Kim Jong Un Warns Trump He May Take 'New Way' Unless US Removes Sanctions

President Trump was quick to celebrate peace on the Korean Peninsula after his summit meeting with Kim Jong Un last year. Since then, however, progress has been mixed as North Korea refrained from nuclear testing and held high-level talks with the South but also failed to dismantle its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Now, in his New Year’s address, Kim Jong Un is warning President Trump that unless the United States “takes genuine measures for building trust” the North may return to its old ways.

In the speech, reported by Politico, Kim noted steps that he had taken toward the “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula saying that he agreed “that we would neither make and test nuclear weapons any longer nor use and proliferate them, and we have taken various practical measures” to fulfill this promise. He then challenged President Trump with two words: “Your turn.”

What Kim wants is illustrated by a statement issued in December through North Korean state media. “When we refer to the Korean peninsula, they include both the area of the DPRK and the area of South Korea where aggression troops including the nuclear weapons of the U.S. are deployed,” the statement said and then continued, “When we refer to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, it, therefore, means removing all elements of nuclear threats from the areas of both the north and the south of Korea and also from surrounding areas from where the Korean peninsula is targeted.” The statement called on the US to lift the sanctions on North Korea as well as for “completely removing the nuclear threats of the U.S. to the DPRK.”

Essentially, Kim is telling President Trump that the North Korean position on denuclearization is unchanged. The North rejects unilateral denuclearization and wants the US to remove its nuclear weapons from the Korean theater. The US removed its nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991, but in his speech, Kim said that “strategic assets,” which North Korea often understands to include anti-ballistic missile systems as well as submarines and aircraft carriers, “should no longer be permitted” in or near the Korean Peninsula.

Kim also wants to be rewarded for the actions that he has already taken over the past year. His price for the détente with South Korea is the removal of US sanctions.

Kim also sought to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea. While President Trump is pushing South Korea to double its funding for US troops [DT1] based on the peninsula, Kim encouraged the South to participate in several bilateral projects that exclude the United States.

In the speech, Kim warned that North Korea “might find ourselves in a situation where we have no other choice but to find a new way” if the US did not uphold its end of the bargain. While Kim was not specific about what “new way” the North might take, most observers doubt that it would involve a resumption of nuclear testing.

“One thing is clear: Kim is not going to return to any sort of posture where the US or its allies would consider a military attack, and that means no missile or nuclear tests for the foreseeable future,” Harry Kazianis of the Washington-based Centre for the National Interest told the South China Morning Post.

Ruediger Frank, an analyst at 38 North, believes that the entreaties to South Korean President Moon provide a clue as to what Kim’s “new way” would be. The speech was a message to Donald Trump, he writes, saying, “You are not our only option for security and economic development. If you refuse to be cooperative, we will ignore you and turn to China. Oh, and we will take South Korea along.”

Kazianis agreed, “Kim can present Trump with a choice: Either play ball with me on a negotiated nuclear settlement and reduce sanctions or I will go to China for help and get the economic development I want and keep my nukes.”

President Trump’s trade war now places him in an awkward position with respect to Korea. President Trump signed a new trade deal with South Korea last year that limits South Korean steel and aluminum exports to the US. The trade spat with China means that Trump now has less leverage with the Chinese against the North Koreans. The three geographical neighbors may become closer trading partners at the expense of US influence in the region.

If North Korea can pull the South into China’s orbit, it would be a major blow to the United States. South Korea is one of America’s largest trading partners in terms of both imports and exports. The nation is also home to 15 US military bases that provide a counterbalance to China as well as protecting South Korea from Northern aggression.

President Trump responded to Kim’s challenge with a New Year’s Day tweet, saying, “I also look forward to meeting with Chairman Kim who realizes so well that North Korea possesses great economic potential!”

Originally published on The Resurgent

---

 [DT1]

North Korea is Building New Missiles

If at first you don’t succeed, it’s back to the drawing board. According to a new report by US intelligence agencies, that is what North Korea is up to.

The Washington Post reported that the US has evidence, which includes satellite photos, that show work on new missiles at the factory that produced the country’s first intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. The findings show that as many as two missiles are being constructed at the Sanumdong plant near Pyongyang. The report notes that there is presently no evidence of an expansion of North Korean capabilities, but does indicate that the North Korean weapons programs are still active months after President Trump’s summit with Kim Jong Un.

Earlier in July, The Diplomat reported that North Korea’s secret enrichment facility at Kangson was almost certainly still enriching uranium. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Congress last week, “Yes, they continue to produce fissile material.”

On the other hand, there are also recent reports that North Korea is dismantling some equipment at a at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station. The New York Times reported that a rocket engine test stand and a rail-mounted assembly building for space vehicles were being taken apart.

While there was widespread belief that Chairman Kim was proceeding with denuclearization after the Times report, the evidence from other sites shows that the situation is much more complex. The evidence from other sites shows that the North Korean nuclear and weapons programs are proceeding long after President Trump tweeted, “ There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

It is not clear why some North Korean facilities are being dismantled while work is proceeding on uranium enrichment and new missiles. It is possible that the test facilities are being modernized, moved or are no longer needed.

President Trump and Chairman Kim signed a very vague and general statement, but diplomacy is ongoing with North Korea on more detailed agreements. South Korean generals met with their Northern counterparts on Tuesday for what was termed a “meaningful discussion,” but one that did not produce an agreement. The last report on talks between the US and North Korea was on July 7 when a North Korean statement called a two-day visit by Mike Pompeo “gangster-like” and “regrettable,” saying it had increased the possibility of war.

It seems increasingly likely that the North Koreans are back to the drawing board and continuing with their nuclear and missile programs. President Trump also needs to return to the drawing board with increased sanctions and an acknowledgement that the North Koreans are not dismantling their nuclear weapons program.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Pompeo: No Sanctions Relief Until Denuclearization Complete

A day after President Trump’s vaunted summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, North Korean state media was reporting that the United States had committed to security agreements and an end to sanctions as well ending joint military exercises with South Korea. The North Korean claims prompted a response Thursday morning from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

At a press conference in Singapore with his opposite numbers from Japan and South Korea, Secretary Pompeo said that sanctions would not be lifted until there was complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the North Korean regime. Pompeo acknowledged that there was no agreement on denuclearization yet and that talks could still break down.

Mr. Pompeo’s statements seem to contradict President Trump’s tweet from Wednesday which said, “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” The secretary of state said that the president’s tweet was made with “all eyes open” to the fact that North Korea is still a nuclear power and that a full agreement for denuclearization has not been reached.

In the agreement signed by President Trump and Chairman Kim, North Korea “commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” The wording is not defined, but echoes the longtime North Korean condition that American nuclear weapons must also be withdrawn from the Korean theater. The North Koreans may also insist on the withdrawal of US ground forces, something that President Trump has already said may be a long-term goal of his administration.

When asked by a reporter what made the current talks different from previous North Korean promises of denuclearization, Pompeo said, “The sequence [of providing aid and sanctions relief too early] will be different this time.”

“Chairman Kim understands the urgency of the timing of completing this denuclearization,” Pompeo stated. “Sanctions relief cannot take place at such time until we can determine denuclearization is complete.”

At this point, denuclearization has not even started. 

From The Resurgent

What Will President Trump Put On The Table For An Agreement With Kim?

Fresh from angering allies during and after the G-7 meeting in Quebec, President Trump is heading to Singapore for a historic meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. In the wake of the Canadian meeting, Trump feuded with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, withdrew US agreement from a planned communique, and then abruptly proposed a tariff-free G-7. The question is which Trump will show up in Singapore, the hardnosed negotiator or the conciliatory dealmaker, and what the president is willing to put on the table for Kim.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters ahead of the Singapore summit that the US is committed to North Korean denuclearization and a verifiable agreement. “In light of how many flimsy agreements the United States has made in previous years, this president will ensure that no potential agreement will fail to ultimately address the North Korean threat,” Pompeo said, adding that the "ultimate" U.S. objective remains "the complete, and verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

For its part, “denuclearization” to the Koreans has historically meant the removal of US forces and American nuclear weapons from the Korean Peninsula. Kim Jong Un doubtlessly understands that the one thing that prevents his regime from being toppled is his nuclear arsenal. However, Pyongyang’s arsenal is also something that endangers the regime as well.

Kim is painfully aware of the fate of Moammar Gadhafi, who voluntarily gave up his nuclear program in 2003. Less than 10 years later, Gadhafi was dead at the hands of a coalition of Libyan rebels and NATO air forces. Just in case Kim missed the lesson, Vice President Mike Pence explicitly laid it out for him in May.

Kim is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he faces the military might of the United States that can destroy him. On the other, Kim faces the possibility of a weakened regime that could invite a popular uprising. Kim also must consider the possibility that a non-nuclear North Korea could invite an invasion by South Korea and the United States.

Kim’s best choice would seem to be to preserve the status quo. His regime can survive sanctions, even if his citizens suffer. The US won’t risk a nuclear war that could involve China by launching a preemptive strike on North Korea. If Kim can offer some vague promises and win aid from the outside world to feed his people, it would represent a win for his regime. Kim has already improved relations with China simply by negotiating.

If Donald Trump is determined to win a meaningful agreement with North Korea, he must be prepared to up the ante. The likely price for verifiable disarmament would be very high, but nevertheless it could be a price that Donald Trump, alone among US presidents would be willing to pay. The price for denuclearization could be bringing American soldiers home from South Korea.

The withdrawal of US troops from Korea would be a nonstarter for any other president. Not so for Donald Trump. President Trump is not only the only president willing to withdraw from South Korea, he may be actively looking for an excuse to do so. As a candidate interviewed by the New York Times, Trump considered the possibility of ending military alliances if they did not seem to be in the interests of the United States. NBC News reported that Trump considered removing troops from Korea prior to the Winter Olympics, but was persuaded otherwise by John Kelley. In March, Trump threatened a troop withdrawal for leverage on trade deals with South Korea. The New York Times also reported in May 2018 that President Trump had requested options for reducing US troop strength in South Korea.

Reducing the US international role, especially at its own expense, was a big part of President Trump’s campaign in 2016. The US has 35,000 troops in South Korea who have been there more than 50 years. There are an additional 40,000 American soldiers and sailors in Japan. South Korea currently pays just under $900 million, about half of the total cost of basing US troops in the country.

President Trump and his base might well view a deal in which North Korea gave up its nuclear program in exchange for the removal of US troops from South Korea as a win-win. The US would save almost a billion dollars in military costs and could claim that Kim would be defanged. Treaties in which the US agrees to protect South Korea could be honored by troops deployed to other US bases in the region such as those in Japan and Guam.

There are some problems with this strategy. US forces would have to be retained in the region so most basing costs would simply be shifted to other areas. Responding to a rapid ground invasion of South Korea would be problematic if the US had to transport in its own ground troops. The defense of South Korea would become even more dependent upon air support and the American nuclear umbrella.

Secretary of State Pompeo hinted that the US is willing to make concessions to get an agreement. “President Trump recognizes Chairman Kim's desire for security and is prepared to ensure a North Korea free of weapons of mass destruction is also a secure North Korea,” Pompeo said. He added that the US is “prepared to take actions that will provide [North Korea] sufficient certainty that they can be comfortable that denuclearization isn't something that ends badly for them.”

Given that President Trump has shown that agreements entered into by one president won’t necessarily be honored by the next, making North Korea “comfortable” is problematic. Kim is unlikely to be reassured by anything short of a US withdrawal.

President Trump and Kim Jong Un will be meeting privately with only their interpreters. If President Trump decides that he can trust Kim enough to promise a US troop withdrawal, there will be no opportunity for discussion with his staff. Politico reported that the US had not held national security planning meetings ahead of the summit.

“I think I’m very well prepared,” Trump said in response. “I don’t think I have to prepare very much. It’s about attitude, it’s about willingness to get things done.”

President Trump, who seems to be looking for ways to reduce US troop deployments abroad, is about to hold a closed-door meeting with the dictator of North Korea. President Trump has shown that he is willing to anger allies and walk away from existing agreements. The possibility of historic agreement is real. The big question is what President Trump is willing to give up.

Originally published on The Resurgent

CIA: North Korea More Likely To Open McDonald's Than Give Up Nukes

Since President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un opened the possibility of holding a summit, there has been much speculation as to whether the North Koreans would be willing to give up their nuclear weapons. A newly revealed CIA assessment reportedly shows that the agency considers it unlikely that the hermit kingdom will hand over its nukes, but did suggest the possibility of a surprising concession to President Trump.

The CIA assessment, reported by NBC News and sourced to three US officials, detailed the agency’s belief that North Korea would not voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons any time soon. The CIA did conclude that Kim is interested in a peaceful overture toward President Trump. The report concluded that the North Koreans might be willing to open a McDonald’s hamburger franchise in their capitol city of Pyongyang, citing Donald Trump’s affinity for the fast food chain.

In 2016, Trump said that he would welcome Kim Jong Un to the United States, but that he would not offer him a state dinner. “We should be eating a hamburger on a conference table, and we should make better deals with China and others and forget the state dinners,” Trump said at the time.

The intelligence report contradicted recent statements by President Trump. In an April 22 tweet, the president said that the North Koreans had “agreed to denuclearization.” The president’s tweet may have been based on another NBC News report detailing South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s claim that the North had agreed to “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula without conditions.

Since Moon’s statement in April, there has been no further news of North Korean concessions. The summit was canceled by President Trump, but now appears to be on again. CNN reported this morning that Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea, is flying to New York to assist in preparations for the summit. Vice Chairman Kim is the highest ranking North Korean to visit the United States since 2000.

The Trump Administration has not commented on the CIA assessment, but an early morning tweet by President Trump seemed optimistic that that a meeting between the two leaders would go forward. There was no comment on the possibility of a McDonald’s in North Korea in lieu of denuclearization.

Although North Korea is frequently racked by famines and starvation, settling for Big Macs instead of denuclearization would seem to be a disappointment. In the opinion of this writer, if the North Koreans offer the expansion of a corporate franchise as a concession, President Trump should hold out for permission to build a Trump Hotel, Casino and Golf Course in Pyongyang.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Iran Says 'No Deal Left' If US Leaves Nuclear Agreement

Amid the recent speculation that President Trump will not continue the Obama nuclear deal with Iran, the stakes have just gotten higher. An Iranian representative ruled out modifications to the deal and say that if the US withdraws from the agreement, “it means that there is no deal left.”

Hamid Baeidinejad, Iran’s ambassador to the UK, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “The consequence would be that Iran would in fact be ready to go back to the previous situation.”

The ambassador further explained, “It could be enriching uranium, it could be redefining our cooperation with the agency [IAEA], and some other activities that are under consideration.”

President Trump has suggested that the Iran deal is flawed and needs to be renegotiated, but Baeidinejad rejected that possibility as “totally unacceptable.”

“JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name for the Iran deal] was negotiated on its own merits, and still it's working and it should be continued to be enforced,” he said.

In response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s allegations that Iran has been “brazenly lying” about complying with the deal, Baeidinejad said, “There have been some allegations against conducting of such activities in Iran, but never was there ever any proof presented to Iran.”

Under the terms of the deal, the president must certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is in compliance. The deal gave Iran sanctions relief in exchange for reducing Iran’s ability to create plutonium and uranium, two key components of nuclear weapons. The deal’s 10-year sunset clause is one of its most controversial aspects.

In October 2017, Trump decertified Iran’s participation, but did not withdraw the US from the agreement. In January 2018, the president again continued the deal, but said that absent “fixing significant flaws in the deal… the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal.”

Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal may complicate the ability of the Trump Administration to make a similar deal with North Korea. If the US pulls out of the Iran deal without sufficient justification, North Korea could be hesitant to enter into a new deal.

President Trump told reporters, “I think it [threatening Iran] sends the right message” to North Korea.

“In seven years that deal will have expired, and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons,” the president said. “That's not acceptable.”

President Trump must make a decision on whether to certify and continue the Iran deal by May 12.

Originally published on The Resurgent

China May Be Testing Trump In North Korea

China figures strongly into the current North Korea crisis, but exactly how is a matter of dispute. President Trump seems to believe that China is the key to resolving the matter of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, but it is far from certain that China’s interests in the region align with our own.

Beyond the fact that Trump was overtly hostile and, at times, insulting to China during the presidential campaign, China is in the midst of a long campaign to expand its power in Asia and beyond. Chinese island-building in the South China Sea is common knowledge. Less known is how Chinese influence is growing in the Middle East, Africa and even the Americas.

As Chinese military and economic influence grows around the world, the inescapable conclusion is that China has dreams of replacing the US as the world’s dominant superpower. That being the case, it would be in China’s interest to make the US look bad in the confrontation with North Korea. If China can use North Korea to hasten the American decline in Asia, which began with the 1953 stalemate in Korea and continued with Vietnam and the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership, it would probably not hesitate to do so.

Aside from their aim of overtaking the United States, a secondary goal of the Chinese government could be to test President Trump. There is pattern of Chinese crises shortly after Republican presidents take office. In June 1989, five months after George H. W. Bush became president, violent repression of the Chinese democracy protests at Tiananmen Square led to soured relations between the two countries. In April 2001, three months into the presidency of George W. Bush, a Chinese fighter collided with a US Navy reconnaissance plane. The American plane made an emergency landing on Hainan Island and the crew was detained for 11 days by the Chinese government. Now, soon after President Trump took office, the North Koreans increased their missile testing. While these incidents were presumably not manufactured by China, they may well have used the events to test the mettle of the new occupants of the Oval Office.

What could be the Chinese endgame for the Korean crisis? After President Trump made trade concessions to China last spring for doing approximately nothing to help with the Korean situation, Beijing may believe that they can win additional concessions from the US if the crisis is allowed to get worse.

If President Trump backs down after having made resolving the North Korean issue a priority, the Chinese will win by default. The United States and President Trump will lose face and credibility around the world. With both President Trump and Kim Jong Un trying to outdo the other’s bellicose rhetoric, at the moment China is playing the role of the adult in the room.

If the US actually attacks North Korea, it would present a problem for China. China has a longstanding relationship with its patron government in Pyongyang. Animosity between the Chinese and the Koreans goes back centuries, but for the past 75 years, North Korea has been a loyal client of Communist China.

In 1950, when American and United Nations troops advanced too close to the Chinese border, China intervened with a massive attack that sent allied armies reeling. Those who doubt that China would do the same thing in 2017 need only consider the unofficial nickname of Korea, “a dagger aimed at the heart of China.” China cannot allow the US or its allies to occupy North Korea.

A US attack on North Korea would require a Chinese response and the Chinese have said as much in an editorial in the Chinese Global Times. The paper notes that “Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time,” but that “it needs to make clear… when their actions jeopardize China's interests, China will respond with a firm hand.”

The editorial says that if North Korea strikes first China will remain neutral. This may be a tacit assurance that the North will not attack without provocation. Then it issues a warning: “If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”

Regardless of whether China is goading North Korea forward behind the scenes or Kim is acting on his own, the brinksmanship is a most dangerous game that could easily get out of hand and lead to a major conflict. Whatever President Trump does, on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere, the Chinese will undoubtedly be watching.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

Iran's missile test is challenge to Trump

New presidents are often tested by potential adversaries shortly after taking office. For the first George Bush, it was the Chinese crackdown on democracy protesters in June 1989. Bill Clinton had the escalation in Somalia and the Battle of Mogadishu. The second George Bush had to deal with the collision of a Navy airplane with a Chinese fighter and the subsequent internment of the Navy flight crew. President Obama faced the kidnapping of a freighter crew by Somali pirates. For President Trump, the test is coming barely a week into office with an Iranian missile test.

US defense officials confirmed Monday that Iran tested a missile, but declined to give details about the date, location or range of the test according to the Wall Street Journal. In a separate statement, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, “Iran conducted a medium-range ballistic missile test in recent days.” The Jerusalem Post cited an anonymous US official in stating that the missile traveled 630 miles.

Israel condemned the test and called for more sanctions on Iran. Intelligence Minister Israel Katz said in a statement on Army Radio that “there is no doubt that further sanctions on Iran are needed.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted that “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered” and said that he would raise the issue with President Trump at their meeting on February 15.

“The missile issue is not part of the nuclear deal,” said Iranian spokesman Javad Zarif in al Jazeera. Zarif also denied that the missile was an offensive weapon, saying it was “not designed for the capability of carrying a nuclear warhead.”

Iran was previously banned from conducting missile tests under a UN resolution, but the language was changed by the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal. The resolution now says that the Security Council “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” but does not specifically prohibit it.

Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement calling the test a violation of the UN resolution. “Since the nuclear deal was signed in 2015, Iran has violated international restrictions on ballistic missiles and arms exports while also exceeding limits on nuclear material set by the JCPOA,” Corker said in the statement.

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was critical of President Obama’s deal with Iran, but stopped short of saying that he would withdraw from the deal, which was never ratified by the Senate. Trump pledged to renegotiate the nuclear deal if he was elected.

“There will be no renegotiation, and the (agreement) will not be reopened,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s head negotiator said in Newsweek earlier this month. “We and many analysts believe that the (agreement) is consolidated. The new U.S. administration will not be able to abandon it. Nuclear talks with America are over, and we have nothing else to discuss.”

How President Trump handles the missile test, a flagrant violation of United Nations policy, will set an important first impression for how other countries view his ability to handle a difficult crisis situation. If he decides to implement new sanctions, it will also test his ability to assemble an international coalition to give the sanctions a bigger bite. If Trump takes no action, it could encourage further violations by Iran as well as encouraging aggressive behavior by other countries.

Originally published on The Resurgent

US military rated 'marginal' to 'weak'

Wikimedia Commons

The Heritage Foundation has released its 2017 Index of US Military Strength, an objective survey of US military infrastructure, its ability to operate in different regions of the world and an assessment of threats currently faced by the US. This year Heritage found that threats to the US were high while the ability of the US to meet them was “marginal” to “weak.”

Heritage notes that the military is assessed on the basis of being able to accomplish three core missions: Defense of the homeland, successful conclusion of a major regional war and protection of freedom of movement through areas in sea, air, space and cyberspace in which the world conducts business. Since WWII, US leaders have consistently worked to maintain a military size that could fight two major regional contingencies (MRCs) at the same time.

The different branches of the US military were rated on capability, capacity and readiness. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and nuclear forces were rated as “marginal” by Heritage while the Army was rated as “weak.” Heritage notes that the Navy is deferring maintenance and facing delays in modernization. The Air Force has a fleet of 1,159 tactical fighters, but lacks the ability to fly all of them due to shortages of pilots and experienced maintenance personnel. Current operations and shortage of funds for the Marine Corps mean that the USMC has only two-thirds of the units that it needs. US nuclear forces depend on older weapons systems while competitor countries are upgrading and expanding.

The Army’s weak rating is the result of trading strength and modernization for the current readiness. Even so, Heritage says that only one-third of army units are at acceptable readiness levels. Budget cuts have forced the Army to increase its reliance on contract maintenance. Brigade combat teams and combat aviation brigades have been reduced by about a third due to budget shortfalls. Heritage says, “The Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

In the index, Heritage also rates the threats that the US military is likely to face.  There are six threats that Heritage considers “high” risks. Russia and China are both expanding their militaries and acting aggressively. North Korea reportedly has a missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the US and is also working on submarine-launched missile technology that would allow it to park missiles off the shores of American cities. Iran is another potential nuclear threat in spite of President Obama’s deal. Terrorism in the Middle East and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region round out the largest potential threats.

The bright spot in the Heritage assessment is America’s ability to operate around the world. A strong network of allies in Europe and Asia bolsters US capabilities. These regions are rated as “favorable” to US operations. The Middle East is rated as “moderate” where US advantages are being offset by unstable governments and a reduced presence due to the withdrawal from Iraq.

The change of course signaled by the recent presidential elections may provide a boost to US military budgets. Nevertheless, National Defense Magazine notes that, because of the debt crisis, any increase in military spending will likely be small without entitlement reforms. Such reforms would be fought by the Democrats and possibly by Donald Trump as well. As a candidate, Trump opposed conservative plans to restructure entitlement programs.

In summary, the world is a dangerous place with maturing threats from a number of different countries and terrorist groups. Budget cuts have forced the US military to trade modernization to meet future threats for the ability to maintain current readiness. The Republican victories this year may provide an opportunity to get military readiness back on track.

Originally published on The Resurgent

'Mad Vlad' Putin is no conservative hero

Many conservatives are applauding Russian President Vladimir Putin for his decision to intervene in the Syrian civil war. Even though the US-led coalition has been bombing ISIS for more than a year, many feel that Putin has taken a leadership role in the war in comparison to President Obama’s lackluster resolve.

A good example of the conservative applause for Putin comes from Robin McFee of Family Security Matters who applauded Putin for his “moral clarity” in pointing out the failures of the Obama Administration in the Middle East. Going even further, Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist who converted to Christianity, called Putin’s intervention in Syria “a holy war,” saying “it is the latest crusade of our time.”

“Putin is the St. Constantine of our time,” writes Shoebat, referring to the Roman emperor who stopped the persecution of Christians and legalized Christianity. “For like that priestly king of old,” he continues, “he has unsheathed the holy sword of the Church to strike down the enemies of God for the cause of humanity.”

Even Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham and founder of Samaritan’s Purse, said, “What Russia is doing may save the lives of Christians in the Middle East.” Franklin continued, “You understand that the Syrian government for their good and for their bad over the history of this country, they have protected Christians, they have protected minorities from the Islamists.”

Graham’s view is likely close to the truth. Putin and Russia are not intervening to save Syrian Christians. They are intervening to save the Assad regime. The possibility that some Christians might be saved in the process is purely incidental to Putin’s primary goal.

On American Thinker, Fay Voshell writes that the “former KGB agent is now a devout Christian whose faith informs policy” and that “Putin's religious values are rooted in Russian Orthodoxy and personal religious experiences, including his wife's car accident in 1993 and a life-threatening house fire in 1996.”

Nevertheless, Putin’s actions in the two decades since his supposed conversion more closely resemble a Machiavellian strongman than a principled Christian. In 1999, when, as prime minister of Russia, Putin sent troops into Chechnya, it was to stop “the collapse of the Soviet Union,” not to protect Christians in the mostly Muslim republic. As World Affairs notes, Putin blamed Chechen terrorists for a series of bombings in Russia, but when an unexploded bomb was found, Russian agents were revealed to be the perpetrators of the false flag attack.

Putin’s concern for the innocent was not evident in his reaction to the hostage taking at Beslan School No. 1 in North Ossetia in southern Russia in 2004. Security forces responding to the terrorist attack used flame throwers and grenade launchers when they assaulted the school according to the Moscow Times. The attack resulted in the deaths of more than 330 of the 1,200 hostages. Most of the dead were children.

Putin invaded two other countries as well. The 2008 invasion of Georgia and the 2014 invasion of Ukraine bear many similarities. In both cases, Russia used the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians to seize outlying provinces from independent nations. In both cases, Russia seems unwilling to stop with its early gains. The Guardian describes a Russian border fence around South Ossetia that grabbed additional Georgian territory overnight. Likewise, the war in Ukraine is still raging and the country is bracing for a possible full-scale invasion.

After Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine shot down an unarmed Malaysian airliner in 2014, killing 298 people, Putin was quick to blame Ukraine and has continued to use the incident for propaganda against Ukraine. In the United Nations, he has blocked attempts to create a tribunal to investigate the incident.

Putin can be accurately described as a dictator, having been the de facto ruler of Russia since 1999 when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president. He served two terms as president until 2008 when Russia’s term limit forced him to step aside. Undaunted, he was appointed prime minister by Dmitri Medvedev and promptly had the constitution changed. When Medvedev’s term ended, Putin was elected to a third term in 2012.

Putin’s alleged Christian convictions did not stop him from ordering the deaths and imprisonment of countless political opponents and journalists. The list of Putin’s Russian victims is long and spans 20 years, not including his time as a KGB officer. The most infamous murder was Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB officer turned dissident. In a plot worthy of James Bond, Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium in London in 2006.

Even Putin’s alleged concerns about Islamic radicalism are suspect. Both Syria and Iran have long been client states of Putin’s Russia. Syria’s relationship with Russia goes back to the days of the Soviet Union. Unknown to many, it is Russia that is building Iran’s nuclear program that now threatens, not only Israel, but Europe and the United States as well. Likewise, Russia has supplied Iran with modern fighter aircraft as well as air defense systems that would make an attack on those nuclear facilities difficult and costly. Putin is also a major supporter of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Business Insider points out that Putin actually took credit for the deal.

Although Putin’s support for Iran predates the Syrian civil war, Russia and Iran have found common cause there as the two main supporters of the Assad regime. Bashar Assad is a Shia Muslim as are the Iranians. The opposition to Assad is primarily Sunni. Russia and Syria have had a nonaggression pact since 1950 and Russia has had military bases in Syria since 1971. Fox News reported in August that the commander of the Iranian Quds Force, designated as a terrorist by the US, secretly traveled to Russia to meet with “senior Russian leaders.”

For hundreds of years, Russian foreign policy has been built around two goals. First is the desire to build a buffer zone to protect their borders from invasion. Second is the quest for a warm water port. Many Russian ports are blocked by ice during winter. Other Russian ports are blocked by narrow straits and potentially hostile neighbors. It is likely that Putin’s venture into Syria, in addition to propping up a friendly regime, is about making sure that Russian naval power is not expelled from the Mediterranean.

Russia’s intervention might also be economic. Russia has been battered by international sanctions and low oil prices. The ruble has lost half of its value and inflation for the year is predicted to be 18 percent according to Investopedia. Russia’s imperial wars may be both a distraction from the economic mess at home and an attempt to stabilize and increase the price of oil.

At his core, Putin is an opportunist who is seeking to restore the Russian empire. He seems to take Rahm Emanuel’s advice to “never let a crisis go to waste” when he can use it to expand Russia’s borders or sphere of influence.

In short, Putin is everything that conservatives fear that Obama is. He is a dictator who changed the constitution to stay in power and doesn’t have qualms about killing people who threaten him. He is known to have used false flags to justify war against Chechnya and Ukraine and works world crises to his advantage. Putin is no hero for conservatives.

Originally published on Conservative Firing Line

How Obama lost Iraq

The recent news out of Iraq is reminiscent of the dark days of 2004 before President Bush’s surge largely pacified the country. Earlier this month, Israel’s Debka File reported that ISIS, the Iraqi al Qaeda affiliate, had captured the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi from government forces. Fallujah was proclaimed the capitol of a new Islamic caliphate. On January 18, CNN reported another in a series of bomb attacks. The latest bombings killed 19 people and wounded at least 74.

Iraq’s slide back into chaos has its roots in 2011 when the last U.S. soldiers left the country. The Obama Administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had been engaged in months of negotiations in an attempt to reach a new status of forces agreement that would allow American soldiers to remain in Iraq to help support government forces. (The Bush Administration had signed a status of forces agreement that required U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.) When these talks failed, the stage was set for President Obama to fulfill his campaign promise to remove U.S. forces and end the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner, it was much easier to remove U.S. troops than to end the war. President Obama’s assumption was that American forces were the cause of the fighting in Iraq and that if American forces were removed, the war would end. That turned out not to be the case, partly because of Iran.

In the absence of Saddam Hussein, Iran has grown into a larger threat in the region. According to NBC News, relations between the two countries had been frosty for decades before the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iran, known as Persia until the 20^th century, is comprised primarily of Shia Muslims. The Shia also make up a majority of Iraq’s population even though Saddam and his ruling Baath party were Sunni. Saddam’s control of Iraq was threatened by the Islamist revolution in Iran, leading Saddam to invade Iran in 1980. The war dragged on for eight years.

After the U.S. toppled Saddam, the Iranians revealed that they were developing nuclear weapons. As the U.S. and its European allies worked to diplomatically halt the Iranian weapons program, Iran began aiding Shia militants in Iraq. As far back as 2006, ABC News reported that Iran was directly supplying Iranian made weapons to Iraqi militants. The Washington Post reported that coalition forces captured Iranian agents, suspected to be members of the Quds (Jerusalem) Force of the Revolutionary Guard, in Iraq. The New York Times reported on evidence that Iraqi Shiite fighters were being trained in Iran as late as 2010.

While the Obama and Bush Administrations reached out diplomatically to Iran, the Iranians were actively engaged in a proxy war against the U.S. and the Iraqi government. A look at history shows that Iran has actually been engaged in a shadow war against the United States since 1979. It was less than three years ago that federal agents disrupted an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by blowing up a restaurant in the District of Columbia. Given the history of Iran with both Iraq and the United States, it is not surprising that the radical Islamist regime would move to fill the power vacuum left in Iraq as the U.S. withdraws.

The logical move to protect the U.S. gains in Iraq would have been to negotiate an extension to the status of forces agreement that would allow U.S. forces to remain and assist the Iraqi government in a limited capacity. This agreement would have been in the interest of both the United States, which wants stability in the Middle East, and Iraq, which needs to prevent a resurgence of sectarian violence in order to maintain control of the country.

In October 2011, Foreign Policy magazine reported that even though the Iraqi government had acceded to allowing 8,000 to 20,000 American soldiers to remain in Iraq, the status of forces talks fell apart over the issue of immunity for U.S. troops. The Obama Administration insisted that the immunity be granted in the treaty, something that was not politically possible for al-Maliki government and something that Bush Administration had not demanded in the previous status of forces agreement.

A former senior congressional staffer told Foreign Policy that a treaty agreement was never required. “An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," he said. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up it’s a--."

In their 2012 debate, Paul Ryan charged that Vice President Joe Biden “was put in charge of those negotiations and he failed to get an agreement” according to the Washington Post. Biden denied the charge, but a month earlier the New York Times had reported that Mr. Biden had chaired a videoconference on Oct. 6, 2010 where he had advanced the idea of replacing Iraqi president Jalal Talibani, a Kurd, with Ayad Allawi of the nonsectarian Iraqiya party as a counterweight to Prime Minister al-Maliki. Talibani would be shifted to the post of foreign minister as a consolation prize, a plan that elicited a retort of “Thanks a lot, Joe,” from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ultimately Talibani refused to step aside.

During the conference, Biden proclaimed, “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise. I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA (status of forces agreement).” Biden was ultimately proven wrong.

In September 2011, President Obama said that he would like to keep between 3,000 and 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but, according to the Washington Post, he had not begun negotiations three months before the withdrawal deadline. That November, the Washington Post reported that the vice president was in Iraq seeking to negotiate a continued American presence in Iraq. Many critics pointed out that retaining such a tiny, ineffective U.S. force in Iraq might prove more dangerous than a complete withdrawal.

Author and military expert Max Boot savaged Obama in the Wall Street Journal for not taking the negotiations seriously. Boot noted that President Bush was able to get a deal for a status of forces agreement in 2008 when even more U.S. troops were in Iraq. Boot noted that the immunity issue was covered by a Memorandum of Understanding rather than a treaty in other Middle Eastern countries where American soldiers are deployed.

Boot also pointed out that Obama frequently undercut his own negotiators. By frequently bragging about his plans to “end the war in Iraq,” Obama signaled to Iraqis that he was not serious about maintaining a presence. Further, the Iraqis knew that the number of troops that Obama was willing to commit were far less than the 20,000 deemed necessary by military leaders. Iraqi leaders “were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force,” according to Boot, “that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions.”

Even before U.S. troops left, Iraq began to fall into Iran’s orbit. In June 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran was wooing the leaders of three key U.S. Middle East allies: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2012, Iran began overflying Iraqi airspace on an almost daily basis in order to deliver arms and supplies to the Assad regime in Syria. CNN described in March 2013 how Secretary of State Kerry had discussed the matter with al-Maliki, who noted that the Iraqi Air Force had a very limited capability to stop the overflights. Three months later, the Iraqis warned Israel against transiting Iraqi airspace during any attempt to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities according to the Times of Israel.

The Iraqi government is now widely acknowledged to be sympathetic to Iran. The Huffington Post reported in June 2012 that Iran is likely propping up the al-Maliki government behind the scenes. Debka File calls Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “pro-Iranian” and says that the Iraqi defeats in Anbar were humiliating for Iran which had “heavily backed the Iraqi army offensive.” After the debacle in Fallujah and Ramadi, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported that the Iranian government had pledged support for Iraq’s fight against “terrorism and extremism.” Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad is also an Iranian proxy while al-Qaeda supports rebel factions attempting to oust him. The dynamic is partly one of Sunni versus Shia. Al Qaeda is a Sunni Muslim organization while Iran and the Iraqi government are primarily Shiite.

In the end it appears that the expiration of the status of forces agreement provided Barack Obama with a way to fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw American soldiers from Iraq. The immunity issue provided a convenient way to blame the Iraqi government for the failure to reach an agreement. The president’s delegation of negotiations to Vice President Biden, a man that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” is perhaps the best indication of how little importance Obama attached to Iraq’s security. Where Obama preferred to withdraw and abandon America’s influence in the Middle East, Iran was more than willing to assume the role of the Middle East’s dominant power.

 

Read the original article at Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Keep eye on Iran during Korean crisis

Over the past few weeks, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has engaged in increasingly serious saber rattling. Over the past few weeks, North Korea has severed communications avenues with the South, renounced the 1953 armistice that ended combat operations in the Korean War, and placed its armed forces on standby for war.

War rumblings are nothing new on the Korean peninsula. Since the 1950s, the “hermit kingdom” of the North has been involved in literally dozens of incidents against South Korean and American forces. What makes the current situation more serious than those of the past is North Korea’s newfound strategic nuclear capability. The current situation is so serious that President Obama deployed missile interceptors to protect the American West Coast and sent two B-2 Stealth bombers on mission to South Korea to show force.

The North Korean nuclear program was discovered in 1992, six years after the country signed the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) according to the Arms Control Association. The years following gave saw a now familiar pattern of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, subterfuge by the North Koreans, and an “Agreed Framework,” negotiated in part by Jimmy Carter, which the former president might well have hailed as the key to “peace in our time.”

The Agreed Framework was followed by 12 years of diplomatic maneuvering in which the U.S. repeatedly imposed sanctions on North Korea and the North Koreans repeatedly assured the world at several rounds of Six Party Talks that they were willing to stop working toward nuclear weapons. In 2006, the North Koreans finally exploded their first nuclear weapon. A second nuclear weapon was tested in 2009 and a third on February 12, 2013.

While working on nuclear weapons, the North Koreans were also developing their ability to deliver their nuclear payloads to South Korea and beyond. One of North Korea’s newest missiles, the Unha-3, potentially has the ability to carry a nuclear payload to the American West Coast.

While the danger presented by the North Koreans is real (the North Koreans have routinely fired upon and killed South Korean and American soldiers and sailors and have even kidnapped Japanese citizens from their homes), many foreign policy experts believe that Kim Jong Un is merely making a show of force either to get concessions from the international community or to consolidate power at home. The North Korean dictator must realize that if he provokes a nuclear war with South Korea, and by extension the United States, he and his nation will cease to exist. A materialistic leader like Kim is unlikely to be suicidal.

As the crisis is resolved or fades away, the world should learn a lesson from the Korean nuclear proliferation. North Korea’s path to nuclear status is strikingly similar to Iran’s recent nuclear history. Since Iran’s nuclear program was unveiled to the world in 2002, the country has engaged in the same pattern of engaging in diplomatic talks to delay and mitigate sanctions that was so successful for the North Koreans.

Iran’s nuclear program was delayed on several occasions by sabotage ranging from the Stuxnet computer virus to the assassinations of prominent Iranian nuclear scientists. Nevertheless the Iranian government is drawing ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.

The danger of a nuclear Iran can be seen in North Korea’s war rumblings and threats toward its neighbors. Likewise, as a conventional power, Iran has long waged covert wars and operations against its neighbors. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards prop up Hezbollah in Lebanon, aid President Assad’s struggle against rebels in Syria, and have engaged in combat with American soldiers in Iraq.

Iranian proxies have engaged in terror attacks around the world. In 1983, Iran was linked to the Beirut car bomb that killed 241 American soldiers. Iranian agents were responsible for the murder of four dissidents in Germany in 1992. More recently, Iran was implicated in a plot to use Mexican drug gangs to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States by blowing up a Washington, D.C. restaurant in 2011.

Iran is an avowed enemy of both Israel and the United States. Although Iran has not joined directly in the previous Arab-Israeli Wars (Iranians are Persians, not Arabs), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made no secret of Iran’s goal of destroying Israel. As previously documented by Examiner, Ahmadinejad has said that his goal is “to have a world without the United States and Zionism.”

Unlike North Korea, Iran cannot be reliably assumed to not be suicidal. In recent years, the Iranian government has become more and more apocalyptic. When giving speeches, President Ahmadinejad routinely invokes the Mahdi, a messianic figure in Shia Muslim theology, who many believe will return in the latter days to usher in a worldwide Islamic caliphate. It is quite possible that Ahmadinejad believes that it would be worth risking his entire nation to destroy Israel and to summon the Mahdi.

In fact, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one time president of Iran and still a highly placed Iranian official said as quoted in Examiner “… application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” In other words, a nuclear strike that did not destroy the entire Muslim world would be an acceptable sacrifice to destroy Israel.

Iran’s links to terrorism also mean that it would be dangerous as a nuclear power. North Korea, also a state sponsor of terrorism, began trying to export its nuclear technology as soon as it acquired it. Less than a year after North Korea’s first nuclear test, Israeli warplanes destroyed a secret North Korean nuclear facility in Syria. The Syrian civil war might present an entirely different and more serious threat to the region if this site had not been attacked prior to the Arab Spring.

There is every reason to believe that Iran would also be an active proliferator of nuclear technology. Iran might be able to avoid national destruction by transferring a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group that would detonate it anonymously. Without a visible missile launch to point to the origin of the attack, the world might never know who was responsible for the nuclear terrorism.

Iran has worked hard in recent years to expand its sphere of influence in the Middle East, working with both sympathetic Muslim governments and terrorist proxies. With the U.S. role in the region fading as President Obama retreats from Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s stature in the region is growing. Even without actually using a nuclear weapon, Iran could exert its influence on the Persian Gulf to threaten vital oil supplies to the rest of the world. An Iranian nuclear weapon would necessarily spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as other powers such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey struggle to defend themselves from Iranian pressure.

It is becomingly increasingly apparent that Iran and North Korea may actually be working together. The World Tribune notes that since the 1980s, when Iran faced a threat, North Korea would rattle its sabers to distract the world. According to Reuters, collaboration between Iran and North Korea may go even further. A United Nations report from 2010 suggested that North Korea may have aided Iran and Myanmar with nuclear technology in addition to Syria.

In the best case scenario, the current North Korean threat will soon fade away, leaving the world to deal with the rapidly maturing Iranian threat. In the worst case scenario, the current North Korean threat may be purposely distracting from an Iranian threat that is more advanced that believed. In either case, President Obama and the United States should watch Iran closely while dealing with North Korea.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/keep-eye-on-iran-during-korean-crisis?cid=rss

'Divine wind' swept Obama to second term

In the thirteenth century, two Mongol fleets under Kublai Khan attacked Japan.  On both occasions, the Mongol invasion fleets were ultimately destroyed by timely typhoons that the Japanese came to know as kamikaze or “divine wind.”  The Japanese believed that the storms were summoned by the gods to protect their homeland.  Hundreds of years later, during WWII, the term kamikaze was adopted by the Imperial Japanese government to describe suicide pilots who crashed their planes into American ships.

Now it is possible that another divine wind has again changed the course of history.  According to an Examiner analysis of exit poll data from the 2012 presidential election, Hurricane Sandy played a crucial role in the election.  In the days after the final debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, polls showed a slight Romney lead with the president polling below 50 percent in most swing states.  Then, on October 29-30, Hurricane Sandy struck the Mid-Atlantic States, causing flooding and heavy damage from Washington, D.C. to New York City. 

In the wake of the hurricane, polling data from both Rasmussen and Gallup showed a bump for the president.  Many observers attribute this to the perception of bipartisanship and leadership that Obama received as he toured storm damaged areas of New Jersey with Republican Governor Chris Christie.  The bump eventually moved the needle in the swing states enough to give Obama slim victories in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and other crucial states.  Examiner’s analysis of exit polling showed that 64 percent of voters said that the president’s response to the hurricane was a factor in their vote and 62 percent of these voters chose Obama.

It is interesting to consider the possibility of whether Hurricane Sandy was a divinely directed storm.  In Biblical history, God’s use of natural phenomena to change the course of human events is well established from the flood of Noah to Moses parting the sea.  Even in U.S. history, there have been instances of divine intervention.  One such case was the Battle of Long Island in the Revolutionary War in which George Washington and the Continental Army were saved from British annihilation by a miraculous fog.  More direct divine intervention has been cited in the U.S. victory at Midway in WWII.

  

If Hurricane Sandy did represent God’s intervention in the American electoral process, what would the Almighty have hoped to gain by influencing Americans to vote for Barack Obama?  Was it a divine rejection of the Republican Party and its ideals or something else?  Could a second Obama term be a blessing for the country or a curse?

Some clues can be found in recent events.  A Boston art exhibit recently made news when a painting depicting the president as Christ-like figure with a crown of thorns in a pose that mimicked the crucifixion was displayed at a public gallery.  Entertainer Jamie Foxx recently referred to Obama as “our lord and savior, Barack Obama” at the Soul Train Awards.  Before the election at the Democratic National Convention, a motion to add a reference to God to the Democratic platform was almost rejected.  The delegates had to be polled three times before the chairman deemed the motion to have passed by a very close voice vote.  In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), God says, “You shall have no other gods before me.”   

The state of the United States in general also indicates a country in rebellion against God.  For example, 54 million babies have been legally killed in the United States since the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a constitutionally protected right in 1973 according to an estimate by the American Life League.  Under President Obama’s health care reform law, abortion will be funded by tax dollars in spite of the president’s promises to contrary according to an analysis by the American Center for Law and Justice.  The United States has moved from tacit acceptance of abortion to official government approval and subsidies. 

More recently, the movement to force acceptance of same-sex marriage has gained steam as well.  President Obama became the first president to openly endorse government recognition of same-sex marriage in spite of his professed Christianity and the numerous religious and secular objections to redefining marriage.  In Charisma magazine, Franklin Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said that President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is tantamount to “shaking his fist in God’s face.”

Many have used the decline of heterosexual marriage in America to justify acceptance of same-sex marriage.  Married couples now make up less than half of U.S. households according to the Economist.  The magazine calls marriage “a luxury for educated and affluent.”  Government entitlement programs have long had the effect of discouraging marriage.  As a result, fewer poor people marry even though there is a very strong correlation between marriage and financial stability.  The assault on marriage was taken to its logical conclusion in President Obama’s “Julia” ad from 2012 in which the government became a substitute for a husband.

The Obama Administration has also spearheaded an assault on religious freedom.  The attacks on religious freedom often involve religious opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage and free speech issues.  Health care workers are compelled to perform abortions.  Military chaplains are performing same-sex marriages in military chapels in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Additionally, Obamacare mandates that all Americans purchase coverage for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs, even if they don’t want them or are morally opposed to them.  The Obama Administration went so far as to have the maker of a controversial anti-Islam film arrested and asked Google to remove the film from Youtube.

Chai Feldblum, Obama’s head of the EEOC, has openly said that religious freedom is a lower priority than sexual freedom.  Quoted in a 2010 Examiner article, she said, “I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.  Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

Abroad, the president’s Israel policy is the most hostile of any American president.  The United States and Israel have historically had a close relationship.  The U.S. was the first country to recognize the new nation of Israel in 1947.  America has long supplied the Jewish state with military assistance, including vital supplies that helped Israel survive the Yom Kippur War in 1973.  The U.S. has often been Israel’s only friend in the United Nations when Arab countries and their allies often try to pass resolutions condemning Israel while all but ignoring Arab terrorist attacks against Israelis. 

In 2011, President Obama became the first president to ask that Israel return to pre-1967 borders.  Such a move would require Israel to evacuate its capitol of Jerusalem and return large swaths of land to the Arabs, leaving the remainder of the country indefensible.  One of Obama’s earliest diplomatic moves in 2009 was to request a unilateral freeze on Israeli settlement of the West Bank.  In the months prior to the 2012 election, Obama declined to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to the U.S. 

The Obama Administration has also reportedly restrained Israel from attacking nuclear weapons facilities in Iran.  Iranian nuclear weapons threaten not only Israel, but the U.S. as well.  Since the election, President Obama announced opposition to new sanctions on Iran that received unanimous and bipartisan support in the Democratic-controlled senate.

Considering that the United States is outside of God’s will, it is possible that God used Hurricane Sandy to set the stage for divine judgment.  In fact, divine judgment on the United States may have begun long before Hurricane Sandy. 

Some idea of judgment can be obtained from Romans 1:18-32 in which God “gave over” a sinful and rebellious society “to a depraved mind.”  Paul writes that the effect of this depraved mind is that “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”  One aspect of divine judgment is social decay that results from turning away from God’s principles and commandments.  As society becomes more depraved, the societal costs of social diseases, crime, welfare, greed and corruption increase, placing an ever greater strain on the nation as a whole. 

Other aspects of divine judgment can be seen from the ancient Israelite history in the Old Testament.  Ancient Israel and Judah were divinely established nations.  God had promised Abraham that he would “make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:2-3). 

When the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were established in Canaan hundreds of years later, their history followed a pattern of prosperity, rebellion and judgment.  When times were good, the people of Israel would reject God’s commandments and face judgment in the form of internal strife, wicked leaders, national decline, and, finally, total defeat and enslavement.  The people assumed that, as the recipients of God’s promise, they were immune to God’s judgment.  They could not fathom that God would use heathen nations like Babylon and Assyria to punish his chosen people.  Many Americans make the same mistake today, even without a specific promise to bless America. 

It is likely that America’s judgment will follow the same pattern.  According to USA Today, Munich Re, an insurance company, released a report just prior to Hurricane Sandy that noted that the number of natural disasters is increasing worldwide, but the biggest increases have been in North America.  This includes hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina, tornados, fires, droughts, and floods.

America has experienced prosperity and the following bust.  The 2008 real estate crash ushered in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Although the recession is technically over, the economy has not recovered.  President Obama’s stimulus spending has set the stage for a debt crisis that could permanently hobble the American economy. 

Another possibility is that there may be more terrorist attacks on the scale of the September 11 or larger.  It is not unlikely that the U.S. will be the target of an Iranian nuclear attack, possibly a catastrophic attack using electromagnetic pulse technology.  Such an attack could destroy the majority of the electrical capacity that makes modern American life possible.    

Divine judgment of America may be part of God’s grand plan as described by Jesus in the Mount Olivet Discourse, John in the Revelation and various other prophets throughout the Bible.  Many theologians believe that America must decline and fall away to set the stage for the final end-times Battle of Armageddon in which the world aligns against Israel (Rev. 16:16).  This theory was described in a September 2012 article on Examiner.com and a 2009 article on CaptainKudzu.  If Israel is the key to the end-times and the U.S. is the protector of Israel, then the U.S. must be removed from the picture.  This could be through an economic collapse, a military catastrophe, or a combination of disasters.

If the United States is being judged by God, is the future preordained or can we avert a national disaster?  The Bible promises “if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land” (2 Chron 7:14). 

Last summer, Billy Graham called on Americans to repent, writing on his website “My heart aches for America and its deceived people. The wonderful news is that our Lord is a God of mercy, and He responds to repentance. In Jonah’s day, Nineveh was the lone world superpower—wealthy, unconcerned, and self-centered. When the Prophet Jonah finally traveled to Nineveh and proclaimed God’s warning, people heard and repented.  I believe the same thing can happen once again, this time in our nation.”

As our national debt piles up at an alarming rate and Iran grows closer to a nuclear weapon each day, time may be running out quickly.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/divine-wind-may-have-boosted-obama-to-second-term?cid=db_articles

Photo credit:  NASA/Wikimedia