Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Nuclear Diplomacy With North Korea And Iran: Let The Comparisons Begin

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.

 

Lobelog

 

North Korea and Iran represent significantly different nuclear-related challenges. The biggest difference is that North Korea has nuclear weapons while Iran doesn’t and never has. If North Korea really were to become no longer a nuclear threat, as Donald Trump prematurely declared upon returning to Washington this week, this would mean Pyongyang dismantling an existing nuclear arsenal. With Iran, the task instead has been to close all possible pathways to development of an Iranian nuclear weapon and to ensure through comprehensive monitoring and inspection that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful. Accomplishment of that task is what the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal, has been all about.

There are other possibly relevant differences, such as the nature of the two regimes. Iran has a popularly elected president and parliament and, notwithstanding the less democratic aspects of its political system, has real politics in which policies and ideologies are contested both openly and within the regime. By contrast, North Korea is a family-ruled thugocracy that currently is the most totalitarian state in the world.

It is difficult to assess the net effect of the internal political differences on nuclear diplomacy. Generally it is easier to strike a deal with a single dictator who calls all the shots than to bargain with representatives of a more divided regime with its own bureaucratic politics. Inducing a regime that possesses nuclear weapons to give up that arsenal, however, can pose a bigger challenge than ensuring that a non-nuclear-weapons state stays that way. A fair-minded observer who strips away the rhetoric and concentrates on the facts of each situation might be hesitant to use what has been done with Iran as a standard for assessing what is being done with North Korea, and vice versa.

But Trump, through his own rhetoric and that of others who have been intent on destroying the JCPOA, has forfeited any such benefit of the doubt. By repeatedly asserting that a “better deal” was possible with Iran and claiming superior prowess in striking deals with anyone about anything, Trump not only permits but invites comparisons between what he accomplishes on North Korea and what his predecessor accomplished on Iran. The many attacks that he and others have made on the JCPOA, regardless of how untrue or invalid those attacks have been, provide standards for assessing whatever Trump does with North Korea.

Initial Concessions

Fairness also requires recognition that any significant progress toward making North Korea no longer a nuclear threat will take a long time, with the meeting in Singapore at best only a single step in any such process. But it is not too soon to start making comparisons. Indeed, one of the most frequently voiced attacks against the JCPOA has concerned the up-front sequencing of events in which each side made or implemented its initial concessions. Trump’s own previous secretary of state joined in this attack when he asserted, “They [the Iranians] got the immediate lifting of the sanctions before they ever had to deliver on anything.”

That assertion is false. The first concessions of any sort during the diplomatic process that led to the JCPOA came with an interim agreement, the Joint Plan of Action, reached in 2013 when the final agreement was still many months of hard negotiations away. Under this preliminary accord, Iran had to blend down or convert to oxide all the uranium it had enriched beyond five percent, take most of its enrichment centrifuges offline, admit international inspectors for continuous monitoring of its most important nuclear facilities, and take several other steps to restrict its program. The small concessions it got in return were removal of some sanctions on its auto industry and the ability to buy spare parts for its decrepit civilian airliner fleet. The sequence of implementation of the final JCPOA was heavily skewed against Iran, which had to dispose of 98 percent of its enriched uranium, fill a nuclear reactor with concrete, and take almost all the other significant steps it was required to take under the agreement to close any possible pathway to a bomb—and have this all certified by international inspectors—before it got an ounce of additional sanctions relief.

How does this compare with the picture of initial concessions in Trump’s dealings with North Korea? As many commentators have noted after the Singapore meeting, Pyongyang hasn’t conceded anything yet, let alone implemented a concession. In the short and sketchy joint statement, Kim Jong Un merely reaffirmed a vague commitment to denuclearization—however defined—that his regime had asserted many times before. The big up-front concession was by the United States. That concession was the meeting itself. Not only a meeting, but a meeting with all the flags and finery, the friendly pats and warm words, that went well beyond the bare minimum of summitry in symbolically bestowing legitimacy on Kim’s thugocracy. The meeting, and Kim’s treatment as an equal of the president of the United States, demonstrated the success of Kim’s strategy of using rapid development of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles as a key to getting attention and getting such treatment. The current pause in North Korea’s testing of weapons is not a concession. It is a mark of having arrived, and, as Kim himself has said, of his program’s success.

Note the contrast with the protocol aspects of negotiating the JCPOA. In the arduous diplomatic process that produced that agreement, the most intense interaction between high-level U.S. and Iranian officials consisted not of a cordial made-for-TV encounter but instead of shouting matches—during especially difficult points in the bargaining—behind closed doors between the U.S. secretary of state and the Iranian foreign minister. The closest thing to a summit meeting was a phone call between Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani while the latter was in a car on his way to the airport after participating in the United Nations General Assembly.

Non-Nuclear Issues

After the Singapore meeting, Trump revealed another U.S. concession. He promised—evidently to the surprise of both South Korea and his own Department of Defense—to end joint U.S.-South Korean war games. This was significant partly for being unmatched by anything equivalent from North Korea. What Trump stated was a promise by Kim to disable a missile testing site says no more about North Korea’s ability to continue to develop and test weapons than did an earlier staged-for-journalists explosion at a nuclear test site.

The concession about war games also is significant in going beyond nuclear weapons or nuclear-related sanctions, which leads to another interesting comparison with the JCPOA. The enemies of that agreement have repeatedly castigated it for not addressing non-nuclear issues, including what is routinely labeled as Iran’s “nefarious” international behavior. That castigation ignores how if each side had loaded up the agenda with its other grievances, the agenda would have become unworkable and no restriction on the Iranian nuclear program ever could have been negotiated. With a more expansive agenda, Iran surely would have included the issue of U.S. military activity in Iran’s backyard. Such inclusion would have been at least as legitimate as the inclusion of many other grievances by any of the parties, given a history that has included U.S. warships shooting down a civilian Iranian airliner and U.S. Navy craft more recently entering Iranian territorial waters. But non-nuclear issues were not included in the JCPOA negotiations, and—unlike what Trump said he just did—the United States made no concessions to Iran restricting any U.S. military activities, including those in Iran’s backyard.

Meanwhile, back in Singapore—and notwithstanding all that criticism of the JCPOA about not addressing other Iranian activity—the joint statement from Trump and Kim gives no hint of addressing non-nuclear North Korean activity, beyond a joint commitment to recover POW/MIA remains. Nothing is said about ballistic missiles (and North Korean missiles, unlike Iranian ones, can reach U.S. territory) or about North Korea’s overseas assassinations, kidnapping of Japanese citizens, counterfeiting of U.S. currency, and other current or recent past North Korean actions that would warrant the adjective nefarious.

So far, the comparison between the nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the current administration’s trashing of the JCPOA.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share