Is Real Peace Breaking out in Korea?

What can we look forward to in upcoming dealings with North Korea (officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK)? The first thing to understand is that the main reason the US pays attention to DPRK tyrant Kim Jong-Un is that now he has the atomic bomb, and missiles capable of threatening the US mainland which may at some point be able to carry nuclear warheads. I read today that North Korean diplomats have specifically stated that former Libyan dictator Moammar Khaddafi and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein NOT having the bomb is what allowed the US to overthrow them. The DPRK dictatorship thus clearly sees their nuclear capabilities as enhancing the survival of their regime.

Therefore the most important question in any negotiations is whether Kim will actually give up the capabilities he now has. I think that's pretty far fetched. But if he will, the next question is, what is his price? His first and most likely achievable demand is the lifting of international sanctions. He will also demand an actual peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, the US and South Korea (officially the Republic of Korea, or ROK) signing a non-aggression pact and recognizing the Kim dynasty as the DPRK's legitimate rulers. If these are the extent of Kim’s demands they are probably attainable. The verification of the liquidation of the North’s nukes, program and plutonium would be major sticking points. It must not be forgotten that the regime has agreed in the past to ending its program but has always reneged.

But will his price also include the withdrawal of US forces from ROK?  The severing of the US-ROK defense treaty? Perhaps even withdrawal of US forces from and ending its defense treaty with Japan? These are all probable DPRK demands, but not plausible US gives in any normal administration. There may be a cosmetic thawing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, but the chances of real lasting peace under conditions honestly adhered to by the murderous and tyrannical North Korean regime are, in my view, very small.

Why Iran Nuclear Agreement Makes Sense

The Iran nuclear deal will be voted on in the House and Senate in about a month. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is a member of the Intelligence Committee, an engineer, and well-informed on nuclear issues. After examining the prospective deal agreed upon between Iran, the US and five other major powers, he has come to the conclusion that it merits his strong support. It is the best way to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while avoiding a new war in the Middle East. Heinrich wrote an  op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal. He has waived any copyright issues in the hope of spreading his message and trying to counter the $40 million advertising blitz currently underway by neoconservative war hawks and their wealthy backers. Their campaign urging congressional rejection of the agreement  would likely leave no other option than war. I have posted Senator Heinrich's article below.

Iran deal is a historic opportunity
By Sen. Martin Heinrich / Democrat, New Mexico
Thursday, July 30, 2015 In the first decade of this century when we were entangled in the War in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead rapidly, adding thousands of centrifuges, building complex nuclear facilities and stockpiling highly enriched uranium.
In the absence of real negotiations and before the most recent sanctions, Iran built a nuclear infrastructure that went from 164 centrifuges in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today and included large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that could quickly be enriched to weapons grade material.
When evaluating the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, context, data and details like these matter. Perhaps the most critical data point: Without a deal, Iran could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 60-90 days.
With a deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile by 98 percent. It must cut its number of centrifuges by two-thirds. And it must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous monitoring of its nuclear infrastructure.
Further, a mechanism is in place that will allow inspections of sites should we suspect covert action being taken to build a bomb anywhere else in Iran.
This accord breaks each path to a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort. We should welcome each of those developments as major steps toward regional and international security.
I have studied both the science and the politics of the nuclear-age world we live in from an early age. I grew up listening to my father, who served in the Navy in the ’50s, tell what it was like to watch a nuclear blast firsthand and to see the formation of a mushroom cloud over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the United States. More recently, I have seen the centrifuges dedicated to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, which are housed in New Mexico.
In the House and now on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have served on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which sets policy on non-proliferation and our nuclear deterrent. I also serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I have received numerous briefings on Iran’s nuclear program and capabilities. So I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and to detect such activity.
The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved last week includes all the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time so that, should Iran change its course, the United States and the world can react well before a device could be built; a scenario I hope never occurs, but one that leaves all options on the table, including the military option.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate will object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better. However, they fail to offer any realistic alternatives.
The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, comes from my colleague, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has suggested a military strike.
While the military option will always remain on the table, it should remain our absolute last resort. Our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a military conflict with Iran occur. That path would provoke retaliation and very likely lead to a nuclear armed Iran in a matter of just a few years.
For too long, our country has been engaged in military conflicts that have cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment’s notice to defend our country, our allies and our interests, but we must also be willing to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible.
I am optimistic this accord is in the best interest of our nation and our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran’s leadership. But, to make peace, you must negotiate with your enemies.
Any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks associated with inaction are far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East, and a more secure United States. We must seize this historic opportunity.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Yesterday's interim nuclear agreement between Iran and the six powers is a hopeful step and to be applauded. By it, Iran will dismantle part of its nuclear program, scale back the rest to a level that cannot be used to make fissile uranium, and submit to rigorous inspections. In return, crippling international sanctions will be relaxed contingent on Iranian compliance with the agreement.

The five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia, China) plus Germany had set a deadline for agreement by June, but had established March 31 as a date to determine whether enough progress was being made to continue the talks. They were close enough to continue through April 1, when the overall framework was agreed upon.  

British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said “This is well beyond what many of us thought possible even 18 months ago.” He continued,“There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved,” he said.

Here are the pertinent details as reported by the The Guardian:

• Iran’s infrastructure for uranium enrichment will be reduced by more than two thirds, from 19,000 installed centrifuges, to 6,104, of which only 5,060 will be used for uranium enrichment, for a period of 10 years.
• Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for a period of 15 years.
• Iran’s heavy water reactor will be redesigned so it produces only tiny amounts of plutonium.
• Iran’s underground enrichment plant at Fordow will be turned into a research centre for medical and scientific work.
• Iran will be open to enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency for 20 years.

This is a reasonable agreement in terms of making sure Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb without going to war. Critics such as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and congressional Republicans are not happy. They seem to feel no deal will be enforceable and that Iran will find a way to cheat  The agreement is stringent and should minimize the possibility. Yet if it happens, we will be back to where we are anyway: President Obama has stated he is on the same page as the war hawks in that case. He has said Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that if it appears close to that goal the U.S. will use "any means necessary," an obvious reference to military attack, to prevent it. So Netanyahu, Sens. Tom Cotton, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would scrap negotiations and leave only the certainty of war with Iran. That's not a desirable eventuality, as one would think they might have learned something from the expected easy triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama and the other five powers are right to pursue the path of peace. Iran is submitting to the reversal of all aspects of its program that could lead to a bomb, and to intrusive inspections to keep it that way. Bringing Iran back into normal international relations could have a stabilizing effect on the entire Middle East, and if the effort fails we can always resort to he military option anyway. A few details of logistics still have to be worked out by June. The war hawks have nothing to offer, and it is high time to move and get on with this.

Diplomatic Breakthrough with Iran?

The historic agreement just announced with the Islamic Republic of Iran is a good and necessary first step toward preventing that troublesome nation from acquring a nuclear weapon.  The interim accord also represents perhaps a last chance to do so peacefully.  The accord should be supported, because it preserves the prospect of beginning to restore a modicum of stability to the Middle East.

The six-month deal was announced between Iran and six powers, led by the United States.  The other partners are Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.  Here are some of the most important terms Iran must adhere to: International inspectors will be able to visit Iran's facilities every day for the six months to monitor compliance.  Iran will destroy the 20% enriched uranium it already has.  It will accept limitations on producing more 3.5% enriched uranium.  It will get rid of some of the advanced centrifuges it currently has, and will acquire no more new ones.  It will not open its Arak heavy water reactor, potentially capable of producing plutonium.  It will enter into good-faith negotiations for a permanent treaty during this six-month interim period.  These terms are intended to take away Iran's present stockpile and then prevent it from retaining the ability to produce more fuel enriched to a level that makes the jump to nuclear weapon status feasible.    

In exchange, the powers will relax their sanctions a bit, allowing some more sales of Iranian oil and permitting it to re-enter world markets to specified levels in auto parts, gold, and other precious metals.  The easing of sanctions would net Iran about $7 billion in relief over the next six months.  The sanctions are costing the Islamic Republic about $5 billion a month, so even with the interim agreement, they will still be penalized $23 billion of the $30 billion (over 76%) of the economic losses they faced before agreeing to the bargain.

The usual chorus of neoconservative critics attacked the agreement, claiming it lets Iran off the hook too easily.  Senator Lindsey Graham called for harsher sanctions and no deal except Iran agrees to end all enrichment, even at the 3.5% level of purity which can legitimately be used for electrical power generation.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "bad deal."  Senators McCain and Corker apparently are ready to begin bombing Iran any day now.        

The problem with their line of thinking is that this represents a real opportunity to avoid war and begin bringing Iran back into the family of nations.  If it fails or Iran reneges, the military option will still be there.  With daily inspections Iran will not be able to produce a bomb in the next six months.  President Obama has made it clear several times that Iran "Will not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon," and that "all options are on the table" to accomplish this.  Iran knows full well what that means, and the sanctions Obama has initiated and gotten the other powers to accept have been extremely effective.

Why on earth shouldn't we try to resolve things peacefully first?  If this works, the President will have gone a long way toward earning that Peace Prize he received early in his presidency.  If not, we are likely headed for another war in the Middle East.  And after what we have been through over the past 12 years, only a fool would prefer that as a first choice.

Nuclear Proliferation Must Be Stopped

I gave a talk on nuclear proliferation issues at the Visalia League of Women Voters meeting on Tuesday, March 16. The League is considering making that a key issue for their study this year.

I did some research and came to a few conclusions: 1) The existence of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has slowed down the spread of nuclear weapons in the world, though it has not eliminated it. 2) The United States and Russia still possess nearly 95% of all nuclear weapons. 3) China is central to the success of efforts to reign in would-be nuclear weapons states Iran and North Korea. 4) The greatest danger may well be the possibility of "non-state actors" such as terrorist or private groups gaining possession of a device. It is to this end that a movement of former superpower statesmen has begun campaigning for the global elimination of all nuclear weapons.

The NPT was introduced in 1968 by Ireland and Finland and ratified in 1970. By its provisions the five nuclear powers agreed not to disseminate nuclear weapons technology to any other state or entity. The five powers were the United States, Soviet Union (now Russia), China, Britain and France. The rest of the signatories pledged not to pursue nuclear weapons, and in return the five agreed to share peaceful nuclear technology with them. The five NPT nuclear weapons states also agreed to pursue negotiations for the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. Only three nations have never been signatories to the Treaty: India, Pakistan and Israel. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established as the investigative arm of the Treaty. There have been some successes. Libya renounced its program in 1993. South Africa yielded its six fission bombs and closed its program in 1994. Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus repatriated the former Soviet weapons on their soil to Russia after they achieved independence. The IAEA was in the process of proving that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program in 2003 when the Bush administration ordered it out of the country.

The United States and Russia still possess an overwhelming percentage of the world's nuclear arsenal, nearly 95% of all devices and 89% of all that are operational. This amounts to about 23,000 bombs today, down from a high of 65,000 in 1985. The last Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the two expired last December, but talks are currently underway and are expected to reduce the respective stocks by another 25%.

The nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea are presently an area of tremendous concern for the world. Iran is an NPT signatory and claims to be pursuing only peaceful nuclear technology. North Korea is a former signatory that renounced its adherence in 2003. North Korea appears to have gotten assistance from the A. Q. Khan network of Pakistan. Khan is known as the father of the Pakistani atomic program. Iran is thought to have gotten its from North Korea, thus a spinoff of the Pakistani effort. The common denominator in international enforcement against both states is the importance of the Chinese attitude. It is not coincidental that China has been the most reluctant to approve strong sanctions against Iran. For instance, a recent proposal by the US, Britain, France and Germany for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard apparatus was supported by Russia, but China has made no public comment. Iran is China's primary oil supplier. It would be a good idea to find China another reliable oil source to change this dynamic. Similarly, though an unstable, unpredictable and nuclear-armed North Korea on its border may not be in China's interest, its leadership may feel that neither is a prosperous, free, united Korea with a sizable American military presence. To secure China's cooperation and U.N. Security Council vote, its interests in these matters will need to be addressed.

Finally, the fear of accident, miscalculation or proliferation to a terrorist group or other non-state actor is also a matter of rising concern. It has prompted an unprecedented effort on the part of former Republican Secretaries of State George Schultz and Henry Kissinger and Democrats former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Sam Nunn to write joint editorials in the Wall Street Journal in January 2007 and January 2008 calling for the total elimination of these weapons and a no-nonsense international body to enforce this. The 2008 article lists a number of steps that could be taken to make this a reality. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev offered his concurrence with this goal in his own letter to the Journal. As he put it, "It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious."