Iranian Underground Nuclear Test Allegedly Caused Earthquake of 4.6 on the Richter Scale

7th century savages playing with twentieth century weapons of mass destruction. They must be stopped. Immediately.

— NEW: An earthquake of 4.6 on the Richter Scale 44km southwest of Semnan, Iran, in the Kavir desert
Mostly, a nuke got tested pic.twitter.com/hg7285ZBKf

— mehrez (@mehrez756880761) October 5, 2024

BREAKINGS

Iran conducted a nuclear test moments ago, resulting in an earthquake measuring 4.6 ٪ on the reactor scale

MEANWHILE
Netanyahu shivering down the spine and thinking about how would he save his butt

#Beirut #GazaGenocide #Iran #Israel #Macron pic.twitter.com/N3X3xxizLi

— ف (@drnys_) October 6, 2024

BREAKING

Iran earthquake overnight speculated to be caused by a nuclear test.

The Kavir desert rarely has earthquakes. pic.twitter.com/V8P795uOsv

— @ChinarvSublett (@BobbySeeta) October 6, 2024

The earthquake in Iran, which some claim was a nuclear test.

It occurred at the deeper end of 40-80km. The deepest borehole ever dug was like 10km, it took decades to dig. https://t.co/hbe5L8RykN

— Akıncı (@YavuzSelim23_1) October 5, 2024

According to foreign reports, there are indications that last night Iran carried out an underground nuclear test that caused an earthquake in certain areas of Iran.
From  AI

The topic you’re referring to involves the Uranium One deal, which has been at the center of numerous discussions and controversies, especially concerning the percentage of U.S. uranium output that was potentially under influence or control related to this transaction. Here’s a balanced look based on the information available up to October 2024:

– **Uranium One Deal**: This deal involved the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with mining operations in the U.S., to Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned atomic energy corporation. The transaction required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State at the time, served as one member among several other high-ranking government officials.

– **Percentage of U.S. Uranium**: The often cited figure related to this deal is that it gave Russia control over 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity. However, this figure needs clarification:

– **Production vs. Reserves**: Initially, discussions around the deal mentioned this 20% figure in terms of “uranium reserves.” However, later clarifications, including from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, suggested this might be closer to 10% of U.S. uranium production capacity.

– **Control vs. Ownership**: It’s crucial to note that while Uranium One’s assets were sold to Rosatom, the actual control over uranium in the U.S. remains under stringent U.S. regulations. The deal did not allow for the physical export of uranium without U.S. approval, and the uranium mined remained subject to U.S. laws and strategic interests.

– **Controversy and Investigations**: The deal has been scrutinized for potential conflicts of interest due to donations to the Clinton Foundation from individuals linked to Uranium One around the time of the deal. However, investigations and analyses, including from FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, have not conclusively proven a direct quid pro quo involving Hillary Clinton or the sale directly leading to changes in U.S. uranium policy or security.

– **Public and Political Perception**: Despite the lack of direct evidence of wrongdoing, the deal has remained controversial, with critics arguing it symbolizes broader issues of foreign influence in American politics or lax oversight over strategic assets. Conversely, supporters or defenders of the deal point out that it was one of many deals reviewed by CFIUS under multiple administrations, and uranium sales or leases to foreign entities are not uncommon, being tightly regulated.

– **Impact on U.S. Uranium Industry**: The broader impact of such deals, including the Megatons to Megawatts Program, has led to discussions on U.S. dependency on foreign uranium, including from Russia, for its nuclear power plants, highlighting a strategic vulnerability in energy security.

In summary, while the deal did involve a significant portion of U.S. uranium production capacity, the exact influence or control over actual uranium output or strategic reserves needs to be understood within the framework of U.S. regulations and not as a straightforward sale of physical assets or control over uranium usage without oversight. The controversy largely stems from political interpretations and the optics of the situation rather than confirmed illegal activities or direct policy changes resulting from the transaction.