Why We Are In Trouble At The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Why NRC Nuclear Safety Inspections are Necessary: Indian Point

Dave Lochbaum

This is the second in a series of commentaries about the vital role nuclear safety inspections conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) play in protecting the public. The initial commentary described how NRC inspectors discovered that limits on the maximum allowable control room air temperature at the Columbia Generating Station in Washington had been improperly relaxed by the plant’s owner. This commentary describes a more recent finding by NRC inspectors about animproper safety assessment of a leaking cooling water system pipe on Entergy’s Unit 3 reactor at Indian Point outside New York City.

Indian Point Unit 3: Leak Before Break

On February 3, 2017, the NRC issued Indian Point a Green finding for a violation of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. Specifically, the owner failed to perform an adequate operability review per its procedures after workers discovered water leaking from a service water system pipe.

On April 27, 2016, workers found water leaking from the pipe downstream of the strainer for service water (SW) pump 31. As shown in Figure 1, SW pump 31 is one of six service water pumps located within the intake structure alongside the Hudson River. The six SW pumps are arranged in two sets of three pumps. Figure 1 shows SW pumps 31, 32, and 33 aligned to provide water drawn from the Hudson River to essential (i.e, safety and emergency) components within Unit 3. SW pumps 34, 35, and 36 are aligned to provide cooling water to non-essential equipment within Unit 3.

Fig. 1 (Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plant Information Book) (click to enlarge)

Each SW pump is designed to deliver 6,000 gallons of flow. During normal operation, one SW pump can handle the essential loads while two SW pumps are needed for the non-essential loads. Under accident conditions, two SW pumps are needed to cool the essential equipment. The onsite emergency diesel generators can power either of the sets of three pumps, but not both simultaneously. If the set of SW pumps aligned to the essential equipment aren’t getting the job done, workers can open/close valves and electrical breakers to reconfigure the second set of three SW pumps to the essential equipment loops.

Because river water can have stuff in it that could clog some of the coolers for essential equipment, each SW pump has a strainer that attempts to remove as much debris as possible from the water. The leak discovered on April 27, 2016, was in the piping between the discharge check valve for SW pump 31 and its strainer. An arrow points to this piping section in Figure 1. The strainers were installed in openings called pits in the thick concrete floor of the intake structure. Water from the leaking pipe flowed into the pit housing the strainer for SW pump 31.

The initial leak rate was modest—estimated to be about one-eighth of a gallon per minute. The leak was similar to other pinhole leaks that had occurred in the concrete-lined, carbon steel SW pipes. The owner began daily checks on the leakage and prepared an operability determination. Basically, “operability determinations” are used within the nuclear industry when safety equipment is found to be impaired or degraded. The operability determination for the service water pipe leak concluded that the impairment did not prevent the SW pumps from fulfilling their required safety function. The operability determination relied on a sump pump located at the bottom of the strainer pit transferring the leaking water out of the pit before the water flooded and submerged safety components.

The daily checks instituted by the owner included workers recording the leak rate and assessing whether it had significantly increased. But the checks were against the previous day’s leak rate rather than the initial leak rate. By September 18, 2016, the leakage had steadily increased by a factor of 64 to 8 gallons per minute. But the daily incremental increases were small enough that they kept workers from finding the overall increase to be significant.

The daily check on October 15, 2016, found the pump room flooded to a depth of several inches. The leak rate was now estimated to be 20 gallons per minute. And the floor drain in the strainer pit was clogged (ironic, huh?) impairing the ability of its sump pump to remove the water. Workers placed temporary sump pumps in the room to remove the flood water and cope with the insignificantly higher leak rate. On October 17, workers installed a clamp on the pipe that reduced the leakage to less than one gallon per minute.

The operability determination was revised in response to concerns expressed by the NRC inspectors. The NRC inspectors were not satisfied by the revised operability determination. It continued to rely on the strainer pit sump pump removing the leaking water. But that sump pump was not powered from the emergency diesel generator and thus would not remove water should offsite power become unavailable. Step 5.6.4 of procedure EN-OP-14, “Operability Determination Process,” stated “If the Operability is based on the use or availability of other equipment, it must be verified that the equipment is capable of performing the function utilized in the evaluation.”

The operability determination explicitly stated that no compensatory measures or operator manual actions were needed to handle the leak, but the situation clearly required both compensatory measures and operator manual actions.

The NRC inspectors found additional deficiencies in the revised operability determination. The NRC inspectors calculated that a 20 gallon per minute leak rate coupled with an unavailable strainer pit sump pump would flood the room to a depth of three feet in three hours. There are no flood alarms in the room and the daily checks might not detect flooding until the level rose to three feet. At that level, water would submerge and potentially disable the vacuum breakers for the SW pumps. Proper vacuum breaker operation could be needed to successfully restart the SW pumps.

The NRC inspectors calculated that the 20 gallon per minute leak rate without remediation would flood the room to the level of the control cabinets for the strainers in 10 hours. The submerged control cabinets could disable the strainers, leading to blocked cooling water flow to essential equipment.

The NRC inspects calculated that the 20 gallon per minute leak rate without remediation would completely fill the room in about 29 hours, or only slightly longer than the daily check interval.

Flooding to depths of 3 feet, 10 feet, and the room’s ceiling affected all six SW pumps. Thus, the flooding represented a common mode threat that could disable the entire service water system. In turn, all safety equipment shown in Figure 2 no longer cooled by the disabled service water system could also be disabled. The NRC estimated that the flooding risk was about 5×10-6 per reactor year, solidly in the Green finding band.

Fig. 2 (Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plant Information Book) (click to enlarge)

UCS Perspective

“Leak before break” is a longstanding nuclear safety philosophy. Books have been written about it (well, at least one report has been written and may even have been read.)  The NRC’s approval of a leak before break analysis can allow the owner of an existing nuclear power reactor to remove pipe whip restraints and jet impingement barriers. Such hardware guarded against the sudden rupture of a pipe filled with high pressure fluid from damaging safety equipment in the area. The leak before break analyses can provide the NRC with sufficient confidence that piping degradation will be detected by observed leakage with remedial actions taken before the pipe fails catastrophically. More than a decade ago, the NRC issued a Knowledge Management document on the leak before break philosophy and acceptable methods of analyzing, monitoring, and responding to piping degradation.

This incident at Indian Point illustrated an equally longstanding nuclear safety practice of “leak before break.” In this case, the leak was indeed followed by a break. But the break was not the failure of the piping but failure of the owner to comply with federal safety regulations. Pipe breaks are bad. Regulation breaks are bad. Deciding which is worse is like trying to decide which eye one wants to be poked in. None is far better than either.

As with the prior Columbia Generating Station case study, this Indian Point case study illustrates the vital role that NRC’s enforcement efforts plays in nuclear safety. Even after NRC inspectors voiced clear concerns about the improperly evaluated service water system pipe leak, Entergy failed to properly evaluate the situation, thus violating federal safety regulations. To be fair to Entergy, the company was probably doing its best, but in recent years, Entergy’s best has been far below nuclear industry average performance levels.

The NRC’s ROP is the public’s best protection against hazards caused by aging nuclear power reactors, shrinking maintenance budgets, emerging sabotage threats, and Entergy.Replacing the NRC’s engineering inspections with self-assessments by Entergy would lessen the effectiveness of that protective shield.

The NRC must continue to protect the public to the best of its ability. Delegating safety checks to owners like Entergy is inconsistent with that important mission.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Biden is Encouraging the Chinese Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

Three decades of misguided Taiwan and China policies have left Washington with no risk-free options. The most risky and dangerous option is to continue with policies that created this situation in the first place. (Image source: iStock)

Biden Is Emboldening China to Invade Taiwan

by Gordon G. Chang
April 17, 2023 at 5:00 am

• Given the right American policies, China’s regime can be deterred.
• For decades, the United States has tried to manage the situation across the Taiwan Strait by not angering Beijing.
• White House and administration officials, both anonymously and on the record, contradicted the president [that the U.S. would send troops if there was an attack] on all four occasions. The Chinese certainly do not see firmness in the Biden administration but disarray.
• This disarray has almost certainly emboldened Beijing to act even more aggressively.
• So, what must Biden do at this late date to reestablish deterrence?
• Washington should offer to recognize Taipei as the legitimate government of “Taiwan” if it wants America to do so, offer a mutual defense treaty to Taipei, on an emergency basis begin moving weapons and supplies to the island, and base troops there as a tripwire.
• Many will say these steps—similar ones on the Korean peninsula have worked—are risky.
• Three decades of misguided Taiwan and China policies have left Washington with no risk-free options…. [T]he most risky and dangerous option is to continue with policies that created this situation in the first place.
• Beijing’s long delay in reporting Ladakh [India] casualties suggests the Communist Party would be hesitant to fight to take Taiwan. China, in short, can be deterred by the prospect of massive casualties—or maybe even just a few of them.
• Ultimately, the Biden administration, to establish deterrence, must possess the forces in the field to inflict casualties on China. “[T]he United States has no choice but to initiate a crash program to rebuild a regional/tactical nuclear deterrent, from nuclear artillery shells to short-, medium-, and intermediate-range nuclear-tipped missiles,” Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center told Gatestone.
• In the Cold War in Europe, America deterred a militarily superior Soviet Union with its announced willingness to use nuclear weapons, and Ronald Reagan’s deployment of the nuclear-tipped Pershing II missile held back an aggressive Moscow. Biden, however, has made it clear that he abhors nukes.
• Biden, therefore, better come up with a plan quick.
• The Eastern Theater Command of China’s People’s Liberation Army just declared it is now “ready to fight.” Biden, on the other hand, does not appear ready to reestablish deterrence in an era of Chinese aggression and belligerence.

China just substantially reduced a three-day no-fly zone it had declared northeast of Taiwan. The zone, originally scheduled to run from the 16th to the 18th of this month, was scaled back to just 27 minutes on the 16th.

China’s Maritime Safety Administration said the closure was due to “aerospace activities.” Apparently, the initial stage of a Chinese space launch vehicle will be falling back to earth at that time.

Taiwan said it had objected to the duration of the Chinese zone as initially announced. Others, including aviation authorities, complained to Beijing as well.

The substantial reduction in duration shows that China, despite protestations to the contrary, reacts to pressure. Can the international community pressure China into abandoning its push to absorb the Republic of China, as the island is formally known?

Beijing says it is unmovable on Taiwan. As China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared last August, “There is but one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China.”

Beijing is certainly movable, and, contrary to assertions, its foreign policy is not “principled.” Throughout the history of the People’s Republic, the country’s external policies have been tightly bound to internal political intrigue and have changed accordingly. At the moment, President Xi Jinping’s favored form of diplomacy is intimidation, so he tries to make it appear that he will never change his positions.

He can change, even on Taiwan. Given the right American policies, China’s regime can be deterred.

Does Washington now have the right policies? For decades, the United States has tried to manage the situation across the Taiwan Strait by not angering Beijing. Washington has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” in other words, not telling either China or Taiwan what America would do in the case of imminent conflict.

Strategic ambiguity was developed in part to prevent Taiwan from invading China, but after the democratization of the island that has not been a concern. Despite the change in circumstances, Washington has kept the policy in place.

Defenders point out that strategic ambiguity has in fact kept the peace across the Taiwan Strait, but the policy has worked in a generally benign period. Unfortunately, Xi Jinping’s almost constant threats make it clear that the current era is anything but benign.

Now, many call for “strategic clarity,” telling Chinese leaders in no uncertain terms that the United States will defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

President Joe Biden on four occasions ditched ambiguity and clearly stated the United States would fight. On “60 Minutes” last September, for instance, Biden responded to a question from Scott Pelley by declaring the United States would send troops to defend Taiwan “if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.”

The administration, unfortunately, immediately walked back the president’s clear statement. “After the interview, a White House official said U.S. policy on Taiwan has not changed,” CBS News reported. Biden’s unambiguous words were in fact a stark change from America’s decades-old policy of strategic ambiguity.

White House and administration officials, both anonymously and on the record, contradicted the president on all four occasions. The Chinese certainly do not see firmness in the Biden administration but disarray.

This disarray has almost certainly emboldened Beijing to act even more aggressively.

So, what must Biden do at this late date to reestablish deterrence?

Washington should offer to recognize Taipei as the legitimate government of “Taiwan” if it wants America to do so, offer a mutual defense treaty to Taipei, on an emergency basis begin moving weapons and supplies to the island, and base troops there as a tripwire.

Many will say these steps—similar ones on the Korean peninsula have worked—are risky. Yes, they are, but Biden has allowed the situation to deteriorate across the Taiwan Strait, so he has to consider policies once considered extreme.

In any event, saying something is risky is not a meaningful objection these days. Three decades of misguided Taiwan and China policies have left Washington with no risk-free options. Everything is risky, everything is dangerous, and the most risky and dangerous option is to continue with policies that created this situation in the first place.

What would China do in response to these recommended steps? Beijing always says, “Taiwan independence means war.”

That statement, in substance, is silly. The Republic of China is already an independent state according to the standards established in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Beijing is really saying that any declaration by Taipei formally abandoning claims to China is “independence” as that would be tantamount to declaring there are two separate states, one “China” and the other “Taiwan.”

Would the Chinese actually go to war over such a declaration? Beijing claims that its “casualty-tolerance” is “China’s decisive advantage in any fight with the U.S.”

Not so.

On the night of June 15, 2020, the People’s Liberation Army launched a surprise attack on Indian forces in Ladakh, south of the Line of Actual Control in the Himalayas. India immediately announced that 20 of its soldiers had been killed, but Beijing said nothing about casualties until February 19 of the following year, when it reported four troopers had died. Indian sources believe about 45 Chinese had in fact been killed, and TASS, the Russian news agency, issued a release agreeing with India’s assessment of the Chinese death toll.

Beijing’s long delay in reporting Ladakh casualties suggests the Communist Party would be hesitant to fight to take Taiwan. China, in short, can be deterred by the prospect of massive casualties—or maybe even just a few of them.

Ultimately, the Biden administration, to establish deterrence, must possess the forces in the field to inflict casualties on China. “The U.S. failed to keep pace with China’s burgeoning conventional threat to Taiwan, so the United States has no choice but to initiate a crash program to rebuild a regional/tactical nuclear deterrent, from nuclear artillery shells to short-, medium-, and intermediate-range nuclear-tipped missiles,” Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center told Gatestone.

History can repeat itself. In the Cold War in Europe, America deterred a militarily superior Soviet Union with its announced willingness to use nuclear weapons, and Ronald Reagan’s deployment of the nuclear-tipped Pershing II missile held back an aggressive Moscow. Biden, however, has made it clear that he abhors nukes.

Biden, therefore, better come up with a plan quick. “Look at the military exercises, and also their rhetoric, they seem to be trying to get ready to launch a war against Taiwan,” said Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu to CNN this month. Taiwan evidently thinks there is not much time before China launches an attack.

The Eastern Theater Command of China’s People’s Liberation Army just declared it is now “ready to fight.” Biden, on the other hand, does not appear ready to reestablish deterrence in an era of Chinese aggression and belligerence.

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.

Russia Extends Her Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

Russia Completes Belarusian Pilots’ Training on Nuclear Weapons Use

This step comes amid soaring tensions over Ukraine and the NATO proxy war with Russia. Moscow made the decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus after London supplied Kiev Challenger 2 tanks armed with depleted uranium munitionsby Connor Freeman Posted onApril 16, 2023

Belarusian Air Force crews have completed their training on the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the Russian Defense Ministry announced on Friday.

The ministry released a video featuring a Belarusian pilot explaining that the Russian training course has enabled the crews manning the Belarusian Air Force’s Su-25 ground attack jets to use tactical nuclear bombs. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the storage facilities for the weapons in Belarus will be built and ready for use by July 1. Moscow is assisting Minsk modernizing its aircraft to carry the weapons and has provided short-range Iskander missiles which can fit such warheads as well. Russia began training Belarusian forces on the missiles earlier this month.

Putin emphasizes that the nuclear weapons will remain under the full control of Moscow and has compared his recent move to NATO’s nuclear sharing program. American nuclear weapons are deployed in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey, and the Netherlands. Russia’s ambassador to Belarus, Boris Gryzlov, announced the weapons will be placed in western Belarus, near the country’s nearly 800 mile border with NATO members Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

On Friday, Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin echoed President Alexander Lukashenko’s previous suggestion that Moscow may deploy strategic, as well as tactical, nuclear weapons to the territory of Belarus. “It could be the next step” if the West continues its hostile course, Khrenin said.

Strategic nuclear weapons can possess a yield of more than 1,000 kilotons, the range of tactical nuclear weapons is between 0.3 and 170 kilotons. The bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of 15 and 21 kilotons respectively.

Putin announced his decision to deploy the weapons to its ally after London provided Kiev with Challenger 2 tanks armed with depleted uranium munitions, which Russia views the same as a “dirty bomb.” Depleted uranium is highly radioactive and linked to cancer as well as birth defects. For instance, in Fallujah, the US military’s heavy use of such weapons during the Iraq war has led to leukemia rates orders of magnitude worse than those recorded after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a writer at the Libertarian Institute, primarily covering foreign policy. He is a co-host on the Conflicts of Interest podcast. His writing has been featured in media outlets such as Antiwar.com, Counterpunch, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also appeared on Liberty Weekly, Around the Empire, and Parallax Views. You can follow him on Twitter @FreemansMind96.

Israeli Troops Abduct 23 Palestinians Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israeli Troops Abduct 23 Palestinians; Seize Palestinian Property

The Israeli occupation soldiers and settlers continued on Sunday, their aggression against the Palestinian people and their property, as the Israeli occupation forces abducted 23 citizens from the West Bank, and seized a vehicle near Jenin, while the settlers leveled land and stole a tent in Hebron.

The 23 abductions in pre-dawn raid included:

The occupation forces abducted 3 siblings, after the troops raided and searched the house of their parents at dawn, in the Batn Al-Hawa neighborhood, in the town of Silwan in occupied Jerusalem. They are: Musa, Fouad and Omar Jibril.

The Israeli occupation forces also abducted: Anas Akkari, Musa Ayesh, and Mahdi Al-Karaki, after they raided and searched their homes in the town of Al-Tur.

And the troops abducted 6 young men from the Old City in Jerusalem after their homes were raided.

Later, the Israeli occupation forces abducted a young man identified as Muhammad Arafat Shuqair, after they raided and searched his house in the town of Jabal Al Mukaber.

The occupation forces also abducted the young man, Muhammad Jaradat, from the town of Al-Ram, north of Jerusalem, while he was passing through the Jaba checkpoint, north of occupied Jerusalem.

The Israeli occupation authorities released Mofeed Al-Abbasi (22 years old), who was one of those they had abducted from al-Aqsa Mosque during their military invasion of that holy site,on condition of house arrest for four days, deportation from Al-Aqsa Mosque, and a fine of 2,000 shekels.

In the Bethlehem governorate, the occupation forces abducted 6 Palestinians from the village of Husan, west of the governorate. ), Ayoub Hamamreh (18 years old), and Bashar Essam Hamamreh (17 years old), after they raided and searched their homes.

The Israeli occupation forces also abducted the Palestinian Mahmoud Saleh Al-Sabah, from the town of Tuqu’, southwest of Bethlehem, from inside the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

And in the Jenin governorate, the Israeli occupation forces abducted the young man, Omran Raed Atreh, from the town of Ya`bad, southwest of the governorate, while he was crossing the Rihan military checkpoint near the town of Barta’a .

In the Qalqilya governorate, the Israeli occupation forces abducted Yazid Bilal Anaya (19 years old), after they raided and searched his family’s house in the town of Azzun, east of the governorate.

In addition to the abductions, Israeli troops also targeted Palestinian land and property during their Sunday invasions of Palestinian land.

The Israeli occupation forces seized a vehicle near the Al-Jalama military checkpoint, northeast of Jenin.

Security sources told Wafa news agency that the occupation forces seized a vehicle after storming a vehicle compound in Al-Jalama, and transported the vehicle to their base inside the checkpoint .

Israeli paramilitary settlers leveled land near the town of Beit Awa, west of Hebron, in preparation for seizing it, while others stole a tent in Masafer Yatta.

Local sources said that a number of settlers stormed land in the Wadi Kharsa area in the town of Beit Awa, belonging to a farmer from the Al-Sweiti family, and bulldozed it in preparation for seizing it.

In this context, a number of settlers seized a tent belonging to Ali Hamamdeh in the Ma’in area of ​​Masafer Yatta.

On Sunday evening, the Israeli occupation forces impeded the movement and exit of citizens from the city of Jericho, after setting up a checkpoint at its southern entrance.

Local sources in Jericho told Wafa news agency that the occupation forces set up a military checkpoint at the southern entrance to the city, and stopped and searched a number of vehicles, which caused disruption to the movement of citizens’ vehicles and public vehicles, especially towards those leaving the city.

Seismic event before the sixth seal: Revelation 6

Reported seismic-like event (likely no quake): 32 km southeast of New York, USA, Friday, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:43 pm (GMT -4)

Updated: Apr 16, 2023 22:44 GMT – 85 seconds agoQUAKE DATA | INTERACTIVE MAP | NEW: SEISMOGRAMS | USER REPORTS | EARLIER QUAKES HERE | QUAKES IN THE US | QUAKES IN THE US | QUAKES IN THE US | NEW YORK15 Apr 03:47 UTC: First to report: VolcanoDiscovery after 4 minutes.Earthquake detailsDate & timeApr 15, 2023 03:43:58 UTC – 1 day 19 hours agoLocal timeFriday, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:43 pm (GMT -4)StatusdisregardedMagnitudeunknown (3?)Depth10.0 kmEpicenter40.58907°N / 73.67059°WShakingVery weak shakingFelt2 reportsPrimary data sourceVolcanoDiscovery (User-reported shaking)Nearby1 km (1 mi) W of Long Beach (New York) (pop: 33,600) | Show on map| Quakes nearby
6 km (4 mi) SSW of Oceanside (New York) (pop: 32,100) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
7 km (5 mi) ESE of Far Rockaway (New York) (pop: 39,200) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
15 km (10 mi) SE of South Ozone Park (New York) (pop: 75,900) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
16 km (10 mi) SE of Jamaica (New York) (pop: 216,900) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
17 km (11 mi) SE of Queens (New York) (pop: 2,272,800) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
17 km (11 mi) SE of Borough of Queens (New York) (pop: 2,272,800) | Show on map | Quakes nearby
18 km (11 mi) SE of Richmond Hill (New York) (pop: 99,000) | Show on map | Quakes nearby

Freezing the Antichrist movement.. arranging internal papers or thwarting

Freezing the Sadrist movement.. arranging internal papers or thwarting

Baghdad – There were many readings and opinions about the reasons why the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr , suspended his political movement for a year, and closed his official account on Twitter, between Al-Sadr’s assertion that it is a step to fight what he called the corrupters within the joints of the movement, and opinions that it may be to rearrange the cards internally and prepare for his rejection Attempts to bring it back into the political process, at a time when others see it as a preemptive step that came to block the road to external attempts that planned to dismantle the movement by discrediting it by supporting a group in it carrying what was described as an “extremist religious claim.” 

Recently, a group calling itself “People of the Cause” broadcast video recordings on social media, in which it saw in al-Sadr the “embodiment” of one of the holy Shiite imams, which angered al-Sadr and prompted him to announce the freezing of the movement, saying – in his tweet on Twitter – “to be A reformer for Iraq, and I cannot reform the Sadrist movement, for this is a sin, and for me to continue to lead the Sadrist movement, and there are (the people of the cause) and some of the corrupt, and there are some sins in it, for this is a serious matter.

Hours after al-Sadr’s recent moves, the Iraqi security authorities arrested 65 accused members of the “people of the case” on charges of promoting ideas that cause strife and disturb social security, according to a statement by the country’s Supreme Judicial Council.

Two days ago, the Sadrist movement canceled – by direct order from its leader – the Kufa Ramadan mosque in Najaf Governorate (south) after publishing these video recordings, which the Sadrist movement considered issued by a deviant ideological group known as “the people of the cause.”

Muqtada al-Sadr retired from politics 9 times within 9 years, the last of which was in August of last year, after his supporters satinside the Iraqi parliament and stormed the Republican Palace, and acts of violence in the Green Zone ended in clashes with armed factions opposed to him, which resulted in the fall of Many dead and wounded.

Al-Sadr is known to have a large public and supportive base, through which he can raise the concerns of the political class opposing him, especially the Coordinating Framework Coalition, and this comes through the movement’s ability to mobilize thousands of his followers and move their compass in the direction he wants within hours.

In order to find out the details and reasons for the Sadrist withdrawal, the Al-Jazeera Net correspondent contacted 3 of the leaders of the movement, but they apologized for the statement, in compliance with the directives of Al-Sadr, which stipulated not to speak to the media since his withdrawal from the political scene, with a prominent member of the movement confirming that the decision to freeze came for reasons More religious than political.

Speaking to Al-Jazeera Net, the Sadrist spokesman – on condition of anonymity for special reasons – confirms that the freezing decision came to respond to sedition attempts supported by an external party that is trying to discredit and dismantle the current to dismantle it by supporting a group that calls itself “the people of the cause,” commenting, “the exaggeration of the people of the cause that She saw in al-Sadr that he was the imam of the argument, which annoyed the leader of the movement a lot, which prompted him to freeze his movement for fear of their deviation in a way that might expand further and threaten even the Shiite component.

For his part, Issam al-Faili, a professor of political science at Al-Mustansiriya University, believes that al-Sadr wanted, with the decision to freeze his movement, to convey a message to the political parties that he is trying to fight all forms of deviation and corruption, whether political or ideological, as he put it.

And he points out that what the “Ahl al-Qada’a” group put forward completely intersects with the Islamic faith in general and the Shi’ite faith in particular, commenting in his interview with Al-Jazeera Net, “Therefore, al-Sadr found the group’s idea a departure from religion and belief, and it did not belong to his movement or to his father’s name, so in any connection.”

As for the political level, Al-Faili believes that there is a connection between Al-Sadr’s latest step and the performance of the government of Prime Minister Muhammad Shia’a Al-Sudani through the existence of what he described as “harmony” between them, especially with regard to addressing inherited problems and corruption files, and this coincided with talk of imminent changes in ” The current government cabinet and the replacement of some ministers, he said.

Despite this, Al-Faili concludes his speech to Al-Jazeera Net by pointing out that the keys to returning to political activity will remain in the hands of Al-Sadr, based – according to his opinion – on the nature of the internal situation, in addition to his ability to confront some parties accused of corruption, according to him.

Meanwhile, the head of the Baghdad Center for Strategic Studies, Manaf al-Moussawi, describes the freezing decision as a “real reform process” within the movement, and that it is a step that al-Sadr has been following for a long time by carrying out reforms, whether by freezing or stopping political or military action within his movement, especially when there is errors.

However, al-Moussawi – who is close to the Sadrist movement – does not hide that the decision also came to close all doors to the pressures that al-Sadr may be exposed to in order to return to the political process and participate in the provincial elections that are scheduled to be held at the end of this year.

Regarding the possibility that al-Sadr’s recent decision stems from an attempt to raise his hand and his responsibility for any public and popular anger that may occur during the coming period, al-Moussawi does not rule that out, explaining – in his interview with Al-Jazeera Net – that it is a deep and clear reading from al-Sadr by raising his hand from the political process and the government, especially With pressures being exerted against him from within and outside the movement to return him to the political process.

And whether it is possible for al-Sadr to suspend the freezing of his current and return to his political or religious activity before the end of the period he specified, Mahmoud Ezzo, a professor of political science at the University of Mosul, answers that it is impossible to predict the possible decisions that al-Sadr will take, whether related to returning to practicing public life or staying on Freezing condition.

The academic spokesman indicates that the Sadrist movement suffers from the existence of opinions that could be considered “extremist” in relation to the Shiite Jaafari Twelver jurisprudence system, as a result of the absence of the main role of Sadr due to the freezing processes that constantly affect prominent figures in it.

Another War Before the End: Matthew 24

Smoke is seen rising from a neighborhood in Khartoum, Sudan, Saturday, April 15, 2023. Fierce clashes between Sudan’s military and the country’s powerful paramilitary erupted in the capital and elsewhere in the African nation after weeks of escalating tensions between the two forces. The fighting raised…   (Associated Press)

Dozens killed as army, rivals battle for control of Sudan

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) — The Sudanese military and a powerful paramilitary group battled for control of the chaos-stricken nation for a second day Sunday, signaling they were unwilling to end hostilities despite mounting diplomatic pressure to cease fire.

Heavy fighting involving armored vehicles, truck-mounted machine guns and war planes raged Sunday in the capital of Khartoum, the adjoining city of Omdurman and in flashpoints across the country. The rival forces are believed to have tens of thousands of fighters each in the capital alone.

At least five civilians were killed and 78 wounded Sunday, bringing the two-day toll to 61 dead and more than 670 wounded, said the Sudan Doctors’ Syndicate. The group said it believes there were dozens of additional deaths among the rival forces.

The clashes are part of a power struggle between Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan, the commander of the armed forces, and Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, the head of the Rapid Support Forces group. The two generals are former allies who jointly orchestrated an October 2021 military coup that derailed Sudan’s short-lived transition to democracy. 

In recent months, internationally backed negotiations revived hopes for such a transition, but growing tensions between Burhan and Dagalo eventually delayed a deal with political parties.

Volker Perthes, the U.N. envoy for Sudan, said that both Burhan and Dagalo agreed to a three-hour humanitarian pause in fighting in the late afternoon Sunday, but violence continued to engulf the capital.

Into the evening, regular exchanges of guns and heavy weapons firing were heard in parts of central Khartoum, even intensifying in some areas. The clashes come as most Sudanese are preparing to celebrate the major holiday that marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims traditionally fast from sunrise to sunset.

Residents in the capital said fighting raged around the military’s headquarters shortly before sunset. “Heavy explosions and gunfire around the clock,” said Amany Sayed, a 38-year-old Khartoum resident. “The battles here (in the capital) never stopped.”

In Khartoum and Omdurman, fighting was also reported around Khartoum International Airport and state television headquarters. A senior military official said clashes with RSF fighters began earlier in the day around military headquarters.

“They are shooting against each other in the streets,” said prominent rights advocate Tahani Abass who lives near the military headquarters. “It’s an all-out war in residential areas.”

Abass said her family spent the night huddling on the ground floor of their home. “No one was able to sleep and the kids were crying and screaming with every explosion,” she said. Sounds of gunfire were heard while she was speaking to The Associated Press.

The military and the RSF both claimed to be in control of strategic locations in Khartoum and elsewhere in the county. Their claims couldn’t be independently verified.

Both sides signaled that they were unwilling to negotiate.

Burhan’s military called for dismantling the RSF, which it labeled a “rebellious militia.” Dagalo told the satellite news network Al Arabyia that he ruled out negotiation and called on Burhan to surrender.

Meanwhile, diplomatic pressure appeared to be mounting.

Top diplomats, including the U.S. Secretary of State, the U.N. secretary-general, the EU foreign policy chief, the head of the Arab League and the head of the African Union Commission urged the sides to stop fighting. Members of the U.N. Security Council, at odds over other crises around the world, called for an immediate end of the hostilities and a return to dialogue.

The African Union’s top council called Sunday for an immediate cease-fire “without conditions.” It also asked the AU Commission Chairman Moussa Faki Mahamat to “immediately travel to Sudan to engage the parties towards a cease-fire.”

Arab states with stakes in Sudan — Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — made similar appeals. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Farhan bin Faisal spoke by phone with Sudan’s rival generals and urged them to stop “all kinds of military escalation,” Saudi state TV reported.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he consulted with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. “We agreed it was essential for the parties to immediately end hostilities without pre-condition,” he said in a statement early Sunday.

On Sunday, the World Food Program said it temporarily suspended operations in Sudan after three agency employees were killed in clashes the previous day and an aircraft used by the WFP was damaged. 

“We cannot do our lifesaving work if the safety and security of our teams and partners is not guaranteed,” said Cindy McCain, the executive director of the agency. About 16 million people, or one-third of Sudan’s population, require humanitarian assistance, according to the U.N.

The rival forces were fighting in several locations across Sudan, including the western Darfur region where tens of thousands of people live in camps for displaced people after years of genocidal civil war.

The three WFP employees were killed in clashes in the town of Kebkabiya in the province of North Darfur. Two agency employees were wounded.

Dozens of people were also killed and wounded since Saturday at a camp for displaced people in North Darfur, said Adam Regal, a spokesman for a Darfur charity.

In Nyala, the capital of South Darfur province, the two sides fought for control of the city’s airport, said a military official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief media.

The official said fighting also spread to the eastern region, including the provinces of Kassala and al-Qadarif on the borders with Ethiopia and Eritrea. He said battles centered around RSF and army bases.

The recent tensions stem from disagreement over how the RSF, headed by Dagalo, should be integrated into the armed forces and what authority should oversee the process. The merger is a key condition of Sudan’s unsigned transition agreement with political groups.

Pro-democracy activists have blamed Burhan and Dagalo for abuses against protesters across the county over the past four years, including the deadly break-up of a protest camp outside the military’s headquarters in Khartoum in June 2019 that killed over 120 protesters. Many groups have repeatedly called for holding them accountable. The RSF has long been accused of atrocities linked to the Darfur conflict.

Sudan, a country at the crossroads of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, is known for its history of military coups and civil conflicts since it gained independence in 1950s. A decade-old civil conflict resulted in the secession of South Sudan in 2011.

The U.N. Security Council will discuss the crisis in Sudan on Monday, said Fedor Strzhizhovskiy, the spokesman for the U.N. mission of Russia, which holds the council’s presidency this month.