Possibility of peace with NK

[Fenring]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/12/kim-jong-un-might-want-trump-to-sign-a-peace-treaty/

In recent news, North Korea seems to finally be open to discussion of a possible peace treaty with the U.S. After many have been worried that Kim Jong-un was a "crazy person" intent on nuking the world, this news may come as a surprise for a few reasons. For those who thought that the nuclear program was itself merely a bargaining tool to give the U.S. an incentive to end the Korean War and recognize NK as a sovereign nation, this will come as no surprise at all. NK officials seem to claim that NK is now ready for peace, or for war, whichever the U.S. prefers, and that they will react negatively to provocation at this point. For my own part I believe that most of what's been going on for the last few years has been bluster for the purpose of building political capital for negotiation, but I can't quite be sure of that either.

What are your general thoughts about this? Would giving in to NK for a peace treaty compromise Asian security, since part of the deal might be U.S. withdrawal of troops from South Korea? Would China be very happy at this result, and is that a good thing? Or is there some chance for real peace here, and all NK ever really wanted was not to be invaded by the U.S.?

I've heard it argued that if NK disarms its nuclear program that would just be an invitation to invasion and be the next Libya, and that they'd do well to hang on to their supposed arsenal.

When I heard the news I actually felt hopeful, and I really do want to think there's potential for a peaceful diplomatic solution here. What do you suppose people would say about President Trump if he was able to successfully broker peace with NK? Would it even be possible that people would be able to bring themselves to praise him for it?

[TheDrake]

NK is buying time, in my opinion. They've done this before, with multi-lateral talks and agreeing to demands that they reneg upon. I'd like to be proven wrong, and removing our military umbrella from South Korea and/or Japan would also have the effect of removing checks on Chinese expansion in the region. But I'd love to save the money that we spend on South Korean defense (some estimates are 750 million a year, there are other ways to count it higher). It also fits with my "take all our marbles and go home" foreign policy.

On the other hand, strange things happen. I never would have thought I'd see Germany peacefully reunited.

[D.W.]

Been thinking on this as well.  Trump is likely to (probably should) get credit for breaking up log jams in all sorts of areas.  Still way too early to tell if those will break for the better or for the worse.  But let's say things with NK do turn out better.  Let's say that we get SOME movement on gun control.  Let's say that our immigration policies get some serious looking at during, or in response to Trump's policies/ranting.  Even if things get "worse" by many standards during his term, that he will be an engine of change, seems almost inevitable at this point.

I find the man dangerous and disgusting, but when the dust settles, and we wake up from this nightmare and he's gone... maybe we'll look back and decide that as awful as it was, maybe it was needed at the time. 

I suppose it should be no shock that when faced with a mirror image of his behavior overseas, he sees opportunity.  If they find a way where they both "win", anything is possible.

[TheDeamon]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/12/kim-jong-un-might-want-trump-to-sign-a-peace-treaty/

In recent news, North Korea seems to finally be open to discussion of a possible peace treaty with the U.S. After many have been worried that Kim Jong-un was a "crazy person" intent on nuking the world, this news may come as a surprise for a few reasons. For those who thought that the nuclear program was itself merely a bargaining tool to give the U.S. an incentive to end the Korean War and recognize NK as a sovereign nation, this will come as no surprise at all. NK officials seem to claim that NK is now ready for peace, or for war, whichever the U.S. prefers, and that they will react negatively to provocation at this point. For my own part I believe that most of what's been going on for the last few years has been bluster for the purpose of building political capital for negotiation, but I can't quite be sure of that either.

I don't really buy it. But I could be wrong, this almost be my Obama co-op of the X-files motto "I want to believe" back in 2008. Only I think alien abduction stories have more credibility all things considered in this particular case.

"Normalization of relations" between NK and the rest of the world is last thing the Kim family should rationally want, and by extension, much of their supporting organizations.

Unless they get offered one the all time largest "golden parachutes" ever seen or heard of, they're not giving up control of "Their Country" and normal relations with the rest of the world(which means open and regular travel, with little fear of the police-state killing them) is a very direct and immediate threat to that control. The moment they let that happen, the clock starts ticking on how long it'll be until they're on the receiving end of mass protests from "their own people."

So basically, not happening.

Likewise, China probably wouldn't be overly happy with that outcome either, as that would likely mean a unified Korea lead primarily by the present-day South Korean government. Which China probably likewise doesn't want on their national border.

Then again, China might be game for that, as having a contiguous land border with (South) Korea means the possibility of a much more robust trade relationship with them(And access to more/new sea ports--not to mention the development opportunities that exist in N Korea), and chances to bring them into their own sphere of influence. Particularly when faced up against the Chinese Army across their border rather than the joke that is the North Korean Army, even if they have an impressively large roster backed by very obsolete gear(that can still make people dead).

[Crunch]

What do you suppose people would say about President Trump if he was able to successfully broker peace with NK?

If Trump *successfully* brokers some deal that defuses NK, he’ll go down as one of the best presidents in history. That’s a big if and I really don’t know what success would look like.  Denuclearization maybe? Reunification? Unlikely.

All I know is that the policy of the last 50 years hasn’t helped. Maybe it’s time to try something else.

Would it even be possible that people would be able to bring themselves to praise him for it?

Nevertrumpers will never recognize Trump for any successes. Never. If Trump cured cancer, there’d be protests vilifying him for taking away the right to die from cancer.

[DJQuag]

I'm not comfortable giving a country running literal concentration camps the benefit of a peace treaty and normalized relations. We probably know 20 percent of what really goes on there, and even that is stomach turning.

[TheDrake]

You mean like when Nixon and other Western leaders opened the door to communist China? Engagement is far more effective at helping members of such countries than isolation, in my opinion. As people are lifted out of poverty, allowed to travel internationally, and communicate with the rest of the world they are more likely to demand reforms from their governments.

[DJQuag]

China was bad. So was the Soviet Union.

I don't think China was as bad as NK, and by the time the Soviet Union was accepted, normalized, and dissolved, the Stalin era purges and Holodomor were decades in the past.

You can go on Google Earth right now and look down on the NK concentration camps. There is no evidence of mass gas chambers...yet. But they're still hellholes.

If a deal with NK ends that, fine. If not, I'm not okay with it.

[Fenring]

The key to improving conditions with other nations is rarely successful when brought in by force. Look at Iraq and Libya to see how "democracy building" has gone. Really they were cheap excuses to execute private wars using public militaries. The best way to reform another country is to normalize relations, create economic ties, and use incentive-based motive to move the other country into closer line with your principles. Regardless of the particulars of NK, which may include concentration camps, everything is negotiable with a dictator who wants to benefit his position. Give him things that will benefit him and he'll agree to concessions. The people there would be far happier with this approach than with an invasion so that they can have the privilege of being the next Syria.

I think this is a crucial time for Trump to prove he has what it takes as a leader. Regardless of the many demerits he may have in temperament and decorum, if he can actually broker a successful deal it would go a long way to demonstrating that his "make a deal" platform is a real thing. On the other hand there is room here for a massive blunder, and so this is no free ride for him. We'll see what kind of result he can achieve here, not that it's 100% in his hands. There is also the truthfulness of the other side to contend with. That being said, believing the word of the opposition isn't always required in order to successfully negotiate. As long as you're giving them something really valuable they'll come out thinking it's a win for them even if they give up something marginally valuable to them. For instance, how much value can concentration camps really have for Jong-un? It's not like they would produce mass riches, even if they do frighten people into submission. Take away those in exchange for an American guarantee not to undermine the leadership structure there, and it may be a huge win for both sides. Of course there's always the difficulty of actually getting the CIA to comply with any agreement...or to continue their compliance into the next administration.

[TheDrake]

Depends on what you mean by "normalize". I mean having diplomatic relations and recognition , which we definitely had with Soviet Russia during the Stalin years (from 1933 on)  while the Great Purge was 34-39.

I'm well aware of North Korea's abuses and a desire to end them, but I don't think they're going to change because of saber rattling and widely violated economic sanctions (which hurt the general population far worse than the disgusting leadership). Echoing Fenring, I think the Glasnost approach is how you tear down an oppressive government from the outside.

It also gets you much better opportunities to spy and cultivate assets when you have embassies and missions.

[JoshCrow]

The best way to reform another country is to normalize relations, create economic ties, and use incentive-based motive to move the other country into closer line with your principles. Regardless of the particulars of NK, which may include concentration camps, everything is negotiable with a dictator who wants to benefit his position. Give him things that will benefit him and he'll agree to concessions.

Ahem.

Chamberlain's aeroplane landed at the Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938, and he spoke to the crowds there:

The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: " ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

Later that day he stood outside 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded:

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

[TheDrake]

But sanctions wouldn't have worked on Hitler either. In fact, crippling post-war reparations from WWI helped give rise to Hitler in the first place. That's the result of an "isolate and punish" approach. Chamberlain's appeasement also came after Germany rearmed in violation of treaties and started invading places.

So if you're going to take the "what about Hitler" approach then I guess its time to let the bombing begin and relegate millions to destruction and starvation, and just keep our fingers crossed that China won't intervene like last time?

[Fenring]

Yes, this case is very different from Nazi Germany. In this case Kim Jong-un's chief concern is American invasion and the toppling of his regime, rather than the opposite scenario prior to WWII, which was the allies concerned about Hitler invading other countries. NK is not going to invade anybody, and certainly not with American forces right there. So that is a non-issue. There is no matter here of NK biding their time before striking. Now, JoshCrow, if your concern is specifically that removing American forces from SK would result in NK attacking, then that is another matter and speaks to something other than what it sounds like you're addressing. In other words, the terms of any agreement would have to prevent the possibility of this happening. And yes, that is a major concern. But the counterargument shouldn't "well then screw it, if it's this complicated then let's just forget about the possibility of peace." I do not believe in the inevitability of aggressive relations; I do think there are ways to fix things between powers with the will to do so. Most of the time when this type of agreement isn't made it's because both parties think they can do better aggressing against each other. I *hope* the U.S. doesn't feel this way about NK, and I likewise think that Kim Jong-un knows he can do better than he's doing now if we gets some concessions. I imagine that ending the threat of America ending his regime is the #1 priority for him above all others, especially since the CIA has been basically twitching at the idea of toppling the NK government for a long time.

[Seriati]

JoshCrow that's an interesting point, however, don't you think that's more appropriately a criticism of our approach to North Korea for decades? 

We've a let a problem fester and become far worse by avoiding conflict at every step along the way, to the point where we a let a locally dangerous leader facing strong and respected Presidents become an international nuclear power facing an untested and politically inexperienced President (that has a least a strong minority that believes he's incompetent).  The consequence of our avoiding conflict is Trump facing off with a N.K. armed with ICBMs.

Or are you projecting forward to deal that's say worse than Clinton's fuel for nuclear "pause"?

[JoshCrow]

Fenring: I was objecting more to your generalities than to the NK context, specifically.

On the issue of Trump meeting Kim Jong Un... I'll take it. It's probably the best way to stave off a deadly conflict. I may wish we had a better representative, but as even Bill Maher put it on his show last week, these are two guys who might sort of understand each other in a weird, strongman sort of way. I see this as a positive development and preferable to simply waiting around. I am even willing to give Trump credit for pulling it off (assuming it actually materializes).

They used to say "only Nixon could go to China". If Obama were the one going, I can just imagine what people on the right would be saying right now. Instead, with Trump going, I feel like this could actually get support from more level-headed people on the left and produce some rare agreement across the aisle.

[JoshCrow]

JoshCrow that's an interesting point, however, don't you think that's more appropriately a criticism of our approach to North Korea for decades? 

We've a let a problem fester and become far worse by avoiding conflict at every step along the way, to the point where we a let a locally dangerous leader facing strong and respected Presidents become an international nuclear power facing an untested and politically inexperienced President (that has a least a strong minority that believes he's incompetent).  The consequence of our avoiding conflict is Trump facing off with a N.K. armed with ICBMs.

Or are you projecting forward to deal that's say worse than Clinton's fuel for nuclear "pause"?

Well, you say we've let it "fester" (although I would argue that a policy of sanctions and Chamberlain-type "appeasement" are different), but NK seemed to have the position that they wanted to develop the nukes first before coming to the table (so they could deal from a position of strength, as they see it). The timing of this announcement could be interpreted as them saying "we've got actual leverage now, so we're ready to talk". I'm not sure whether you are saying we should have had stronger sanctions, or outright invaded them... but as I understand it NK weren't ready to come to the table without a weapon.
Out of curiosity, do you think Obama should have tried to hold this meeting? I remember candidate Obama saying he was open to it (and being attacked for it). Never happened, though.

[Wayward Son]

For anyone who has high hopes for these talks, just remember: Obama was in a better position for negotiations with Iran than Trump is with North Korea.

And you only need to ask Trump how well that turned out. 

[Fenring]

For anyone who has high hopes for these talks, just remember: Obama was in a better position for negotiations with Iran than Trump is with North Korea.

And you only need to ask Trump how well that turned out. 

That's nice, except the content of the article is little more than an opinion. They say that Trump is in a worse position, for instance, because NK's nuclear program is more developed than Iran's was. But we could suggest just the opposite: by having a more advanced program it means they actually have something to bargain with and the agreement can end up being mutually beneficial rather than just NK just submitting to threats, which will always yield a half-hearted compliance.

They also say that Obama had better relations with the world, which was to his advantage. Was it? Shakespeare's Prince Hal would disagree. It would seem to me to be an advantage to be underestimated and have room to surprise people. It might also be good to be perceived as a regular dirty player, because that's something some people understand.

I'm not really arguing that Trump is some special diplomatic treasure, just that all this conjecture about his chances seem to be premature. Much more rides on America's actual willingness to compromise than on Trump's tea service etiquette. In the case of Iran the Obama admin was always crippled because it was de facto American foreign policy at the time that Iran was The Enemy, along with Syria, and the American allies were never going to be satisfied with good relations with Iran. So that was always going to be a no go. If anything NK has far better chances for a real rapprochement because I don't know offhand of any foreign interests (like for example the Saudis or Israel) that definitely want NK to remain at odds with America. Maybe there are some but I haven't heard about it so far.

[Gaoics79]

For what it's worth, it's been my observation that "crazy" people frequently secure the best deals in a negotiation compared with rational ones.

I truly hope that some kind of deal can be reached. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that any deal with lead to NK abandoning its nukes. The US is just going to have to live with that reality. They can live with it with a peace treaty or without one - and I'll concede I have no earthly clue which is the better option.

[Wayward Son]

If anything NK has far better chances for a real rapprochement because I don't know offhand of any foreign interests (like for example the Saudis or Israel) that definitely want NK to remain at odds with America.

Some have argued that China sees advantages with having a puppet state at odds with the U.S.

[Fenring]

If anything NK has far better chances for a real rapprochement because I don't know offhand of any foreign interests (like for example the Saudis or Israel) that definitely want NK to remain at odds with America.

Some have argued that China sees advantages with having a puppet state at odds with the U.S.

It's possible, but America isn't beholden to Chinese interests and that's the key. What I'm talking about are foreign interests to which America will bow down, like destroying Syria on behalf of the Saudis to keep the petro dollar cycle going.

[TheDeamon]

If anything NK has far better chances for a real rapprochement because I don't know offhand of any foreign interests (like for example the Saudis or Israel) that definitely want NK to remain at odds with America.

Some have argued that China sees advantages with having a puppet state at odds with the U.S.

They have seen advantages in having a "buffer" between themselves and United States & Allied Forces on their Korean border.

But it has also been strongly suggested that over the past many years, China has started to sour on it relationship with North Korea in general, and their general strategic vision at this may be finding North Korea's current existence to be a hindrance rather than an aid. The only "plus" they seem to get out of it at present is playing deal-maker with neighboring nations and North Korea, but with North Korea being as erratic as it is....

I think they're getting close to ready to let North Korea fall, and try to open up land-based trade and other agreements with a unified Korea. Although I also think they're "not a fan" of the idea of unified Korea with nukes either. Particularly when that Korea is more friendly to the United States than China.

Ultimately, I think the solution that ultimately comes into play will be about 10% North Korea, 80% China and South Korea, and the rest scattered between everyone else.

[Crunch]

One step closer to becoming the greatest president in a generation, perhaps in history.

On Wednesday, China said that it secured a commitment from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to denuclearize the Korean peninsula during a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

In return, Xi reportedly pledged to uphold China's close relationship with North Korea during Kim's visit to China which lasted from Sunday to Wednesday, Reuters reported.

“It is our consistent stand to be committed to denuclearization on the peninsula, in accordance with the will of late President Kim Il Sung and late General Secretary Kim Jong Il,” Kim said, according to Xinhua.

As he should, Trump is getting the credit:

A new CNN poll released on Tuesday showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans approve of President Trump's plan to meet with Kim, as "The shift in tone between the White House and the North Korean regime seems to have eased Americans' fears about the threat North Korea poses to the US."

Pretty awesome

[TheDrake]

Have you seen their conditions?

The North's conditions include the removal of a US nuclear guarantee for South Korea, observers say.

What Mr Kim might want in return remains unclear. But both North Korea and China have long wanted US troops and weapons out of South Korea, and this is likely to be a key bargaining chip.

So we take all our marbles and go home, Kim gives up his nukes, and then invades with conventional forces?

It is interesting to see some developments, though, I guess we'll see how well Trump negotiates the conditions before we annoint him for a stunning foreign policy win.

article

You may also recall 2005, when North Korea committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and returning to NPT as the result of six party talks. Or in 94 when NK froze its weapons program after a deal brokered by Carter. 

NK has a history of dangling the idea of denuclearization out, getting a bunch of aid and other concessions, and then jumping back in to the program. Its like Lucy pulling the football away right when Charlie Brown is going to finally kick it. I also wonder how this will be verified. Are we really going to trust that Kim got rid of his nukes, or are we going to get into another Hans Blix type situation?

I'm all for progress, and I'll give credit to Trump on this if it pans out, but I won't hold my breath. I shudder to think what will happen if Trump gets played like virtually every other President since Ronald Reagan. He doesn't exactly tolerate even minor betrayals.

[Seriati]

Thought it made sense to bump this, in light of the historical events occurring in South Korea with its visit by the Rocket Man himself.  Not sure if this is all Trump, the Olympics certainly also opened a door, but in any event its a bit shocking that so much progress appears to be occurring under Trump.

On the other hand, I told my wife this morning that if Trump brokered a comprehensive middle east peace treaty, the CNN headlines the next day would read, "Trump acts to raise the price of America oil hurting the poor and minorities."

[Grant]

The price for peace with LilKim is going to be propping up his Dynasty in perpetuity, abandoning nuclear deterrent forces in ROK, maybe pulling out conventional forces, all while the country is on the verge of collapse and NK becoming a playground for the four horsemen in the form of famine, sickness, coup, war, and death.  So we have a choice, as LilKim sees it.  We stand by a commitment to freedom from tyranny and let millions of Koreans and probably plenty of Americans die and also piss off China.  Or we can save them all by shipping them lots of food and money and support and leaving LilKim in charge. 

Honestly, he knows he's already won.  He set the whole thing up beautifully.  His mastery of 24th dimensional chess surpasses even the powers of Cheetoh Jeezus and Darth Puter. 

[JoshCrow]

On the other hand, I told my wife this morning that if Trump brokered a comprehensive middle east peace treaty, the CNN headlines the next day would read, "Trump acts to raise the price of America oil hurting the poor and minorities."

Just to screw with you, CNN's headline is now "Give Trump some credit for Korean thaw". They may be reading Ornery... *paranoia increasing...*

As for me... I'll give him credit if he does something here. His presence in the Oval Office is not, itself, enough to impress upon me that all other results follow.

[Fenring]

On the other hand, I told my wife this morning that if Trump brokered a comprehensive middle east peace treaty, the CNN headlines the next day would read, "Trump acts to raise the price of America oil hurting the poor and minorities."

Just to screw with you, CNN's headline is now "Give Trump some credit for Korean thaw". They may be reading Ornery... *paranoia increasing...*

As for me... I'll give him credit if he does something here. His presence in the Oval Office is not, itself, enough to impress upon me that all other results follow.

I wasn't sure about the details myself, but the South Korean President explicitly stated that Trump was to thank for making this possible:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/south-korean-president-credits-trump-with-bringing-north-korea-to-the-table/2018/01/10/ae0ee266-f606-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8cc3bbe9543c

I had a deal of my own with my wife on Trump's potential peace talks. Despite all of the rubbish he's created I did tell her that if he accomplished one out of two between peace with NK or peace with Syria I would oblige myself to call him the best President in at least 20 years. If the peace is made and the cost isn't unacceptable (i.e. if it feels like a win) then I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume his foreign policy was responsible. I'm not exactly keen to praise him, but I'll have no choice if this really happens.

[Mynnion]

Hopeful but not convinced this is more than delay tactics.  Especially when you read reports that Kim's nuclear testing location collapsed.  We'll see what happens.

[Grant]

My Korean Peace Plan:

Offer LilKim $100 Billion from the US, ROK, and Japan, a Casino Resort in Fiji, an NBA team in Las Vegas, a spot on Ellen, a Hollywood Walk of Fame Star, and international tax exemption for life, if he retires and turns over the government of North Korea to the ROK. 

By the way, Democrats, I think this would work on Trump as well, but for the lower price of $10 billion.  Think about it.  You could give all that money to media and political operatives and roll the dice, or you could just bite the bullet and go for the sure win.  I'm sure there are some Republicans who might contribute.  I'll donate $200 right now.  Somebody start a GoFundMe. 

[Wayward Son]

Regarding Trump, Grant, it's an interesting idea.  In the immortal words of Doctor Frankenstein (pronounced "Frank-n-STEEN, Frank-n-STEEN"): "It just--might--work!" 

But, of course, then we're stuck with President Pence... 

[TheDrake]

North Korea threatens to cancel US meeting over American military drills with South Korea?

I don't want to see how Trump reacts if Kim cancels on him.

[Wayward Son]

What about when Trump discovers that "denuclearize" was a mistranslation from Korean?

[Fenring]

There have been a lot of very public moves towards a peace talk and I've been getting more optimistic about this. I'm still hesitant to "believe" it will happen but I want to. Because of these overtures by NK it would cause them some loss of face to do an about face all of a sudden, so I'm hoping they won't be given actual cause to do so and make it out like they weren't being taken seriously.

[Wayward Son]

If Trump pulls this off, with a better "deal" than Iran got (or even just as good as that "worst deal ever"), I'll give him credit.  He will have finally done something worthwhile that will help this world and our nation.  I will celebrate with everyone else and give him credit for pulling it off.

But it's still a longshot.  We've made deals with NK before, and they haven't turned out so well.  And with scraping the Iranian nuclear deal, he's set the bar even higher than before.  He's done just about everything he could to fail.  It will be a surprise if he actually succeeds despite his best efforts.

[D.W.]

Even on the outside chance that Trump could pull this off, it looks like elements in his government are already attempting to sabotage the efforts.

[Fenring]

Even on the outside chance that Trump could pull this off, it looks like elements in his government are already attempting to sabotage the efforts.

That is the problem. It's very hard to broker a peace when on the same team as people who would literally like to see NK a smoldering crater. Kim Jong-un's statement seemed pretty specifically targeted towards Bolton's statement that NK's disarmament would proceed just like it had with Libya. It's almost hard to parse that except by way of seeing it as a direct threat, with the double meaning of implying "First you'll do what we say, then we'll level your country anyhow. Loser." And there are powerful people who literally want that result.

[Seriati]

If Trump pulls this off, with a better "deal" than Iran got (or even just as good as that "worst deal ever"), I'll give him credit.

This concept that the deal has to be "better" than the Iran deal is odd to me.  I get why you and others find it appealing.  It's an easy parse.  But the fact is, N. Korea is not remotely the same as Iran on any basis.  A deal that stops N. Korea from developing Nukes and selling military tech pretty much ends 100% of the cross border threat from N. Korea.  The same deal doesn't end any of the current bad acts by Iran.

Iran is a regional power that is actively destablizing the region and directly supporting  terrorists and insurrections, who without Iran's support would largely be ineffective.  The deal entered into not only didn't constrain any of that it actively gave them extra capital to pursue it (plenty of sources show that Iran's military spending is up over 30% since the deal and it's funding of these bad acts has increased).  N. Korea, on the other hand, is known as the "hermit" kingdom for a reason, it's a satellite of a true regional and global power that is not, to my knowledge fomenting active insurrection or terrorism any where in the world, other than it's willingness to sell military tech to all comers.  If the N. Korean deal is just a deal for a deals sake it too will be a waste, if just ends their Nuclear program it'll have solved a much bigger part of the problem than the Iran deal.

Can you explain why you perceive these situations as so identical that your point would make logical sense?  Or is this literally a claim that because Trump thinks selling the Crown Jewels for $1000 is a bad deal, he's at fault for selling a used car for the "same deal" of a $1000?

[D.W.]

Can you explain why you perceive these situations as so identical that your point would make logical sense?

Can you explain why the same, or a better deal shouldn't be possible considering there is no need to try and slow/stop behavior Iran takes part in, when NK isn't doing so?

Your point that what makes the Iran deal "bad" is that it didn't address these things is not without merit.  I don't believe that was the point of the deal, but it COULD have been, so I suppose a "better" deal, would delve into it.

But all that's besides the point.  The same, deal, or a "better one" (since Trump loves to proclaim the Iran one was terrible) should be even easier to achieve with NK, for all the reasons you listed.

[Seriati]

D.W. my point on the Iran deal was that it gave up our leverage and was counterproductive to our goals because we are funding Iran to fund terrorism and destablizing activities.  Effectively we declared that measures that may or may not actually slow Iran's ambition to develop Nuclear weapons (but don't slow their ability to develop delivery systems), were worth trading out all leverage on their terroristic activities.

What more do we want from N.Korea?  Don't know if it will be "easier" to achieve.  But just getting them out of the Nuke business may solve  the majority of our problem with N. Korea.  And unlike with Iran, we have both S. Korea and China there to help bring them into the international fold.

[Wayward Son]

If Trump pulls this off, with a better "deal" than Iran got (or even just as good as that "worst deal ever"), I'll give him credit.

This concept that the deal has to be "better" than the Iran deal is odd to me.  I get why you and others find it appealing.  It's an easy parse.  But the fact is, N. Korea is not remotely the same as Iran on any basis.  A deal that stops N. Korea from developing Nukes and selling military tech pretty much ends 100% of the cross border threat from N. Korea.  The same deal doesn't end any of the current bad acts by Iran.

Iran is a regional power that is actively destablizing the region and directly supporting  terrorists and insurrections, who without Iran's support would largely be ineffective.  The deal entered into not only didn't constrain any of that it actively gave them extra capital to pursue it (plenty of sources show that Iran's military spending is up over 30% since the deal and it's funding of these bad acts has increased).  N. Korea, on the other hand, is known as the "hermit" kingdom for a reason, it's a satellite of a true regional and global power that is not, to my knowledge fomenting active insurrection or terrorism any where in the world, other than it's willingness to sell military tech to all comers.  If the N. Korean deal is just a deal for a deals sake it too will be a waste, if just ends their Nuclear program it'll have solved a much bigger part of the problem than the Iran deal.

Can you explain why you perceive these situations as so identical that your point would make logical sense?  Or is this literally a claim that because Trump thinks selling the Crown Jewels for $1000 is a bad deal, he's at fault for selling a used car for the "same deal" of a $1000?

The main reason I want to compare deals is that Trump characterized the Iranian deal as "the worst deal ever" or some such.  Terrible in many ways, and the only way to fix it was to break it.

The problem is that I'm pretty sure that he really doesn't have a good understanding of the deal, of exactly why it is a "bad" deal, and how to fix it.

So there is plenty of room there for Trump to make exactly the same mistakes as were made in the Iranian deal with North Korea, and then proclaim that it is "the best deal ever" or some such.

For instance, can you explain to me what we gained by breaking the Iranian deal?  That we can impose more sanctions now?  What about the sanctions we were currently imposing on Iran because of their terrorist activities?  Are the additional sanctions really worth giving them permission to start their nuclear weapons program again?  What was Trump's calculus on this?  Did he really believe that new sanctions would be more effective in preventing them from making a Bomb?  Or does he think that it is a worthwhile trade-off in order to hurt their terrorism program?

Trump says stuff and expects people to believe him, whether it is true or not.  If people dispute him, he calls it "fake news."    But here we have a standard to judge his achievement against (assuming he gets that far, which is looking less likely today).  An arms treaty that he had loudly proclaimed is "terrible."  So I think it is very worthwhile to compare what he thinks were the bad parts of that treaty with any treaty that we make with North Korea, as a measuring stick.

Maybe it's not a perfect comparison, but it is better than relying on his word. 

[Seriati]

For instance, can you explain to me what we gained by breaking the Iranian deal?

The ability to cut them off from sources of income that touch American dollars.  The ability to impose secondary sanctions that punish non-US companies that do business with Iran.

That we can impose more sanctions now?  What about the sanctions we were currently imposing on Iran because of their terrorist activities?

We can reimpose sanctions, and the secondary sanctions regime, that was lifted.  Not the same thing or same consequence or same severity of consequence.

Are the additional sanctions really worth giving them permission to start their nuclear weapons program again?

Isn't this expressly the question I asked?  Is "pausing" their development of a nuclear warhead, but not their ability to develop the technology to build and deliver it, worth giving them access to a continuing massive cash boost that is funding that research, terrorist activity and an increase in their military that threatens our regional allies?

And honestly, they were never "allowed" to develop nuclear weapons.  This is not "permission" to do so, thus imposition of the sanctions designed to cripple that goal.  Or were you under the mistaken impression that we've been approving of Iranian nuclear development for the last 4 decades of sanctions?

What was Trump's calculus on this?

Presumably, that the deal wasn't actually achieving our strategic goals on Iran and that in fact it was counterproductive on all but one of those goals.  I wouldn't be surprised if he also expressly considered the fact that he would b carrying out a campaign promise and sticking it to Obama, pretty much the same way that Obama did to Bush on the pullout from Iraq.  Hopefully the consequence of this flip won't be the same as of Obama's and lead to the rise of another Isis.

Did he really believe that new sanctions would be more effective in preventing them from making a Bomb?  Or does he think that it is a worthwhile trade-off in order to hurt their terrorism program?

I suspect he thinks the marginal gain or loss on the aspect of "making a bomb" is less than the massive boost to constraining their other activities.  Without hindsight it's really hard to say who is correct.

Trump says stuff and expects people to believe him, whether it is true or not.  If people dispute him, he calls it "fake news."

Yes to the first sentence, no to the second.  The media has been over 90% unfavorable for no reason that isn't partisan.  Heck they criticized the administration for bringing home people from N. Korea - for no money - can you imagine how they'd reacted if Trump's admin had sent a pallet of cash to N. Korea for such a little gain?

  But here we have a standard to judge his achievement against (assuming he gets that far, which is looking less likely today).  An arms treaty that he had loudly proclaimed is "terrible."  So I think it is very worthwhile to compare what he thinks were the bad parts of that treaty with any treaty that we make with North Korea, as a measuring stick.

Maybe it's not a perfect comparison, but it is better than relying on his word. 

So we're back to the original question, and you didn't answer it.  Why is the situation similar enough that this is a meaningful measuring stick?

Do you really not have a reason or explanation?

[Wayward Son]

So we're back to the original question, and you didn't answer it.  Why is the situation similar enough that this is a meaningful measuring stick?

What I would be comparing it to is the concessions Iran made to stop their nuclear program and to verify that they actually did.  Specifically, Iran agreed to:

o Reduce their number of centrifuges from over 20,000 to "no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges."
o Reduce their uranium stockpile by 98% to 300kg, with the stockpile enrichment limited to 3.67% (which is useless for atomic bombs, but not for reactors).
o Limit nuclear research and development to Natanz, which is constantly monitored by video and subject to random inspections.
o Allow international inspectors to inspect any suspicious site in their country within 24 days.
o Continued ban of ballistic missile technology for up to 8 years, and an arms embargo for up to 5 years from the start of the agreement.

Any agreement with North Korea would entail some similar kind of verification agreement that they won't do further work on nuclear devices.  I am hard pressed to imagine a more robust agreement short of unconditional surrender.

In exchange, the Iranians were given back over $100 billion of their money that was held overseas, were allowed access to global financial systems for trade, and, of course, the ability to sell oil again, plus the lifting of some other sanctions, such as jet aircraft.

So these are the points of comparison that I am using.  I'm sure you agree that these particular points are applicable to North Korea, too.

For instance, can you explain to me what we gained by breaking the Iranian deal?

The ability to cut them off from sources of income that touch American dollars.  The ability to impose secondary sanctions that punish non-US companies that do business with Iran.

This is where I'm a bit unclear.  Exactly what sanctions is Trump planning to unilaterally impose?

Because from what I can find out, the one major sanction that really hurt Iran was the one for oil.  They have made billions in sales of oil since the lifting of sanctions, and it seems to be their major export.

But so far, I have been unable to find how much oil we buy from Iran.  It seems that we don't buy any.  I have only found sales mainly to Europe, Japan, China and India.

So without the cooperation of other countries, I don't see what major source of American dollars we will be cutting them off from.

And while we can impose sanctions on foreign companies that do business with Iran, that would further strain our relations with our allies, perhaps triggering another trade dispute.

So from what I can see, we are trying to remove the impediments on Iran to develop a nuclear bomb for the ability to impose minor sanctions on Iran and sanctions on our allies to try to force them to cooperate with us.

Hopefully the consequence of this flip won't be the same as of Obama's and lead to the rise of another Isis.

I very much doubt it.  More likely it will be a war among Middle-Eastern nations, possibly a nuclear one.

[Greg Davidson]

The US had virtually no trade with Iran, so US sanctions alone had very little impact. What worked quite well was the extended diplomatic efforts by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry to align a coalition that included Iran's major trading partners to force them to make the concessions that they did.

That is why Republicans must have irrational hate for the Iran Deal, because it is a fundamental axiom that anything done by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry must be wrong. So you find that Republican opponents don't actually know what provisions were in the Iran Deal, they have no alternative explanation of what better approach could have been taken (at the end of the Bush Administration the right wing was focused on military actions, as if the Iraq War was not bad enough, they want to try another war against a country with three times the population and terrain less well suited to military invasion), and now that they have eliminated the Iran Deal because they hate Democrats they have no real argument why elimination of the deal makes us any safer.

[Crunch]

What worked quite well was the extended diplomatic efforts by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry to align a coalition that included Iran's major trading partners to force them to make the concessions that they did.

LMAO. Seriously, LMAO. Your disconnect has never been more starkly demonstrated than in that statement.

[DonaldD]

With which part do you disagree, Crunch?
1) Were the diplomatic efforts in the area of the Iran concessions not extended, or do you consider them not diplomacy?
2) Did the coalition NOT include Iran's major trading partners?
3) Do you feel that the efforts made by Obama, Clinton and Kerry had little or no constructive effect on that coalition?
4) Did Iran not make concessions?
5) Do you feel that Iran was not forced to make those concessions, rather that they would have made them unilaterally without the intervention of its trading partners?

[Seriati]

The US had virtually no trade with Iran, so US sanctions alone had very little impact.

This is so fundamentally wrong as to be funny.  Read up about secondary sanctions.  Iran didn't just lose access to direct US trade, they lost access to every person on the planet that wanted to trade in US dollars, through US dollar denominated transactions or with US persons.

What worked quite well was the extended diplomatic efforts by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry to align a coalition that included Iran's major trading partners to force them to make the concessions that they did.

They weren't really Iran's "major trading partners" they were Iran's potential major trading partners.  Iran had limited and controlled trading rights under the prior sanctions regime.

In any event, it's literally a fact that the group you listed achieved the "concessions" in the deal.  For the low low cost of a billion dollars in hard currency and potential access to unlimited funds, releasing any constraints on military spending, terrorist support and fomenting unrest, we got the concession that Iran could continue their nuclear development for energy purposes on a limited basis rather than an unlimited basis (of course that ignores that prior to the "concession" technically it wasn't conceded that they even had that right).  Did they really give up Nukes?  No guaranty, that part of the plan was aspirational and based on the idea that Iran would become addicted to not being a pariah and sort of give it up long term voluntarily.

That is why Republicans must have irrational hate for the Iran Deal, because it is a fundamental axiom that anything done by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry must be wrong.

Well I've walked through many of the actual reasons several times.  And I didn't deny your good faith agency like you seem intent to do here.  Maybe I should?  Okay?

Greg has no rational basis to support the Iran deal, he only likes it because to believe otherwise would mean his heroes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry made a mistake and it's too late for him to internalize that such a thing is possible.

Is it really just impossible for you to comprehend that reasonable people can reach a different conclusion about the worth of this deal?  Heck you can go back and look, I've never even expressed an opinion about whether I think  that Trump was right to exit the deal.

So you find that Republican opponents don't actually know what provisions were in the Iran Deal, they have no alternative explanation of what better approach could have been taken (at the end of the Bush Administration the right wing was focused on military actions, as if the Iraq War was not bad enough, they want to try another war against a country with three times the population and terrain less well suited to military invasion), and now that they have eliminated the Iran Deal because they hate Democrats they have no real argument why elimination of the deal makes us any safer.

Or you could refer to what I wrote that literally does explain why someone could rationally think that constraining Iran's access to resources generally makes us safer.

Honestly, I feel like this is debate where you negotiated with MS-13  to pardon their past offenses and not to prosecute them or deport them in the future  if they just stop burning people, leaving them free to rape pillage and kill by other means with impunity.  Too much given up for too little return.  it's too late to take back the pardons, but it wasn't too late to drop the no prosecution for future acts.  Do you honestly think this deal constrains Iran on all the ways they are a bad actor at a reasonable price?

[TheDrake]

Secondary sanctions aren't looking so hot.

The EU has begun reviving legislation that will allow European companies to continue doing business with Iran, despite US sanctions, officials say.

The so-called "blocking statute" was introduced in 1996 to circumvent US sanctions on Cuba but was never used.

An updated version of the measure should be in force before 6 August, when the first sanctions take effect.

It will prohibit European companies from complying with the penalties and permit compensation for affected firms.

The Commission - the EU executive - said the European Parliament and member states could raise objections to the statute. But the measure could also be activated sooner if there was strong political support.

It also announced:

The start of the formal process of allowing the European Investment Bank to lend to EU projects in Iran

It would urge EU governments to explore "one-off" transfers to Iran's central bank to help authorities to receive their oil-related revenues

It would continue and strengthen the assistance to Iran with Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete travelling to Tehran this weekend

[Seriati]

Agreed, the EU had a work around for Cuba as well.  That's one of the reasons that here the US exit may actually allow the best of both worlds as the EU's efforts will keep Iran in the deal, and the US will be free to pursue other containment goals.  The EU is very experienced in tweaking these kinds of regs when they need to to "support" or "hinder" the US in order to get compliance with Iran.

In any event, the actual reality is going to be far more nuanced than the Obama good Trump bad morality play that's going on here.

[Fenring]

This "peace talk" is going downhill in a hurry. Hard to parse at the moment what's happened.