The Difference Between Iran And North Korea

Call it “A Tale of Two Dictatorships.” There are two rogue nuclear states in the world (now that Saddam Hussein is gone) and the approach that President Trump (and past American presidents) differs starkly between the two. That difference was on display in recent weeks as the president attacked Iran, both literally and figuratively, while proposing new talks with North Korea.

Two weeks after a drone strike on Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani brought the two nations to the brink of war, Axios is reporting that President Trump has proposed new talks with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un. The story cites national security advisor Robert O'Brien, who is quoted as saying, “We've reached out to the North Koreans and let them know that we would like to continue the negotiations in Stockholm that were last undertaken in early October.”

President Trump has met with Kim twice at this point, first in June 2018 and again in June 2019. Despite assurances, North Korea has continued testing missiles. Talks broke down last October when North Korea issued a statement accusing the US of a “hostile policy towards the DPRK.”

Throughout the process, President Trump has maintained a friendly attitude towards Chairman Kim. The president covered for the diminutive dictator’s missile launches, denying that the test launches violated their agreement and showing “no interest” in North Korea’s missile program according to aides. The president even sent birthday greetings to Kim earlier this week.

Contrast President Trump’s behavior towards North Korea with his approach to Iran. After the Soleimani strike and Iran’s retaliatory missile attack, the president said in his address to the nation, “As long as I’m president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”

While both Iran and North Korea are state sponsors of terrorism and international pariahs, the big difference between the two is that North Korea already has a nuclear weapon while Iran does not. Therefore, North Korea is feted while Iran is threatened.

This calculus was undoubtedly under consideration when Iran’s leaders announced the withdrawal from President Obama’s nuclear deal following Soleimani’s death. It is probably clear to Iran’s leaders that they would not be subject to drone strikes if they had their own nuclear weapon.

While Obama’s nuclear deal was a bad idea that, at best, delayed the Iranian nuclear program and always included the possibility of cheating, the IAEA said as recently as May 2019, almost a year after President Trump canceled the deal, that Iran was still in compliance with the terms of the deal. Afterward, Iran began taking progressive steps to breach the deal in hopes of convincing the US to return to the table. Now, Iran has totally canceled compliance which speeds up the timetable for a confrontation over the nuclear ambitions of the mullahs.

Questions in the aftermath of the Soleimani attack have also undercut President Trump’s credibility. The Trump Administration claimed that there was information that the Iranian general was plotting imminent attacks against what President Trump claimed were four US embassies.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper threw the president under the bus yesterday, telling interviewers, “I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies.″

There are no easy answers to the problems of North Korea and Iran. President Trump’s charm offensive against Kim Jong Un seems to be stymied and the Soleimani attack makes quashing Iran’s nuclear efforts more difficult. Without the deal, there is less time to find a solution and the president’s propensity to bend the truth makes putting together a coalition more difficult.

In the end, neither North Korea nor Iran is ever going to voluntarily end their nuclear programs. They realize that nuclear deterrence may be the only thing that prevents a US-led “regime change” effort or more targeted drone strikes. The two countries will always be willing to talk but the talks will never lead anywhere.

North Korea’s nuclear genie is out of the bottle and won’t be going away short of a long, bloody war. Iran can be stopped but doing so may similarly lead to a prolonged conflict. The irony is that stopping either the North Korean or Iranian nuclear programs may spur other countries to decide that they too need a nuclear deterrent.

After the 1991 Gulf War, India’s chief of army staff said that a lesson of the conflict was “Don’t fight the Americans without nuclear weapons.” Iran and North Korea have both learned that lesson well.

Originally published on The Resurgent

North Korea Says No Thanks To Denuclearization

A week of policy failures and missteps for President Trump just got worse as North Korea announced that it would never denuclearize unless the US first removes its nuclear threat. After Trump met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in June, the president claimed that North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat and even suggested that he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on nuclear disarmament.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1006839007492308992

Now, six months later, North Korea’s official Korean Central News statement says that the rogue nation will never unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons. Instead, the North Koreans place conditions on disarmament that include a complete or partial withdrawal of American soldiers and nuclear weapons from near the Korean peninsula. This has been the traditional North Korean position in negotiations with past administrations as well.

“The United States must now recognize the accurate meaning of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and especially, must study geography,” the North Korean statement said per the AP.

“When we talk about the Korean Peninsula, it includes the territory of our republic and also the entire region of (South Korea) where the United States has placed its invasive force, including nuclear weapons. When we talk about the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, it means the removal of all sources of nuclear threat, not only from the South and North but also from areas neighboring the Korean Peninsula,” the statement continued.

Meanwhile, as talks deteriorated between the US and North Korea, the Trump Administration raised the possibility of humanitarian relief from sanctions in exchange for nuclear concessions. In the past, the West has given sanctions relief to the North Korean regime in deals on which the hermit kingdom failed to follow through.

Last spring and summer, there were reports that the North was dismantling some nuclear test facilities. Other reports in recent months have indicated that the Koreans were continuing to work on nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles at secret sites.

“If we unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons without any security assurance despite being first on the U.S. list of targets for pre-emptive nuclear strikes, that wouldn’t be denuclearization — it would rather be a creation of a defenseless state where the balance in nuclear strategic strength is destroyed and the crisis of a nuclear war is brought forth,” the North Korean statement said.

What many experts predicted now seems obvious: The North Koreans will never willingly surrender their nuclear capability which is the one weapon that ensures the survival of the Kim regime. The talks with the Trump Administration seem to have been nothing more than a play for time and a ploy to negotiate for the removal of sanctions.

Expectations of a Nobel Prize for President Trump appear to have been very premature. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why North Korea Won't Disarm

It appears that the on-again/off-again summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un will actually happen. As the world watches, hopes are high for peace on the Korean Peninsula, but it is unlikely that the North Koreans will disarm. Here’s why.

North Korea has a long history of scamming American presidents. Since the North Korean nuclear age began, the country has had several rounds of peace talks – and made several deals – with several presidents. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a deal in which the US and its allies provided the North with $4 billion in energy aid, including two nuclear reactors that could not manufacture weapons-grade material. In exchange, North Korea was supposed to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Instead, North Korea announced in 2002 that it had nuclear weapons. President Bush, who had called North Korea a part of the “Axis of Evil,” removed North Korea from the state terror list in order to advance the Six Party Talks, which also included South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. The group came to an agreement in which Pyongyang agreed to give up its nuclear program in exchange for food and energy aid.

Instead, the North Koreans announced in 1996 that they had exploded a nuclear weapon. The Obama Administration applied sanctions in coordination with the UN Security Council. In 2012, Kim Jong Un agreed to halt nuclear tests in exchange for more aid, but the North continued to test both nuclear weapons and missiles.

For more than 20 years, North Korea’s modus operandi has been to rattle its saber and extort aid from the West and East Asian democracies. Over the past two years, they tried the same thing with Donald Trump. To his credit, President Trump did not fall for this tired North Korean gambit.

When President Trump responded to North Korea’s saber rattling with saber rattling of his own, Kim Jong Un proved that he is a rational actor rather than a crazy person. Instead of continuing to escalate the situation, Kim backed off.

This doesn’t mean that Kim Jong Un is willing to bargain away North Korea’s nuclear weapons. It just means that he has shifted tactics. He is no longer playing the unhinged warmonger. Instead Kim is now using flattery and, if Donald Trump’s past behavior is any indication, flattery will get you everywhere. In the past, Trump has shown that he is eager to hit back when attacked, but he is equally eager to return flattery when complimented.

President Trump may also have benefitted from a good timing. The Wall Street Journal reported in April, about the same time that Kim Jong Un’s détente began, that the North Korean nuclear testing site was unusable. The underground testing site collapsed after the last nuclear test there in September 2017, a large explosion that is suspected to have been a hydrogen bomb. It was after this test that Kim announced a halt to nuclear tests. On May 24, the North Koreans destroyed the tunnels to the already-useless nuclear test site, possibly to prevent the release of radioactive material as well as for public relations purposes.

So far, Kim Jong Un has made three concessions. The first was to stop nuclear testing, which Kim said was now unnecessary because the North’s nuclear capability had been “verified.” At the same time, the North suspended long-range missile tests. North Korea would have probably had to suspend testing anyway until a new facility could be constructed. The third concession was the release of three Americans held prisoner in North Korea. It is worth noting that similar promises have been made to previous presidents.

In contrast, Kim Jong Un has already extracted several concessions from President Trump. The first is Trump’s agreement to bilateral talks. In the past, it has been American policy to conduct Six Party talks with all the regional powers rather than bowing to North Korean demands for direct talks. President Trump also agreed to the North Korean summit." without preconditions, something that past Republicans such as John McCain and Mitt Romney sharply criticized President Obama for considering.

President Trump also canceled a B-52 Stratofortress training mission over South Korea  in May after North Korea threatened to withdraw from the summit. Trump previously agreed to postpone another exercise last January in order to “de-conflict the Olympics.”

In the final analysis, Kim Jong Un is willing to meet with President Trump because it offers him prestige and the opportunity to wheedle more concessions out of the US. What Kim won’t do is put North Korean nuclear weapons on the table.

The North Korean regime has one overriding goal and that is survival. The Kim family has survived 70 years of antagonism with the US for two reasons. First, they have the protection of China and, second, the have nuclear weapons. The North Koreans will maintain their nuclear arsenal as a hedge against the possibility that China will sell them out.

The North Koreans have watched several dictators topple over the past 50 years. The Taliban fell in 2002. Saddam Hussein in 2003. Before that there was Manuel Noriega. Kim probably learned a compelling lesson from the case of Muammar Gaddafi, who voluntarily gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003 and then was killed with his sons less than 10 years later at the hands of rebels backed by European armies. Kim presumably wants to avoid this fate and knows that his nuclear weapons are the biggest obstacle to regime change on the Korean Peninsula.

“What Kim is unclear about is that he has concerns about whether his country can surely trust the United States over its promise to end hostile relations (with North Korea) and provide a security guarantee if they do denuclearization,” South Korean President Moon told ABC News.

Kim has obviously watched President Trump’s numerous flip-flops over the past few years as well as the unfolding rejection of President Obama’s Iran deal. Going back further, President Obama did not honor the security agreement with Ukraine during Vladimir Putin’s invasion. The North Koreans certainly understand that a deal made with one US president may not be honored by the next. Given the national paranoia and the long history of hostility between the two countries, the chances are extremely remote that Kim Jong Un would agree to nuclear disarmament, which would put his regime at the mercy of presidential whims.  

It hasn’t helped that the Trump Administration has openly likened North Korea to Libya. Vice President Mike Pence said, “This will only end like the Libyan model ended if Kim Jong Un doesn't make a deal,” a statement which Kim would obviously interpret as a threat.

Kim Jong Un is caught between a rock and a hard place. He cannot disarm and his threats no longer work. Without nuclear weapons, he cannot keep the world at bay and continue to prop up his regime. Without aid from other countries, his grasp on the country could also become weaker as he struggles to feed North Korea’s population.

With two untenable options, Kim’s plan is to change strategy and use flattery to extract promises of aid from President Trump. It may take years, but, after the summit is over, look for North Korea to restart its nuclear program and missile testing once the heat dies down.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Russia Challenges Trump with Missile Deployment That Violates Treaty

Sources in the Trump Administration say that Russia has deployed a new cruise missile system that violates the terms of a decades-old arms treaty. The SSC-8 cruise missile falls under a category of weapons banned by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty signed by the Reagan Administration in 1987.

The New York Times reports that two battalions of SSC-8 missiles have already been deployed in violation of the INF treaty, which banned the deployment of land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. One battalion was reportedly still located at the missile test site near Volgograd in southern Russia while the second had moved to an operational base. The Times’ source in the Trump Administration did not provide the location of the second battalion. One battalion of the missiles reportedly includes four mobile missile launchers with about six missiles each.

The estimated range of the SSC-8 is between 300 and 3,400 miles according to GlobalSecurity.org. This is the class of missile that was banned by the INF treaty. The group points out that the weapon system may be intended to generate parity with the China, which was not a party to the INF treaty, and which also falls within the SSC-8 range. Nevertheless, deployment of the missile in Europe would also threaten NATO countries.

First reports of the new missile date back to 2007 according to Popular Mechanics. In 2014, the US government gathered enough evidence to accuse Russia of violating the INF treaty by testing the SSC-8. The Obama Administration attempted to pressure the Russians into stopping development of the missile to no avail.

“Nobody has formally accused Russia of violating the treaty,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the BBC. “Russia has been and remains committed to its international commitments, including to the treaty in question.”

The Trump Administration has already been challenged by missile testing from Iran. When the Iranians tested a missile in January in violation of President Obama’s nuclear deal, the Trump Administration responded by enacting new sanctions on people and companies related to the missile program and the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force.

In 2014, Gen. Phillip Breedlove, then commander of NATO, warned against ignoring the development and deployment of the SSC-8. “A weapon capability that violates the INF, that is introduced into the greater European land mass is absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with,” he told the New York Times. “I would not judge how the alliance will choose to react, but I would say they will have to consider what to do about it. It can’t go unanswered.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats try to intercept nuclear ‘football’

Once again Democrats have launched an utterly hopeless, totally symbolic attempt embarrass President Trump. Two Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would strip President Trump of the right to launch a nuclear strike without congressional approval on the basis that Mr. Trump cannot be trusted with the responsibility to not accidentally start a nuclear war.

Foreign Policy magazine reports that Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) introduced bills to both houses of Congress that would restrict the president’s ability to order a nuclear attack. Specifically, the bills would prohibit the president from ordering a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war from Congress.

The last time that Congress issued a formal declaration of war was June 5, 1942 against the Axis allies Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. Declarations of war against Japan, Germany and Italy had been issued in December 1941 shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival. Yet, President Trump has suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists,” Sen. Markey said in a statement excerpted in Foreign Policy. “Unfortunately, by maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, U.S. policy provides him with that power. In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country, this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation.”

Likewise, during the campaign, Hillary Clinton had charged, “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

Others, such as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists also share the view. The group moved its Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to midnight this week and blamed one man for the decision. “Never before has the Bulletin decided to advance the clock largely because of the statements of a single person. But when that person is the new president of the United States, his words matter,” two of the group’s members wrote in the New York Times. They cited Trump’s comments about “expanding and even deploying the American nuclear arsenal” and his climate change skepticism as reasons for the change.

Still, there seems to be no hard evidence that the world is in more danger with President Trump’s finger on the nuclear button. While Mr. Trump has signaled that he is not afraid of a trade war and has already continued the shooting war against ISIS and al-Qaeda, there doesn’t seem to be any sign that he is ready to launch a nuclear first strike.

There seem to be only two pieces of evidence that the nuclear worriers have against Donald Trump. The first is that he makes off-the-cuff remarks and tweets. While the tweets and comments are sure to cause problems – see this week’s rift with Mexico – it is unlikely that they will escalate into a shooting war, much less a nuclear one.

The second is that Trump won’t ignore things like China’s military expansion in the South China Sea and North Korea’s nuclear missile program. The problem of choosing whether to appease the world’s dictators or resist them is one that Hillary Clinton would face as well. In fact, the second charge against Trump is remarkably similar to a spurious claim made by Trump supporters that a “Hillary Clinton presidency means nuclear war” with Russia.

There are signs that the new president is taking the responsibility of holding the nuclear “football” seriously. In an interview with ABC News, Trump said, “When they explain what it represents and the kind of destruction that you’re talking about, it is a very sobering moment, yes. It’s very, very scary, in a sense.”

The Democrat proposal has exactly zero chance of becoming law. With Trump allies in control of both houses of Congress and without dangerous rhetoric coming from the Trump Administration on the issue, the bills will be dead on arrival. In reality, the bills were never meant to pass. They were meant to embarrass the president. Instead, they may embarrass the Democrats among more moderate voters by showing them to be shrill alarmists.

Since his election, there are indications that President Trump is rising to the occasion. The seriousness with which he seems to take his responsibility as commander-in-chief of the US military is one such example. It’s a pity that Democrats aren’t doing the same.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump calls for new nuclear arms race

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” is reporting that President-elect Donald Trump has called for a new nuclear arms race. The comment was allegedly made to Mika Brzezinski in a response to a Trump tweet yesterday.

The original tweet from Mr. Trump read, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

In a “Morning Joe” clip, Joe Scarborough says that they asked Mr. Trump for clarification. Brzezinski responds that Trump told her, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass.”

“And outlast them all,” Scarborough adds.

“And outlast them all,” Brzezinski confirms.

“All right, you can put that down as breaking news,” Scarborough quips.

Last month, the Heritage Foundation released a report rating US nuclear forces as “marginal.” Heritage found that US nuclear forces depend on older weapons systems at a time when countries such as Russia and China are upgrading their nuclear forces. Other countries such as North Korea, Iran and India are also building and expanding their nuclear arsenals.

Trump’s original tweet came shortly after a year-end speech by Vladimir Putin in which Putin called upon Russia to “strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems.” The US and NATO have deployed the Aegis Ashore missile defense system to several countries that were formerly part of the Soviet bloc.

Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer during the Cold War, once said that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” Many observers believe that Putin’s foreign policy is aimed at restoring the former satellite countries of the Soviet Union into the orbit of the modern Russian Federation. Diplomatic and economic pressure and military attacks on countries such as Georgia and the Ukraine have furthered this goal.

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump has been perceived to be a proponent of Putin and Russia. He removed a plank from the Republican Party platform that would have called for lethal military aid to Ukrainians fighting Russia-backed rebel forces. Trump has also signaled a willingness to lift the sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Crimea and possibly even recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Many Trump appointees have strong links to Putin’s Russia.

The hardline response to Russian nuclear sabre rattling may also be linked to the Russian interference in the US election. Trump has been embarrassed by reports that Russia leaked Democratic documents in an attempt to help the Republican win the election. Trump may feel the need to talk tough after Putin’s nuclear comments because the hacking reports made him look weak.

It is too early to tell whether the comments from Trump and Putin will lead to a new arms race and Cold War. It is likely, however, that the Putin’s expansionist aims for Eastern Europe will put the two countries on a collision course that will test President Trump’s foreign policy skill and resolve.

Originally published on The Resurgent