked to the Islamist group Hamas in Gaza and southern Lebanon, but the fighting entered a lull on Friday.

In related developments, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced yesterday that he has nullified his earlier firing of Defense Minister Gallant due to the escalating security crisis, reversing last week’s decision that triggered protests and raised alarm abroad.

He said the two had resolved their disagreement over Gallant’s public call last month for a halt to the government’s bitterly divisive judicial overhaul plan, which Gallant said had become a threat to Israel’s security.

“I’ve decided to put our differences behind us,” Netanyahu said at a Monday press conference. He said the two had worked closely together throughout the last two weeks.

The China Horn’s Latest Nuclear Weapon: Daniel 7

China secretly launched 6,500mph hypersonic missile that could beat US missile defences, bombshell leaked spy docs show

Aliki Kraterou

Published: 16:06 ET, Apr 11 2023
Updated: 21:05 ET, Apr 11 2023

CHINA has secretly launched a 6,500mph hypersonic missile that could beat US defence systems, according to leaked spy documents.

The classified US military documents suggest that Beijing conducted an experimental hypersonic weapons test in February.

One of China’s experimental missiles, the DF-27 hypersonic glide vehicle, was launched on February 25, the Washington Post reports.

The missile flew for 12 minutes over a distance of 1,300 miles and had a “high probability” of hitting the US ballistic missile defence systems.

The DF-27 missile – designed to carry hypersonic glide vehicles – is a successor to the DF-17 and is believed to be still under development.

It is believed it could penetrate US air defences thanks to its extended range – and would open up a number of other targets.

It belongs to the third-generation of China’s nuclear weapons – the same arsenal of equipment as the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile.

The missile can carry 10 nuclear warheads with a range of more than 14,000km – making it capable of striking any location on Earth, according to Chinese media.

The leaked documents also included details of a new Chinese warship and a rocket launch in March.

It appears that the classified Pentagon documents were initially shared on various social media sites – including the video game chat platform Discord the online messaging board 4Chan, the encrypted Telegram global messaging app, and Twitter.

Although the documents have come to light in the past few days, at least some of them have been circulating on social media since March or even January, according to Bellingcat.

The site traced the earliest references to the leak to a now-defunct Discord server and cited three former users as saying that a large number of documents had been shared there.

“After a brief spat with another person on the server about Minecraft Maps and the war in Ukraine, one of the Discord users replied ‘here, have some leaked documents’ – attaching 10 documents about Ukraine, some of which bore the ‘Top Secret’ markings,” Bellingcat wrote in a new report.

The report states the user had found them on another Discord server that is a fan page for a Filipino YouTuber.

The report added: “Posts and channel listings show that the server’s users were interested in video games, music, Orthodox Christianity, and fandom for the popular YouTuber ‘Oxide.’”

It comes as China has warned its “carrier killer” missiles will strike down US forces before they can come to the aid of Taiwan.

An editorial by Global Times newspaper said: “PLA is 100 percent prepared for any foreign interference in the Taiwan question, whether it is military intervention, economic sanctions or attempt at political isolation by the US”.

It insisted “the Chinese mainland will have a response plan and will not back down”.

Russia Tests Her Newest Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

Russia Tests ICBM in First Launch Since Suspending Nuclear Arms Treat

Russia said it test-fired what it deemed an “advanced” intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on Tuesday, April 11, the first known successful launch of such a weapon since pausing its obligations under the last nuclear treaty with the US.

The Russian defense ministry said it successfully fired the ICBM from its test site in Kapustin Yar, and that the training warhead hit a test target in Sary-Shagan, Kazakhstan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on February 21 this year that Moscow would “suspend” its participation in the landmark New START treaty with the US. The deal, signed between Putin and Barack Obama in 2010, was the last remaining nuclear arms agreement between the two countries after both sides had dialed back their adherence to other mutual pacts.

New START limits the number of deployed nuclear assets and provides for joint monitoring of nuclear arsenals. Both the US and Russia had previously agreed to extend the terms until February 4, 2026.

Putin has since vowed to strengthen Russia’s nuclear and other advanced missile systems.

Washington said in February that it believed Russia had tried and failed to carry out an ICBM test on February 18, days before President Joe Biden’s visit to Ukraine. That test was notified in advance under the terms of the treaty, US media reported.

The defense ministry said on Tuesday that the launch was intended to confirm “the correctness of the circuit design” and other technical aspects used in the development of new strategic missile systems.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Credit: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation via Storyful

Iranian Horn is Nuclear Capable, What Now? Daniel 8

With Iran purportedly capable of making a nuclear bomb in a matter of months, what will its leaders do next?

Published: April 11, 2023 4.10pm EDT

Author

Amin NaeniPhD candidate at Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

Disclosure statement

Amin Naeni does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The on-again, off-again talks between Iran and western powers over Tehran’s nuclear program have stalled yet again due to disagreements between the two sides.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has blamed Iran for “killing an opportunity” to come back to the negotiating table and maintained the talks were no longer a priority for the Biden administration.

Iran, meanwhile, seems to be inching closer to being able to actually build a nuclear weapon.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have said Iran had enriched uranium up to 84%, just short of the 90% required for a bomb.

And General Mark Milley, the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress in late March that Iran could have enough fissile material to make a bomb in “less than two weeks” and a nuclear weapon itself within several months.

Given these developments, is there any room left for an agreement?

Tunnel vision on nuclear talks

Over the past two years, both the US and European Union have been resolute in their efforts to revive the nuclear deal that had been scrapped by then-US President Donald Trump in 2018, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

However, Western attempts have yet to bear fruit, reportedly due to the “maximalist demands” made by the Iranians, including removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from the US list of foreign terror organisations.

Despite this, the EU believes the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action remains “the only way” for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. The US, despite de-prioritising the talks, is also not willing to officially announce the death of the deal.

This tunnel vision, however, seems to ignore the changes that have taken place since 2015, as well as the more general pattern of decision-making in Iran.

Although backers of the deal often argue it has significantly restricted Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Tehran’s nuclear program has actually expanded in just two years. And recently, a news outlet affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards made it clear that Iran cannot “close its doors to the scientific methods of making a bomb for rational reasons”.

Now, the big question is what Iran’s leaders will do next. The CIA director, William Burns, said in February that he believes Iran’s Supreme Leader has not yet made a decision on building nuclear weapons.

So, what is the Iranian leadership thinking? To answer a question like this, the pattern of decision-making in Iran’s history is a critical factor that has widely been ignored.

A history of painstaking deliberations

Since the 1979 revolution, Iranian leaders have exhibited a cautious and slow approach to making major decisions.

This protracted process of decision-making in Iran is rooted in anxiety about the long-term survival of the regime, which has been grappling with a range of internal and external threats over the past four decades.

For instance, it took eight years for the Islamic Republic to accept the ceasefire and peace talks with Iraq following their war in the 1980s.

In addition, Iranian authorities took a decade to be ready for serious negotiations on a nuclear agreement with the US and other global powers, following the disclosure of the country’s nuclear program in 2003.

Moreover, while Iran first suggested a “look to the East” policy in the mid-2000s under then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country didn’t begin developing major policies in this direction until 2015. This has included military cooperation with Russia in both Syria and now Ukraine and a long-term economic, military and security agreement with China.

However, building nuclear weapons would certainly be the most consequential strategic decision by the Iranian leadership since the 1979 revolution.

What the West can do?

So far, the slow process of decision-making in the Iranian leadership has played a significant role in hindering the weaponisation of the nuclear program.

And this limitation of the leadership could provide western powers with an opportunity, given the ongoing protests currently roiling the country.

The months-long protests erupted following the death of a woman in the custody of the morality police last year, hastening the decline of the regime’s legitimacy inside the country and bringing new rounds of sanctions from the international community.

If western countries abandon their obsession over the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and continue to support the Iranian people in their protests through diplomatic and economic pressure, it will send a powerful signal to Iran’s leaders: the threats to the regime’s existence are not limited to military factors, but also increasingly come from within the country.

It is important to note that amid the protests, Iranian officials and hardliner media have frequently stressed the nuclear deal is not dead and negotiations are ongoing, even though most of them had previously opposed any deal with the West.

This indicates the Islamic Republic would not be ready for the risks that the demise of the nuclear talks could bring – namely, even fiercer protests from the public if it caused another economic shock.

Therefore, the longer the balance of power between the Iranian people and government remains unsettled, the more unlikely it is the regime will make a firm decision on nuclear weapons in the near term.

Consequently, this will provide the West with powerful leverage to secure a more robust and effective agreement in the long term.