Example collocations logo

Installations in sentence

130 examples of Installations in a sentence

As with the reef installations, the wise course is to minimize provocation.
This would all but guarantee that Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear installations – with America’s blessing, if not complicity.
Suicide bombings of public buildings and attacks on oil and other government installations have alienated many Saudis.
No one can predict or assume what a limited attack on Iran’s nuclear installations would accomplish, cost, or lead to.
In Syria last April, US forces attacked government installations with a one-time bombing raid that, with no political or diplomatic follow-through, achieved nothing.
The third issue concerns supervision and monitoring, which for quite some time would probably have to go beyond that agreed in the Additional Protocol to the NPT and include certain military installations.
One is Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision, announced in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month, to suspend his threat to launch unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear installations.
While even a major air attack would fall short of destroying all of Iran’s nuclear installations and, moreover, leave the technical know-how intact, it might at least slow down the program for a while and serve as a warning to other potential proliferators.
If it launched military strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations, Hezbollah would likely join the fray and Israel would have to engage Hezbollah at the same time.
The risk that Israel’s threat to attack Iran’s nuclear installations will, in fact, lead to an outright military conflict may still be low, but it is growing.
Third, China would need to limit severely its actions relating to reefs and shoals, never previously habitable, where it has been reclaiming land and building airstrips and other installations capable of military use, and seeking to deny others’ the use of adjacent waters and airspace.
But it does not tolerate any military use, or support more than a 500-meter “safety zone” around such installations – not a territorial sea, EEZ, “air defense identification zone,” or anything else.
President Shimon Peres, who, unlike Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, is skeptical of the utility of an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, spoke of the “threat of extermination” facing Israel.
Netanyahu’s Holocaust analogy would have been a mere intellectual curiosity if he were not the person who would be responsible for taking the decision about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear installations and thus drive the Middle East into an apocalyptic confrontation.
The debate about whether the US should allow Russia to have “special interests” in Eastern Europe – renewed by Russia’s opposition to America’s proposed missile-defense installations in the Czech Republic and Poland – is pointless.
The weakening of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis would directly benefit Israel, which has stepped up its not-so-veiled threats to launch a unilateral military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.
Under UNCLOS, states may construct artificial islands and installations within their own EEZs, and also on the high seas (but only for peaceful purposes).
As renewable-energy installations typically require high initial capital investment, low interest rates are crucial.
Iran would likely respond by attacking vulnerable Saudi installations.
Moreover, by subjecting India’s civilian nuclear installations to international inspections, it achieves an important US foreign policy objective by bringing India into the worldwide non-proliferation fold.
Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, for example, have reduced their rates for solar photovoltaic feed-in tariffs, while the expiration of the United States’ federal production tax credit for renewable energy has undermined investment in wind installations there.
Given the historic targeting of atomic installations, planners should consider whether providing adversaries with radiological targets far larger than Dimona makes sense.
This would also be the case if Israel unleashed its Air Force against Iran’s nuclear installations.
This would seem to be particularly true when it comes to an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
Conspicuously, it is no longer the British, but France’s government under President Nicolas Sarkozy, that is carrying the torch of a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
Given this, they are single-mindedly defending this principle in Syria, and will likely do the same in Iran, should Israel or the US attack its nuclear installations.
As it stands, green entrepreneurs have to choose a single technology in which to invest; if they do not win enough installations using that technology, they are out of the game.
Moreover, they will pave the way for increased investment in renewable-power installations, placing their countries on a new competitive footing in the regional market.
More recently, military installations in the Persian Gulf protected the oil supplies of the Cold War alliance and deterred both Ba’athist Iraq and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Iran from grabbing the prized oil wells or choking off export routes.
The Saudis made it clear in 2003 that they could no longer host US military installations.
Back