Iran Terrorizes America (Daniel 8:4)

Fighters of the Shiite Hezbollah movement

Fighters of the Shiite Hezbollah movement / Getty Images


The Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah is vowing to launch strikes on U.S. forces operating in war-torn Syria in yet another sign that Iran and its terror proxies are beginning to take unprecedented direct action against American military coalition forces, according to U.S. officials and regional experts tracking the situation.

Just days before Iranian-affiliated militants launched a series of strikes on U.S. forces in Syria, Hezbollah released an official statement vowing to boost its terror operations against America, according to a translation of the five-point document provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

Officials and experts are viewing Hezbollah’s declaration as further proof that Iran is willing to attack American-backed forces as part of its efforts to bolster embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. military officials acknowledged that Iran was likely behind a drone strike on American forces last week, a move that has escalated a growing proxy war in the region between Iran and the United States.

U.S. military officials told the Free Beacon that while they are not seeking a fight with Syrian-regime backers such as Iran and Russia, they will take forceful action to prevent attacks on assets in the area.

“The Coalition presence in Syria addresses the imminent threat ISIS in Syria poses globally,” one U.S. military official with Central Command, or CENTCOM, told the Free Beacon. “The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but is well prepared to defend itself from hostile threats if necessary.”

U.S. military officials recognize the threat posed by Iran and its terror proxies, but are working to focus on the fight against ISIS, which is the primary reason American forces are working in Syria, sources said.

“The Coalition calls on all parties to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security,” according to the military official.

Hezbollah’s latest warning to U.S. forces is certain to escalate tensions in a region that has experienced unprecedented violence in the past years.

“America knows well … that the capacity to strike their [American-backed] gathering points in Syria and its neighbors are available any time the circumstances call for it, based on the availability of various rocket and military systems, in light of the deployment of American forces in the region,” Hezbollah warned in its statement, which was independently translated from Arabic for the Free Beacon.

Hezbollah claims that there have not yet been strikes due to “self-restraint” from terror entities operating in the area.

Iranian officials made a similar declaration in the past week. Video footage released by the Islamic Republic last week shows Iranian drones shadowing U.S. forces in the region while Farsi-language narrators laugh and threaten attacks.

“The silence of Syria’s allies is not a sign of weakness, but self-restraint, out of the allies’ wish to open the door for other solutions,” Hezbollah said in its statement. “But this will not last if America goes far and crosses red lines.”

One veteran Middle East policy adviser who is in routine contact with the Trump White House told the Free Beacon that Iran’s increased willingness to strike U.S. forces is based on fears about the Trump administration’s willingness to target Iranian terror operations.

The Obama administration took a mostly hands off approach to Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East due to its efforts to ink the nuclear deal and ensure it sticks.

“The Iran nuclear deal required ignoring the atrocities being committed across the Middle East by Iran and Hezbollah, including the systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Syria,” the source said. “If the Obama administration had ever pushed back, it would have triggered a confrontation with Iran, and the nuclear deal would have collapsed.”

“But the Trump administration is putting a stop to that blackmail and taking a holistic approach to the behavior of Iran and its proxies,” the source explained. “They’re not going to let Iran hold our entire foreign policy hostage to the nuclear deal, no matter what that says about Obama’s legacy.”

Tony Badran, a Syria expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the Pentagon is aware that Iran is orchestrating attacks on behalf of Assad in Syria.

“That the DoD is negating any distinction between Assad regime forces and Iranian militias is both accurate and significant,” Badran said. “It is accurate in that regime forces—themselves an assortment of militias and remnants of the army—are integrated with the IRGC-led militias. And it’s significant insofar as it eliminates the option for the Russians to play up the charade of that distinction.”

Iran’s goal is to expand its operations in Syria and intimidate U.S. forces, Badran said.

“Hezbollah media is accompanying these forces and shooting footage and posting pictures and declarations of intent to connect their forces on both sides of the Syrian and Iraqi borders,” he said. “There is no question who is the lead force here: it’s an Iranian force.”

Terrorism From The Iranian Horn

Terrorists in Tehran


Yes, I know: Tehran is full of terrorists, but mostly they’ve been the regime’s terrorists, and mostly they kill, beat, and torture Iranians who don’t much care for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or President Hasan Rouhani. Wednesday was different. Or maybe not.

ISIS has claimed its killers staged the two attacks in Tehran on symbolically powerful targets: the tomb of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the “parliament” building.

There are many Iranians who don’t believe it was ISIS; they think it was the terrorists they know, the ones who kill innocent Iranians all the time. Iran being what it is—a Mediterranean country where the simple, straightforward story is invariably rejected in favor of a more complicated conspiracy theory—they purport to have “evidence.”

The evidence is all circumstantial, including the claim that ISIS has not attacked Iranian forces in Iraq and Syria, and that no Iranian official was killed or wounded. Only civilians were targeted. So why in Tehran? They say it’s obvious: it’s a hoax, staged by the regime, justifying further repression. Notice that the same sort of claim was made by Turks opposed to Erdogan. They say that the dictator staged the false coup that justified his massive crackdown against his internal opposition.

Whatever the truth may be—and it will be a while before it gets sorted out—the events in Tehran bespeak considerable opposition to the regime. If the terrorists were enemies of Khamenei et al., then the regime is faced with armed opponents. If the regime staged it, well then it shows the regime is sufficiently concerned about the internal opposition to have run a substantial risk: the most important symbols of the regime have been attacked, and Iranian security didn’t stop it and in fact staged it.

Iranian Terrorism Courtesy of Obama

Lieutenant General Thomas Trask, the US Special Operation Forces Vice Commander, said on Tuesday that the large sum of money that Iran obtained as a direct result of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal goes towards its spread of influence across the Middle East.

The deal, struck between Iran and a group of world powers, was supposed to curtail the country’s nuclear program. This has not happened.

Trask said that instead of investing in its conventional forces, Iran is building up its special operators that lead, manage and control proxy forces.

He said: “If anything, increased defense dollars in Iran are likely to go toward increasing that network, looking for ways to expand it. We’ve already seen evidence of them taking units and officers out of the conventional side that are working with the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) in Syria. We’re going to stay focused on these proxies and the reach that Iran has well past Syria and Yemen but into Africa, into South America, into Europe as well.”

Many people were concerned about the Iran nuclear deal before it was signed, expressing fears that Iran would take the money that would be freed up and use it on spreading terrorism across the region. It turns out that these fears were founded as this is exactly what is happening.

The deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), gave Iran access to between $50 billion and $150 billion of assets that were previously frozen.

This was a real chance for Iran to improve its economy and the social conditions that had deteriorated to terribly low levels.

However, the regime put the money towards propping up Bashar al Assad in Syria and funding militias. Iran has sent around 10,000 Shia militia fighters from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to battle in Syria on its behalf. Many experts warn that Iran’s commitment to keeping Assad in power in Syria should not be underestimated. It appears that Iran will be there for as long as it takes and will put as many resources as possible into it.

It is also improving its ballistic missile program according to intelligence reports.

James Mattis, the US Defense Secretary, said during a visit to Saudi Arabia that Iran is involved, in one way or another, in all the conflicts in the Middle East. He said: “We’ll have to overcome Iran’s efforts to destabilize yet another country and create another militia in their image of Lebanese Hezbollah.”

The German Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Europe May Need Its Own Nuclear Deterrence Plan If Donald Trump Has His Way

BERLIN ― Europe needs to think about developing its own nuclear deterrent strategy given concerns that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump could scale back U.S. military commitments in Europe, a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives said.

Roderich Kiesewetter, foreign policy spokesman for the conservative bloc in parliament, told Reuters that Germany could play an important role in convincing nuclear powers France and Britain to provide security guarantees for all of Europe.

“The U.S. nuclear shield and nuclear security guarantees are imperative for Europe,” he said in an interview. “If the United States no longer wants to provide this guarantee, Europe still needs nuclear protection for deterrent purposes.”

Kiesewetter’s comments reflect grave and growing concerns across Europe about what Trump’s election will mean for the United States’ commitment to NATO and to providing a strategic nuclear deterrent against a potential attack by Russia.

In his campaign speeches, Trump repeatedly called for Europe to do more for its own defence and said Washington might not defend a NATO member that had not shouldered its fair financial share of the costs of the alliance.

He also praised Russian President Vladimir Putin despite his annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014 and his intervention in Syria, where Russian air strikes have killed many civilians as well as insurgents.

Kiesewetter said he was not reassured by President Barack Obama’s comments on Monday that Trump would maintain core strategic relationships, including with NATO.

“That’s all fine and good, but we have to measure Trump by his actions,” Kiesewetter said. “Europe must start planning for its own security in case the Americans sharply raise the cost of defending the continent, or if they decide to leave completely.”


Kiesewetter said a Franco-British nuclear umbrella for Europe would be costly, but could be financed through a joint European military budget that is due to begin in 2019, along with joint European medical, transportation and reconnaissance commands.

He said he had proposed development of a European nuclear deterrent within security circles before the U.S. election, with little result, but believed the suggestion would be taken more seriously after Trump’s win.

Kiesewetter said Germany should not aim to become a nuclear power itself, so as to discourage any proliferation moves by other European countries.

“We have to plan ahead and cannot let ourselves be surprised,” he said.

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen and other senior government officials have said it is clear that Trump’s victory means Germany and Europe will have to take on more responsibility for their own defence.

Rainer Arnold, defence spokesman for the Social Democrats in parliament, dismissed Kiesewetter’s suggestion as “off base,” saying Trump’s own U.S. Republican Party would never accept a weakening of NATO and would be sceptical about any plans to boost European nuclear capabilities.

South Korea One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Donald Trump pledges support for U.S., South Korea alliance

By Elizabeth Shim Contact the Author
Nov. 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM

SEOUL, Nov. 10 (UPI) — President-elect Donald Trump told South Korea’s Park Geun-hye on Thursday that under his administration the United States would be with Seoul “100 percent” in tackling North Korea’s nuclear provocations.

The 10-minute phone call between Trump and Park occurred a day after the Republican nominee’s victory made headlines and took the world by surprise.

Markets in Asia, including South Korea, reacted negatively to the news on Wednesday, but bounced back on Thursday, the BBC reported.

The conversations between Trump and Park focused on themes that emphasized continuity of current U.S. North Korea policy: strengthening the U.S.-South Korea alliance and close cooperation in response to North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats, Yonhap reported.

According to the presidential Blue House, Park said the “strong U.S.-South Korea alliance is the cornerstone of robust U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific region,” adding the alliance should be developed in the mutual interest of both countries.

Trump had previously criticized South Korea, as well as Japan, for their dependence on U.S. forces for defense against North Korea’s military threats.

Trump had said both countries “don’t pay us,” although burden sharing has prevailed in Seoul and Tokyo.

The president-elect appeared to take a different approach to relations with Seoul, and said to Park, “We are with you all the way and we will not waver,” according to Yonhap.

Trump also said that he fully agreed with the president, adding he thinks North Korea is very unstable, according to the Blue House.

Nuclear Modernisation of Babylon the Great

Modernization of Aging US Nuclear Arsenal Crucial for Deterrence

The United States’ replacement and upgrade of aging nuclear weapons reflect a need to maintain the nation’s deterrence posture, but the modernization push does not signal a renewed arms race, former deputy assistant defense secretary for nuclear and missile policy Brad Roberts told Sputnik.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Roberts served as US deputy assistant defense secretary for nuclear and missile defense policy from April 2009 to March 2013. In that role, he also served as policy director of the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review.

“Modernizing these systems is a challenge that the country did not face from the end of the Cold War until quite recently — meaning, when the Cold War ended, we had just been through the Reagan defense buildup,” Roberts said on Tuesday.

“There were new nuclear submarines, new nuclear bombers, new ICBMs, new warheads and bombs, a new command-and-control system, and for essentially 30 years we have lived on the coattails of those investments and now the bill has come due.”

“It is not as if the modernization plan is aimed at putting new technical capabilities in the ground that are significant improvements of what is already there, as it is simply a replacement program to ensure that we do not unilaterally disarm as the systems age.”

Another imperative for upgrading systems is the ongoing buildup and enhancement of nuclear-armed countries’ arsenals, Roberts asserted.

“Russia and China and North Korea are building up and so is Pakistan,” according to Roberts. “And of course we can agree that the world would be a better place if Russia and China and India and Pakistan, and other states abandoned any interest in nuclear weapons.”

What would a world without nuclear weapons look like?

“Now there is an interesting question,” Roberts said. “Would this be a world in which conventional war would become the norm among major powers?”

He added: “We do not know the answer to that question, but it is certainly historically the case that the advent of the nuclear bomb punctuated the end of centuries of large-scale war among major powers. Now it may be that the pattern of war broke for other reasons, but you cannot prove that hypothesis.”

In contrast to the Cold War, nuclear arms play a relatively small but necessary role in the United States’ current defense strategy.

“Nuclear weapons do not play the kind of global roles they played during the Cold War in supporting our military strategy and posture, and they do not play a role in our global power projection,” Roberts averred. “But they do play a unique role on preventing nuclear armed states from directly attacking interests of the United States and its allies.”

Obama Pays Off Iran (Ezekiel 17)

140731_600Fact-Check: Yes, the Nuclear Deal Hands ‘$150 Billion’ Over to Iran

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused “extremist lobbies” in the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia of stirring up animosity towards Iran to prevent it from reaping the benefits of a landmark nuclear deal

During the opening statements on Sunday night’s presidential debate, Republican nominee Donald Trump described the Iran nuclear deal as a “one-sided transaction” that would result in $150 billion returning to the coffers of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


“When I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us, it’s a one-sided transaction where we’re giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state – really, the number one terrorist state,” Trump told the audience, responding to a question from the audience. “We’ve made them a strong country from, really, a very weak country just three years ago.”

Trump has made this claim regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), as the Iran nuclear deal is officially known, and received some criticism for it. Fact-checking websites such as Politifact have argued that Trump’s claim is false because “the money is already Iran’s to begin with,” but not denied that this amount of money would return to the control of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei thanks to the deal. The New York Times has argued that the $150 billion estimate is a fabrication by “congressional Republicans” far from the real amount of money Iran would once again control.

As Algemeiner, citing Omri Ceren of the Israel Project, notes, the twelve-figure estimate of the money the deal would return to Iranian control came from President Barack Obama, not Republicans. President Obama said in an interview that Iran “has $150 billion parked outside the country,” arguing that not all of its funds under sanctions will be unfrozen immediately because “unwinding the existing restraints… takes a certain amount of time.”

This money does not include a separate $1.7 billion payment to the government of Iran, allegedly to atone for an arms sales agreement that never went through after the 1979 Islamic revolution. The U.S. government handed over that money the same day that Iran released several American citizens imprisoned on dubious charges.

Both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who played a major role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal, have admitted that the Iranian regime will likely use the money to fund terrorism, particularly activity by the Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah.



October 6, 2016 Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Senator Obama opposed naming Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terror group even while it was closely involved in organizing attacks against American soldiers in Iraq. Then, as part of his dirty deal with Iran, he secretly sent a fortune in foreign cash on airplanes linked to the IRGC.

And, as another part of the secret ransom deal with Iran, he lifted UN sanctions on Bank Sepah.

The United States has gone after plenty of banks for aiding terror finance, but Bank Sepah is somewhat unique in that it is a financial institution actually owned and operated by Islamic terrorists.

Bank Sepah is an IRGC bank. The IRGC, despite Obama’s denials, is an Islamic terror group with American blood on its hands. It is to Shiite Islam what ISIS is to Sunni Islam. And even the Democrats know it.

After the Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 Americans, President Clinton sent a message to the leader of Iran warning that the United States had evidence of IRGC involvement in the attack.

More recently, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the IRGC have been “labeled as terrorists” when discussing how the Shiite terror organization will benefit from Obama’s sanctions relief.

Bank Sepah however had been sanctioned for something bigger than terrorism. The scale of bombings it was involved in could make the Khobar Towers attack seem minor. Sepah had been sanctioned for being “involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities.”

Among other activities, it had helped Iran buy ballistic missile technology from North Korea.

Iran’s nuclear weapons program would only be halfway complete if it gets the bomb. It also needs missiles to be able to strike Israel, Europe and eventually America. That’s where North Korea and Bank Sepah come in. Bank Sepah helps keep Iran’s ballistic missile industry viable. By delisting it, Obama aided Iran’s ballistic missile program just as he had earlier aided its nuclear program.

Obama’s holistic approach to the Iranian bomb is to help the terror state assemble the physical components it needs to become a nuclear power. And the truth is hidden within the secret deals.

There are secret deals that Obama made with Iran that we already know about. There are secret deals that we suspect exist. And there are secret deals whose existence we are not even aware of.

Obama rang in Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, by assuring the Rabbis on a conference call that they didn’t need to worry about Iran nuking anyone because “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is now closed off.”

That’s funny because last year he was still claiming that under his deal in 13 years Iran’s breakout time will, “have shrunk almost down to zero.” If every pathway to a nuclear weapon is closed, how could Iran possibly have zero breakout time to make the occasion of the bar mitzvah of his dirty nuclear deal?

And which Obama do you believe? Try neither.

The secret document revealed earlier this year by the AP showed that Iran would be able to get its uranium enrichment in gear after 11 years and more than double its enrichment rate. What happens by the thirteenth year? Then Iran gets a blank check on centrifuges. That’s what Obama really meant.

Then breakout time to the bomb drops from a year to six months. Or even less. Until it hits zero.

But Ernest Moniz, Obama’s sniveling Secretary of Energy, assured the AP that it wouldn’t be a problem because Iran would only be allowed to store 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.

He lied.

Even as Obama was assuring the Rabbis of how thoroughly Iran was complying with his deal, new revelations were emerging of how he had helped Iran fake its compliance with the deal.

That’s the sort of thing you go to hell for. But it’s a little too late for Obama to worry about that.

The issue was simple. Obama wanted to lift sanctions on Iran. But Iran was not in compliance with even his mostly worthless agreement. So Obama decided that it was time to help the terror state fake it.

Iran was only allowed to keep 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. Obama agreed to upgrade that amount to “unknown quantities”. How much is an “unknown quantity”? Like the rest of Iran’s nuclear program, we don’t know. Low-enriched uranium, even in unknown quantities, doesn’t sound that scary. Except that according to a former U.N. weapons inspector, it can be used to produce highly enriched uranium. And that’s how you go from zero to a mushroom cloud over your city.

And then there are the large hot cells that Iran was allowed to keep running.

Secretary of Energy Moniz didn’t just lie to the AP. Lying to the media is practically an Obama indoor sport. He told the same lie in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Senators were assured that Iran would be allowed to keep “only 300 kilograms of low (3.67 percent) enriched uranium hexafluoride, and will not exceed this level for fifteen years.” Iran didn’t have to wait 15 years to exceed that amount. Or even 15 minutes. Obama gave them a pass on it right out of the gate.

But Moniz wasn’t a rogue liar. He was telling the lie that he had been told to tell.

At the Rosh Hashana conference call with the Rabbis, Obama repeated the false claim that Iran had “shipped out 98 percent of its enriched uranium”. He told the lie even though the truth had already come out at the beginning of September. The 98 percent or 300 kilogram limit had been bypassed by him.

No one challenged him or called him out on his lie. And that is the problem.

Obama has lied about the Iran deal from the very beginning. And that’s not about to change.

The fairy godmother of Iran’s enrichment was Hillary Clinton. The “breakthrough” in the negotiations took place when she accepted some Iranian nuclear enrichment. And then it was just a matter of determining how much enrichment would take place officially and how much would take place unofficially that would be officially ignored or covered up by our own government.

That is how we got to the ticking atomic time bomb.

Obama hasn’t just turned a blind eye to Iran’s race to the bomb. He has empowered and enabled all elements of it from its nuclear program to its ballistic missile program. He has ensured that Iran would have the money, the manpower and the resources to become a nuclear power. He directed elements of our intelligence services and military to prevent Israel from striking Iran’s nuclear program. He even aided its core terrorist organization and its ballistic missile program.

This isn’t an error. It’s not cowardice. It’s treason.

A coldly calculated plan to turn Iran into a nuclear power is coming together. On the other end of it lies the horrifying death of millions.

Why would Obama and Hillary do such a horrifying thing? The American scientists and spies who helped the Soviet Union get the bomb believed that they were making the world a better place by limiting our ability to use nuclear weapons. Their treason almost led to the end of human life on earth.

The Iran deal is the second great wave of nuclear treason of the left. And the full truth is yet to be told.

US Plans Nuclear Offensive Against Russia And Korea

A B-52H Stratofortress taxis down the runway during Prairie Vigilance 16-1 at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., on September 16. As one leg of U.S. Strategic Command’s nuclear triad, Air Force Global Strike Command’s B-52s at Minot AFB, play an integral role in nation’s strategic deterrence. Photo by Airman 1st Class J.T. Armstrong/U.S. Air Force

According to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who was meeting with airmen at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., on Monday, the plan would deter against Russia’s “nuclear saber-rattling and building of new nuclear weapons systems,” in addition to North Korea’s nuclear provocations, The Los Angeles Times reported.

“In today’s security environment – one that’s dramatically different from the last generation, and certainly the generation before that – we face a nuclear landscape that continues to pose challenges, and that continues to evolve…in some ways less predictably than during the Cold War,” Carter said.

The defense secretary also said that the Pentagon is “beginning the process of correcting decades of underinvestment in nuclear deterrence,” referring to problems that have beset the country’s nuclear force.

Minot in particular was singled out as a “special case” for attention after widespread drug abuse and test cheating led to the firing of dozens of launch officers.

Minot retains B-52 bombers and nuclear-tipped Minuteman III missiles.

During his visit, Carter said the purpose of nuclear preparedness was to stand ready to deter the enemy who intends to use nuclear weapons against the United States and its allies, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported.

North Korea has become increasingly belligerent in the past few months, conducting two nuclear tests in 2016 and dozens of missile test launches.

The provocations have increased concerns internationally, but North Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho defended the tests and also said Pyongyang has no plans to be compliant with United Nations Security Council sanctions resolutions, Japanese news network NHK reported on Tuesday.

Ri allegedly said he “does not even care” after the U.N. Security Council requested North Korea, as well as the United States, to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was formed 20 years ago.

The Real Cost of the Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

An Iranian demonstrator holds an anti-U.S. placard during a rally in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran, on Nov. 4, 2015. Vahid Salemi/AP

By BRADLEY KLAPPER | Associated Press | Published: September 14, 2016

The issue: Last year’s nuclear deal has removed for now the threat of a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation. But the deal rests on shaky ground.

The accord curtailed Iran’s nuclear program, pulling it back from atomic weapons capability in exchange for the end of various oil, trade and financial sanctions by the U.S. and six other world powers. The sides fulfilled their pledges in January.

Relations between the U.S. and Iran have warmed since the agreement, to the dismay of U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The once hostile foes are cooperating to end Syria’s civil war. Each military is staying out of the other’s way as they battle the Islamic State group in Iraq. Nuclear consultations occur daily.

But the next president could have his or her hands’ full. The Iranians are threatening to renege unless they receive greater economic benefits. In Congress, many Republicans and even some Democrats still want the deal’s collapse.

Even if the accord survives, its nuclear restrictions start ending in about seven years — meaning the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran could re-emerge.

Where they stand

It’s basically a question of continuity versus change.

Hillary Clinton helped lay the groundwork for the nuclear deal. As secretary of state, she tasked two of her most senior aides to meet secretly with Iranian officials. Those talks set the framework for the larger negotiations.

When the nuclear accord went into effect earlier this year, Clinton hailed it as “an important achievement of diplomacy backed by pressure.”

Still, the Democratic presidential candidate has staked out a tougher tone than President Barack Obama. In a speech last year, she spoke of confronting Iran “across the board” from its military activity in Syria to destabilization of the Middle East.

Republican Donald Trump has called the Iran deal “stupid,” a “lopsided disgrace” and worse. He says that unlike Obama’s diplomats, he would have been prepared to walk away from negotiations. But Trump doesn’t want to tear up the accord.

Instead, he speaks of tougher enforcement and possible renegotiation. Trump has railed against several of the deal’s particulars, such as the timespan of restrictions on Iran’s enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activity. He says Iran got too much relief from economic sanctions. It’s unclear, though, how he might persuade Iran to accept less favorable terms in a done deal.

Why it matters

Until nuclear diplomacy gained speed in 2013, a U.S.-Iran war was a distinct possibility. Both Clinton and Trump say they would use force if necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring the bomb. If the deal unravels and Iran increases its enrichment of uranium toward weapons capability, a U.S. military intervention would be back in play.

Any conflict risks broad consequences. Iran can retaliate by disrupting global fuel supplies from the Persian Gulf, through which a fifth of the world’s oil flows. It can unleash its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on U.S. ally Israel. Tehran can block attempts to end Syria’s war or it can play a bigger spoiler role in Yemen, where it has backed rebels who’ve seized much of the country.

If Iran sticks to the agreement, the next president may still face big decisions.

By 2024, Iran can resume manufacturing and testing of advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium. A year later, it can start enriching more uranium. By the end of the decade, it can enrich closer to weapons-grade levels. Stockpile limits come off. Enhanced U.N. inspections start ending.

All these changes will pose a familiar question for the United States: How to ensure Iran can’t build a bomb? U.S. officials have vaguely spoken of a possible follow-up negotiation. But by then, many U.S. sanctions on Iran will have been stricken from the books and they could have far less leverage.