AMERICA’S STRATEGIC PARALYSIS

It is obvious Trump seeks a clean break with Obama’s policies. But will the swamp let him?

On Thursday morning, for the second time in so many days, North Korea threatened to attack the US territory of Guam with nuclear weapons. Taken together with Pyongyang’s two intercontinental ballistic missile tests last month, and the US’s Defense Intelligence Agency’s acknowledgment this week that North Korea has the capacity to miniaturize nuclear bombs and so launch them as warheads on missiles, these threats propelled the US and the world into a nuclear crisis.

To understand what must be done, it is critical we recognize how we reached this point. We have arrived at the point where an arguably undeterrable regime has achieved the capacity to attack the US with nuclear weapons due to the policy failure of three successive US administrations.

The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all opted not to take concerted action against North Korea, instead embracing the easy road of appeasement. All three let the threat grow as they kicked the North Korean nuclear can down the road. They engaged in nuclear talks with Pyongyang that North Korea exploited to develop nuclear weapons and missile systems.

North Korea’s threats and capabilities tell us that the can has reached the end of the road. It can be kicked no further.

Unfortunately, neither the State Department nor the US media seem to have noticed. Rather than consider the implications of North Korea’s threats and its nuclear capabilities, the major US media outlets and Donald Trump’s political opponents on both sides of the political aisle have opted instead to attack Trump.

The media and Trump’s opponents all focused their responses to North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship on Trump’s response to the threat. They stood as one in condemning Trump for responding to the ballooning threat by threatening on Tuesday to unleash “fire and fury like the world as never seen” against North Korea if it continues to threaten the US.

TV hosts and commentators bemoaned Trump’s dangerous trigger finger. Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein said, “Isolating the North Koreans has not halted their pursuit of nuclear weapons. And President Trump is not helping the situation with his bombastic comments.”

Sen. John McCain, one of Trump’s Republican nemeses, similarly attacked Trump and intimated that the US lacks the capacity to follow through on his threats.

“I take exception to the president’s comments, because you gotta be able to do what you say you’re gonna do. I don’t think that’s a way you attack an issue and a challenge like this,” McCain said.

For his part, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the media on Wednesday that Trump’s statement was not a threat to use force, per se. It was, rather, an attempt to speak to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in a language he can understand, “since he doesn’t seem to understand diplomatic language.”

Tillerson then said that the administration’s policy remains the policy of its predecessors. The US seeks to renew nuclear talks with North Korea if it will just step back from the brink. Last week Tillerson said that the US is not seeking to overthrow the Kim regime. This was an extraordinary unilateral concession to a regime that is developing the means to conduct nuclear strikes against US cities.

What Tillerson’s statement along with the response of the media and Trump’s political opponents all make clear is that at a moment when the US is in critical need of a serious strategic discussion about North Korea, no such discussion is taking place.

And North Korea is not the only threat that the foreign policy elite in Washington – both in and out of government – is failing to address realistically or responsibly.

The absence of serious strategic discourse in the US is just as striking in everything related to Trump’s handling of the Iranian threat.

Over the past several weeks, Israeli officials have expressed dismay at the terms of the July 7 Syrian cease-fire agreement the Trump administration concluded with Russia. As Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kupperwasser of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explained in a pointed critique of the deal, the cease-fire “tacitly gave legitimacy to the prolonged presence of Iranian and Iranian-backed forces throughout the regions of Syria nominally controlled by the Assad regime.”

Two weeks after concluding the pro-Iranian cease-fire deal, Trump met with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri at the White House. Ignoring the fact that Hezbollah and Iran control the Lebanese government, and that Hariri, consequently, serves at the pleasure of both, Trump embraced Lebanon as an ally. He pledged continued US support for the Lebanese Armed Forces despite the fact that the LAF is subordinate to Hezbollah. And he extolled Lebanon’s war “against terror.”

Last week Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah announced in a televised speech that the LAF in coordination with Hezbollah would be carrying out a strike against ISIS forces along the Syrian- Lebanese border. The LAF would attack from the Lebanese side. Hezbollah and Assad regime forces would attack from the Syrian side of the border.

Nasrallah did not mention that US special forces were fighting alongside the LAF troops. But they were. The Pentagon released photos of US special forces operating from an LAF base. And news agencies reported that US forces were accompanying Lebanese forces into battle.

In other words, the Trump administration has embraced the Obama administration’s policy of viewing Iran and Hezbollah as allies in a common war against ISIS.

One of the lone voices who opposed this policy was Col. Derek Harvey. Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster fired Harvey from his position of Middle East director on the National Security Council last month.

According to a senior US national security source familiar with the issue, Harvey advocated that the administration recognize and act on the growing threat to US allies Israel and Jordan posed by Iran and Hezbollah in Syria.

This week it was reported that both Israel and Jordan briefed US officials involved in cease-fire negotiations and set out their objections to continued deployment of Iranian and Hezbollah forces in the country.

Harvey, the source explains, objected to the Pentagon’s insistence on limiting its discussion of US operations in Syria to the campaign against ISIS. He said that Hezbollah and Iran must also be addressed.

Rather than consider his position, Harvey, the source says, was shot down by his colleagues from the Pentagon who accused him of being a warmonger.

And as a consequence, with US forces fighting side by side with Hezbollah in Syria, and so advancing Iranian control over Syria, the Trump administration’s policy in the country has become substantively identical to that of its predecessor.

As to Iran’s nuclear program, last month Trump again certified that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA nuclear deal. He did this despite the fact that he opposed recertification. Trump was allegedly was blindsided by his national security team McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Tillerson, who reportedly insisted that the US has no alternative at this time to maintaining its commitment to the deal that guarantees Iran will be in North Korea’s position within 13 years.

National security sources in Washington dispute this claim. One source reveals that between Trump’s electoral victory and his firing last month, Harvey developed a detailed plan for withdrawing the US from the nuclear deal but that McMaster prevented him from presenting his plan to Trump.

Whatever the case may be, the fact is that at least for the next 90 days, the Trump administration remains committed to Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal.

Unfortunately, if the US does not act swiftly to forge and implement a strategy for denuclearizing North Korea, it may well face the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran in possession of ICBMs in much less than 13 years.

This is the case for two reasons. First, nothing happens in isolation.

If the US does not attach Trump’s threat to attack North Korea to a credible strategy for removing North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, then Iran will draw the appropriate lessons.

The second reason Trump’s response to the North Korean nuclear crisis will directly impact the burgeoning nuclear threat of Iran is that there is strong circumstantial evidence that the two programs are connected. Indeed, they may be the same program.

Last week, after the UN Security Council passed a new sanctions resolution against North Korea, the regime’s No. 2 official, parliament chairman Kim Yong Nam, arrived in Tehran for a 10-day visit.

In the past, CIA officials have claimed that Iranian observers have been present at North Korean nuclear tests. Iran also reportedly financed the Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria that Israel reportedly destroyed in 2007.

Iran’s Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 intermediate range ballistic missiles are based on North Korean designs. Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton recently revealed that during North Korea’s 1999-2006 missile testing moratorium, Iran conducted missile tests for North Korea.

If the circumstantial evidence linking the two nuclear programs is correct, then whatever North Korea has will be possessed by Iran in short order.

It is certainly possible that there is more happening behind the scenes in Washington than anyone can possibly know. Far from the television cameras, US national security officials may be configuring strategic goals and programs that will enable Trump to abandon Obama’s failed policies in relation to North Korea, Syria and Iran and move the US – and the world – in a safer and more secure direction.

Unfortunately, in light of Tillerson’s claim that the US seeks to return to the negotiating table with North Korea, and given the administration’s decision to continue to implement Obama’s pro-Iran and pro-Hezbollah policy in Syria and Trump’s second certification of Iranian compliance with Obama’s nuclear deal, it is certainly easy to conclude that this is not the case.

As Kupperwasser noted in his essay on the dangers the US-Russian Syrian cease-fire deal pose to Israel and Jordan, Trump’s abidance by Obama’s pro-Iranian policies in Syria “worries Israel… because it casts doubt over the depth of American commitment, the ability of the Americans to deliver, or the relevance of the ‘Art of the Deal’ to the Middle East and international politics.”

It is obvious that Trump continues to seek a clean break with Obama’s policies. But as his critics’ piling on against him following his threat to North Korea and the State Department’s determination to maintain Obama’s failed policy of appeasement toward Pyongyang both make clear, more than anything else, Trump needs advisers who are capable of helping him achieve this goal. He needs advisers willing to stand up to the pressure and the inertial force of the foreign policy bureaucracy and capable of having a serious strategic discussion about how to proceed in an international environment that grows more daunting every day.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

North Korea, Iran, and the Militarization of the United States

President Donald Trump’s tweet last week after the UN Security Council voted to put new sanctions on North Korea held within it loads of information that should have alarmed both the President’s most dedicated followers as well as most Americans. Here it is again:

While the UN Security Council vote was important, the idea that more sanctions would cause North Korea to simply just roll over is pure fantasy.

At the same time as the UN Security Council vote North Korea’s “Number Two” headed to Iran for ten days to strengthen ties between the two countries.  These ties have been covert for years, but now with official sanctions having been increased, Iran’s backing to the North Korean regime becomes key in allowing the nuclear progress to continue at an increased pace.

Furthermore, as long as the world believes Iran is abiding with the Nuclear Deal then cash will continue to flow into Iran.  These investments by Russia and China are no doubt now being channeled back into North Korea for nuclear weapons development.

A Soft Coup in the US by the Generals?

With the take over of Gen. Kelly as White House Chief of Staff and the growing influence of Generals McMaster and Mattis, the alt-right has been abuzz with the rumors of a soft coup. No matter the exact terminology, there is a growing sense that all the President has is his Twitter feed.

Anytime there is military personel involved with the day to day running of the government, especially when war is on the horizon, the chances for direct conflict can and will increase.

While Trump has ratcheted up his rhetoric against North Korea, the real question on why he has allowed Generals who have either bent over backwards to support the Iranian nuclear deal or at least have been complacent with the Persian expansion to continue to strengthen their control over America’s foreign policy.

By not tackling the growing partnership with Iran, the US has forfeited their ability to shut down the orth Korean threat in a peaceful manner.  The world’s money is pouring into Iran and thus enabling Kim Jong Un to move beyond theatrics.

General McMaster, the head of the NSC has not only been one of the biggest supporters of the Iranian nuclear deal, he has cleared the NSC of any opposition to that deal. By creating an atmosphere where Iran gets a free ride and thus empowers a situation where North Korea can trigger a nuclear war is not only negligent, but downright dangerous. The current situation has lead to a militarization of the American government in both day to day thinking and actual action.

The following Tweets from Trump hold an ominous tone:

The world has every right to be nervous. Afterall the Executive branch is being run by three generals and they have not only choked off President Trump’s closest friends, but have left him with only a Twitter feed to vent.

Buckle your seat belt, the World is about to get very rocky!

Iran, North Korea, and the Fast Approaching End Game

Two events  in the past week have now reshaped world events and the geo-political landscape for the forseeble future. The first was the Iranian launch of an advanced satellite-carrying rocket that experts believe is cover for the Islamic Republic’s long-range ballistic missile program.

The other was the second ICBM launch on Friday, carried out by the North Korean regime.  This ICBM flew 3,724km before crashing into the Sea of Japan.  Most experts concur with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un’s statement that, “The test confirmed that all the US mainland is within striking range.”

Trump had been banking on a year or two to convince the Chinese that they would have no choice but to reign in North Korea.  That has gone bust.

 

The long term game is over, as well as the parallel track with Iran.  There too Trump’s assumption was that Russia, if given certain “carrots” could be enticed to push back against the Ayatollah’s. The satelite launch ended that as well.

With Russia on Israel’s doorstep and Iran preparing for Middle Eastern hegemony, Trump can ill-afford to wait in order to build a coherent foreign policy.

No More White House Distractions

The firing of Reince Priebus and the appointment of General Kelly as his replacement as the new White House Chief of Staff has deep implications on America’s foreign policy.  The Trump White House could ill-afford to have the leaks continue during such a sensitive time where crucial decisions involving a two front war would have to be made. General Kelly also brings serious military experience to the White House, setting the stage for flipping the Trump administration to a war presidency.

The Israel Factor

With the Syrian war turning into an existential crisis for Israel, Jerusalem is waiting for the USA to put together a comprehensive strategy in dealing with these two interconnected threats. Given the fact that Syria appears to be the testing ground where Iranian and North Korean know-how are actually merged together on the battlefield, Israel will be called on to alleviate the burden put on America if and when an actual war would break out.

 

TWO FRONT WAR: Iran is Sharing ICBM Technology with North Korea

Donald Trump issued the following Tweet in reaction to this morning’s North Korean ICBM launch that had the potential to hit Alaska.

Despite the bravado, the Tweets do not hide the utter shock in North Korea’s ability to make serious advancements in its ICBM program.  Today’s test was supposed to be a year away.  This puts pressure on the Trump administration to respond accordingly.

Yet, how did the situation reach this point?  Disregarding the last 17 years of foolish attempts at convincing North Korea to stop, the last several months has seen their program has grown considerably.

Iran is Developing North Korea’s ICBM Technology

The partnership built around missile development and nuclear technology between Iran and North Korea has only grown stronger since the Obama administration reached a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

North Korea tests missiles then sells the know how to Iran who in turn tests and improves the missile and then sends the updated specs back to North Korea.  This is the explanation of how the Kim Jong Un regime has reached impressive levels of missile capability is disconcerning and means that the Trump administration is essentiall fighting a two front war. It also means that the North Korean and Iranian issue are ver intertwined.

Israel Defense Analyst Tal Inbar wrote in May:

“The ‘accuracy revolution’ is a process we see in many countries’ rockets and missile forces,” Inbar wrote. “North Korea’s close ally, Iran, which bought the technical know-how on ballistic missiles from North Korea, introduced a new generation of ballistic missiles with a forward section containing a set of movable fins and guidance equipment.”

Taking on One Means Taking on Two

Micha Gefen reported in April about the interconnection of the two programs.

“It has been known for some time that Iranian missile technology was developed in North Korea.  Both regimes see the USA as their number one enemy and have worked together to build a situation where they would pose a serious threat to the USA. To most observers North Korea and Iran are in constant coordination as can be seen from last week’s ballistic missile test in Ira, which followed North Korea’s launch of four missiles near Japan.

Researchers from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies published a research paper (.pdf) in January 2016 outlining Iran’s past and present military dealings with North Korea, concluding that “the signs of military and scientific cooperation between Iran and North Korea suggest that Pyongyang could have been involved in Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile program, and that state-run trading companies may have assisted in critical aspects of Iran’s illicit nuclear-related activities.””

If America and its allies want to deal with North Korea, the Iranian advance accross Syria and its threat to the Israeli Golan must be taken into consideration.

North Korea, Donald Trump, and Obama’s Controlled Chaos

With news coming out of North Korea that the regime has in fact tested another engine for an ICBM capable of reaching the USA, observers are begining to wonder if the only real solution to North Korea is war. Russia and China have alredy moved troops to the border as early as May when tensions began to increase, but now any pressure the international community might have had (especially China) on the North Korean regime has melted.

President Trump himself acknowledged this in a tweet.

The world like the Syria crisis moves ever closer to the point of no return. If the Kim regime would get an ICBM, it’s nuclear ambitions would be fully realized.  This means the Trump administration has little time to avert a fully nuclear capable North Korea, which would destablize Asia and upend America’s dominance in the Pacific, not to mention being held “captive” by a mad man who could decide to nuke America whenever he got angry.

So how did we get here?  Afterall, even the most ardent Trump critics do not blame the crisis on him. The North Korean nuclear program flourished under Obama after it achieved break out under Bush.

The Obama administration could  have stopped it early on, but allowed it to develop and grow. Why?

Everything the Obama administration did when it came to foreign policy should be seen through the prism of chaos creation.  This can be applied to funding ISIS ( in its early days), Black Lives Matter, not preventing Russia from entering Syria, and of course North Korea.

This attempt at creating controlled chaos serves both the Deep State and the Globalists, because chaos breeds the need for placing a new order so as to provide a solution where there was none within the chaos. This allows the Deep State and Globalists to take more control.

The problem is, chaos cannot be controlled.  It goes the way it wants and almost never where the party who creates intends it to. The world is at the precipice because the Deep State and Globalist elite network of rulers has put us there.

Donald Trump will have no choice but to take down the North Korean regime. It is clear he does not wnat to go to war, but an ICBM in the hands of a madman is not an option. In the ensuing chaos, the Deep State and Globalists will attempt to assert control, but the chaos may very well be too much even for them.