Look What Happens When You Close A ‘Good Nuclear Deal’ With A Rogue State

More than 20 years ago, on October 21, 1994, President Bill Clinton announced that the United States had reached a Framework Agreement with North Korea on its nuclear program. Clinton assured the American public that it was a “good deal.”

You can watch Clinton’s statement here:

“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community,” Clinton said.

Sound familiar? Obama used similar language when he announced the Framework Agreement with Iran earlier this month.

We all know what happened with Clinton’s “good” deal. On April 23-25, 2003, during trilateral talks in Beijing, North Korea told the U.S. delegation that it possessed nuclear weapons. This constituted the first time that Pyongyang made such an admission. More than two years later, on October 9, 2006, North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test near the village of P’unggye.

Last night, news broke that Chinese nuclear experts have informed their American counterparts they have increased their estimates of North Korea’s nuclear weapons production well beyond most previous U.S. figures. They now suggest Pyongyang can make enough warheads to threaten regional security for the U.S. and its allies.

Wall Street Journal reporters Jeremy Page and Jay Solomon reported that China had informed U.S. nuclear specialists that North Korea will have 40 nuclear warheads by the end of 2016 and potentially over 75 by the end of the decade. North Korean engineers have apparently miniaturized them and can mount them on their KN-08 long-range missiles, which can reach California.

The news has alarmed U.S. lawmakers, who say that it must have implications for the current talks with Iran about its nuclear program. Republican lawmakers said the pending deal with Iran could mirror the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea.

“We saw how North Korea was able to game this whole process,” Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran had its hands on the same playbook.”

In fact, it goes further than Iran having its hands on the same playbook.

In every meaningful sense, the North Korean nuclear program is an Iranian nuclear program, albeit beyond Iran’s territorial borders. The Iranians pay for the program. The Iranians receive knowledge and technology from the program. The Iranians are on hand to observe every major nuclear and missile test.

But there is more.

Take, for example, the parallels between the deal with North Korea and the current negotiations with Iran. The Agreed Framework with North Korea was negotiated by Wendy Sherman, and the Iran deal is being negotiated by the same Wendy Sherman. The Agreed Framework lasted a decade, and the Iran deal is slated to last a decade. The agreement with North Korea relied on IAEA verification, and the Iran deal relies on IAEA verification.

But now, the North Koreans have a full-blown nuclear arsenal that the Americans didn’t even know about. U.S. officials reportedly expressed surprise when they were briefed on the Chinese information.

Defiant Iranian Statements

Meanwhile, Iran continues to issue defiant statements about the Framework Agreement with the six world powers and the current negotiations about a final agreement.

A top Iranian commander said Iran will never permit inspection of its military sites.

“Not only will we not grant foreigners the permission to inspect our military sites, we will not even give them permission to think about such a subject,” the Fars News Agency quoted Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the second-in-command of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), as saying on a live television broadcast last Saturday.

“They will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams,” he added.

He also said that a harsh response awaits anyone who talks about such inspections.

“Visiting a military base by a foreign inspector would mean the occupation of our land because all our defense secrets are there. Even talking about the subject means national humiliation,” he added.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said that U.S. officials should “stop their silly demands from Iran.”

Fars News reported that Khamenei blasted the US and Europeans and their “puppet regimes’” media hype and allegations that Iran had sought to acquire nuclear weapons, and said: “Today, the most vital threat posed to the world and the region is the US and the Zionist regime which meddle (with other nations’ affairs) and kill people anywhere they deem to be necessary without any control or commitment to conscience or religious principles.”

Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s top adviser for international affairs, demanded again that sanctions imposed on Iran should be immediately lifted when an agreement is signed, not when Iran’s compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) demands is certified.

The IAEA reported earlier that no significant progress had been made in the talks with Iran about access for inspectors to military sites.

During a military parade on Army Day in Iran last Saturday, a truck carrying a massive banner reading “Death to Israel.” was seen. A televised broadcast of the parade was punctuated by repeated cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Warnings to Obama

Dr. Mahmoud Moradkhani, an Iranian expat and a nephew of Ayatollah Khamenei, wrote an open letter to President Obama in which he warned not to trust the Iranian regime. He told Obama that Khamenei is lying in negotiations, practicing the Shia doctrine of taqiyya in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to the infidel for the advancement of Islam, and asked the President not to pursue his nuclear deal with the regime but to focus on Iran’s expansion policies and abysmal human rights record. Moradkhani is the son of Sheikh Ali Teherani, who married Khamenei’s sister.

Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker joined George Schultz and Henry Kissinger in demanding a much better deal with Iran. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote that the current Framework Agreement “needs lots of work.”

“Our P5+1 partners should understand that if we can’t trust Iran to stick to its promises during negotiations, we cannot trust that it won’t resume its nuclear-weapons program after a final deal is reached.

“Only after we have the necessary support from the P5+1 should we resume our discussions with Iran. And then, only after the Iranians have been told in no uncertain terms that we have reasonable specific demands they must meet. Let Iran and the world know what those demands are. If Iran balks at such an arrangement, then it will be that country’s fault that the talks broke down,” Baker wrote.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why Obama Hid Information On Illegal Shipments Of Missile Parts To Iran

On Monday, The Jerusalem Post published an important op-ed titled Unmasking the real Obama Doctrine. The article was written by David Parsons, the director of media and public relations of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.

In the article, Parsons enumerated Obama’s blunders in the Middle East and explored what is driving the president and where Obama is trying to steer the course of world affairs:

Obama’s regional score card is one of unmatched ineptitude. His withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan were predictably premature, risking all the American capital and blood invested there. Libya was liberated from a ruthless dictator only to descend into tribal and jihadi chaos. He has overlooked every anti-Western antic of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, while bullying Israel and berating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at every turn.

In Egypt, he threw loyal ally president Hosni Mubarak under the bus in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and then cut off aid to Cairo when the masses demanded the overthrow of his successor, Mohamed Morsi.

The Saudis watched in shock and are looking for support elsewhere. In Syria, he has dithered between toppling President Bashar Assad for using chemical agents against his own people and preserving his regime as a bulwark against the brutalities of Islamic State (IS). He boasted of Yemen as a model for fighting terror only to see it overrun by a radical proxy militia of Iran. And he has bent over backwards to placate Tehran in pursuit of an elusive deal that is most assuredly setting off a nuclear arms race in a Middle East already in flames.

In short, Obama has alienated allies and coddled enemies all the while chasing some goal that has yet to be clearly identified.

Parsons then analyzed Obama’s motivation for appeasing the ayatollahs, while estranging and even endangering traditional American allies in the region:

My own take is that Obama is indeed motivated in part by a leftist worldview but also by a religious outlook that is best described as Chrislam. This is an emerging theological viewpoint which sees both Christianity and Islam as equal paths to God and equally valid sources of moral precepts, and Obama has developed his own unique brand of it.

“I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” Obama said in 2009.

Parsons:

So not just a policy but a presidential duty to defend Islam! And in carrying out this new duty, Obama not only has repeatedly defended Islam as a morally equal faith but also has used those occasions to point out flaws in Christianity. And while past Christian generations did err in brandishing the sword in the Crusades and in using the New Testament to try to justify the enslavement of black Africans, this president has gone so far as to actually question the moral integrity of certain Christian scriptures. In doing so, he has crossed a line that no Christian should countenance.

Obama’s inclination to shield Islam from criticism runs so deep, he even feels compelled to pronounce who is a Muslim and who is not.

Parsons then arrived at the heart of Obama’s real agenda:

I would submit that Obama’s enduring cultural identity with Islam and concern for its perception and welfare has motivated him even to hope for the healing of its deepest rift – the centuries-old bitter schism between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam.

This would mean that Obama saw his rise to the Oval Office as a unique opportunity to try to set into motion a process which would lead to a repair of the historic breach between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam, largely as a means to stabilize the notoriously volatile Middle East.

His chosen Sunni partner for this venture was the Muslim Brotherhood and his Shi’ite partner was none other than Iran. If successful, the two sides would have mutually defined their respective spheres of influence and worked toward a more peaceful regional configuration. It is just that events have overtaken him, Obama’s strategy is in shambles, and he has been taking a lot of his frustrations out on Israel, and especially Benjamin Netanyahu.

Parsons also cited Yehuda Avner – adviser of four Israeli prime ministers – who offered up a valuable insight into Obama, straight out of one of his biographies.

In one chapter, Obama recalls his days as a community organizer in south Chicago and his tactics for resolving violent flare-ups on the streets. He first sought to identify the worst thug among the various gang leaders and go to him first in a bid to bring him over to the good side. You threaten him a little, you massage his ego, you offer him something, and you slowly restore calm, all the while ignoring the other parties involved.

This insight alone goes a long way towards explaining Obama’s six years of careful engagement with Iran and his benign neglect of those regional allies most threatened by Tehran’s renegade nuclear program.

It also explains why Obama hid crucial information on shipments of components for long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Iran by North Korea during the current negotiations with Iran.

U.S. officials, who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on condition of anonymity, said more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by the U.S. going from North Korea to Iran since last September.

President Obama was given details of the shipments in his daily intelligence briefings, but the officials say the information was hidden from the UN by the White House so that it would not take action on the sanctions violations.

A wave of experts came out with criticism against the administration for hiding the missile part transfer from the UN.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton said the shipments violated UN sanctions on Iran, as well as those imposed on North Korea back in 2009. “If the violation was suppressed within the U.S. government, it would be only too typical of decades of practice,” Bolton said. “Sadly, it would also foreshadow how hard it would be to get honest reports made public once Iran starts violating any deal.”

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz shared his assessment, saying, “while it may seem outrageous that the Obama administration would look the other way on missile shipments from North Korea to Iran during the Iran nuclear talks, it doesn’t surprise me at all.”

“Iran’s ballistic missile program has been deliberately left out of the talks even though these missiles are being developed as nuclear weapon delivery systems,” noted Fleitz. “Since the administration has overlooked this long list of belligerent and illegal Iranian behavior during the Iran talks, it’s no surprise it ignored missile shipments to Iran from North Korea.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

North Koreans Jump Into Water To Show Adulation For Kim Jong-Un

northkoreanswim

This video could be considered funny if it wasn’t so sad. Actually, it’s so bizarre it’s hard to find the right word to describe it.

North Koreans, having spent decades fearing they are not showing enough love for their Dear Leader, literally jump into the water to chase Kim Jong-un’s boat as he leaves. It’s amazing what the threat of being tossed into a cage with 120 rabid dogs that haven’t eaten for a week will do to you.

Do you think our Dear Leader is jealous?

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

North Korea Says They’re Ready To Start A Nuclear War – Iran Is Next

Obama Kim Order

Having just returned from a week on the Korean Peninsula, I can testify as to the heightened state of tensions between North and South Korea, and America as well.  The DMZ is a scary place.  Seoul 1

As most people know, there was never a peace treaty signed in the Korean conflict; and the two sides are technically still at war, even though an armistice is administered between the North and the UN Armistice Commission.

Every rogue state in the world is racing to develop and field nuclear weapons because they realize it’s the ultimate trump card, the ultimate barrier to Western pressure on human rights and dignity. With the bomb, any tin pan dictator can basically do what he wants to his people and threaten the world at will.

Sky News reported today on a conversation they had with the North Korean Ambassador to the U.K.:

North Korea is ready to launch a nuclear war if it feels threatened, the country’s ambassador to the UK has told Sky News.

In a rare interview, the senior official told us North Korea has nuclear weapons and is ready to use them.

“We are prepared,” he said. “That is why I say if a sparkle of a fire is made on the Korean peninsula, it will lead to a nuclear war.

“We don’t say empty words. We mean what we mean. It is not the United States that has a monopoly on nuclear weapons strikes.”

“So can I just be clear: you are telling me that the North Korea has the ability now to fire a nuclear missile?” I clarified.

“Any time, any time, yes.”

The problem is that North Korea is most likely serious when it utters these words. Unfortunately, the West and South Korea’s plan to contain the North’s nuclear program did not work. The North simply continued to develop the bomb while promising over and over to stop.

They simply broke their promises.

This is why the “negotiations” with Iran are so dangerous. For in a few short years, the Obama administration’s legacy will be Iran threatening the United States with destruction as well.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Liberals Still Can’t Understand Iranian Letter; Cotton Explains It For Bob Schieffer

Tom Cotton

As Western Journalism reported last week, 47 Senators signed a letter written by freshman Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark., addressed to Iran; it advises that any deal concerning a nuclear program that goes around Congressional approval will die once Obama is out of office.

Since then, liberal talking heads have decried the letter and even questioned the patriotism of the senators in their doing. Cotton joined a skeptical Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday to discuss and further explain the letter.

“Right now, I and most every other senator is focused on stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Cotton said in response to Schieffer’s query if he would be sending a letter to North Korea in regards to their nuclear program as well. “That’s why it’s so important that we communicated this message straight to Iran, because they’re not hearing it from Geneva.”

Schieffer later questioned how a letter to Iran would make America stronger if Iran knew any deal they make with Congress would be moot.

Cotton remarked that for starters, it would follow the Constitution in that Congress must approve the deal in order for it to last, not to mention the deal on hand is what Cotton called a “bad deal” that would enable the Iranians to construct ballistic nuclear missiles designed to strike the United States.

“The world has to live with the consequences of a nuclear North Korea,” Cotton concluded, noting a 1990’s deal that North Korea ultimately cheated on. “I don’t want the world to live with the consequences of a nuclear Iran.”

h/t: Weekly Standard

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom