RUTHFULLY YOURS

Experience has shown that soft rhetoric and so-called “smart diplomacy” have served only to enable North Korea and Iran to produce more nuclear weapons and better ballistic missiles.

Not only has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) been prevented from monitoring Iranian compliance, but it is not pushing the issue for fear that “Washington would use an Iranian refusal as an excuse to abandon the JCPOA.”

During his first press conference after taking office in January 1981, US President Ronald Reagan called détente a “one-way street that the Soviet Union has used to pursue its own aims.” Echoing this remark while addressing reporters later the same day, Secretary of State Alexander Haig said that the Soviets were the source of much support for international terrorism, especially in Latin and Central America.

The following day, both Reagan and Haig were criticized for their remarks, with members of the media describing the president’s words as “reminiscent of the chilliest days of the Cold War,” and appalled that the administration’s top diplomat was accusing the Russians of backing terrorist activities.

Nearly four decades later, in spite of the successful defeat of the Soviet empire, the White House is still frowned upon when it adopts a tough stance towards America’s enemies. Today’s outrage is directed at President Donald Trump’s warnings about — and to — North Korea and Iran. The Washington Post called his recent “fire and fury” threats to Pyongyang a “rhetorical grenade,” for example, echoing top Democrats’ attacks on his remarks for being “reckless” and “irresponsible.”

Critics of Trump’s attitude towards Tehran go equally far, describing his opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the nuclear deal with Iran — as “rushing headlong into war.”

Trump’s detractors, however, are just as wrong as those who berated Reagan in 1981. Experience has shown that soft rhetoric and so-called “smart diplomacy” have served only to enable North Korea and Iran to produce more nuclear weapons and better ballistic missiles.

Although the JCPOA stipulates that Iran is not permitted to produce more than a certain quantity of enriched uranium or to enrich uranium beyond a certain level, not only has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) been prevented from monitoring Iranian compliance, but it is not pushing the issue for fear that “Washington would use an Iranian refusal as an excuse to abandon the JCPOA.”

Furthermore, among its many other flaws, the JCPOA does not address Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities or financing of global terrorism.

Nevertheless, it is the administration’s rhetoric that is under attack. Isn’t it high time for the media and foreign-policy establishment to wake up to the reality that seeing regimes as they are, rather than as we wish them to be, is the only way to confront our enemies effectively, and with the least number of casualties?

There is a season for acceptance and a season for rejection. When it comes to compliance with the Obama nuclear weapons deal, it is time to withdraw completely at the congressionally mandated October 15 certification deadline.

There are those in the Congress and the Trump administration who believe it is too dangerous to simply walk away from an agreement. Secretary Mattis, for example, said it was in America’s national security interest to stay in the Iran deal. He, among others, has seized on the statutory provision that every 90 days the president must certify that the accord is in the nation’s security interest. They contend that President Trump should maintain the deal, but not sign the next certification this month, an odd combination of events.

As I see it, this strategic position, is clever by half. The issue isn’t really certification; it is the protection of U.S. interests. An Iran that promotes terrorism worldwide and at least in spirit has violated the accord is hardly a reliable partner.

The ayatollahs are unwilling to consider any change in the agreement, an agreement which will assuredly lead to the development of nuclear weapons in five or ten years depending on your interpretation of the JCPOA understanding. In fact, the Iranian leaders have cleverly convinced many in the U.N. that its missiles are not “designed” to carry nuclear weapons, a claim that cannot be verified based on the ambiguous inspection rules, or lack thereof.

Should the U.S. withdraw from the deal, it would not have the slightest practical effect on present conditions. Surely, there will be a U.N. condemnation. But President Trump’s instincts on this matter have been stated repeatedly. “This is a bad deal, a very bad deal,” he noted. If that is the case, it is time to send Iran a message: the U.S. will not countenance your violations, nor will the Trump administration stand by as you promote terrorism around the globe.

What the Obama administration promoted with Iran is now regarded as a precedent for fledging nuclear nations like North Korea. It has been argued that what is good for one devilish nation should be good for another. North Korea claims it has a right to possess and test nuclear weapons. When challenged on this point, the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations invariably refers to the P5+1 accord with Iran. After all, five of these six nations constitute the Security Council, the legal test for the United Nations.

Should the Trump team withdraw from the Iran deal – as I believe it should – the effect on our ties to Iran would be negligible. In fact, the deterrence that undergirds the U.S. position would be unaffected. North Koreans would learn that a different stance on world affairs is now on order, one not particularly eager to compromise with rogue states.

U.S. policy toward both Iran and North Korea is closely related, because we must prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club and becoming another, even more dangerous version of North Korea.

President Trump cannot afford to wait and do nothing as Iran and North Korea grow ever stronger, ever more menacing and become greater and greater threats. He must do something — now.

Reporters continue scratching their heads about what PresidentTrum p meant when he spoke of the “calm before the storm” Thursday as he was hosting a dinner for military commanders and their spouses. It seems clear to me that he was sending a powerful message to North Korea and Iran: change your behavior now, or prepare to face new but unspecified painful consequences.

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump pose for pictures with senior military leaders and spouses after a briefing in the White House on October 5, 2017. During the photo session, President Trump spoke of the “calm before the storm”. (Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)

North Korea and Iran are taking the measure of President Trump to see how far they can push him and how much they can get away with. The North Koreans continue testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles and threaten to launch a nuclear attack on America and our allies that could kills millions. Iran is likely engaging in activities that could contribute to the design and development of its own nuclear explosive device.

If these worrisome actions by the two rogue nations persist, there will be a storm. And as candidate Trump said during his campaign for the White House, he will not tell our enemies what kind of storm to expect — only that he will not allow current trends that endanger our national security and that of our allies to continue unabated.

The president must make some difficult decisions: whether to continue to rely on economic sanctions that don’t appear to be working against North Korea; and whether to refuse to certify Iranian compliance with the bad nuclear deal and demand that additional constraints be placed on the Islamic Republic’s dangerous and provocative activities.

President Trump faces an Oct. 15 deadline to decide whether to certify Iranian compliance with the nuclear agreement, which is designed to keep it from developing nuclear weapons for the next few years. News reports say he is expected to refuse to make that certification.

U.S. policy toward both Iran and North Korea is closely related, because we must prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club and becoming another, even more dangerous version of North Korea.

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump is expected to refuse to certify that Tehran is complying with the 2015 international nuclear agreement, as part of a broader policy change on Iran to be set out as early as next week, people familiar with the deliberations said.

That move would place key decisions about the future of the nuclear deal before Congress, which could move to reinstate sanctions under an expedited 60-day review process.

However, Congress may choose not to, people familiar with the discussions have said, as such a step could lead to the agreement’s collapse. Reimposing sanctions would be considered a breach of the accord’s provisions requiring sanctions to be lifted as long as Iran is deemed to be in compliance by international consensus.

If Congress doesn’t take action, the outcome of the administration’s approach may be to accuse Iran of failing to comply with the agreement while leaving the deal in place.

A senior administration official said Mr. Trump has decided on a strategy to confront Iran’s ballistic-missile development, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, the country’s shipping of weapons as well Iranian behavior that the administration believes destabilizes the region. But the president hasn’t made a final decision on whether to decertify Iran’s compliance, and if so, under what grounds, the senior official said.

His national security team completed a monthslong policy review in September and Mr. Trump approved it, the official said.

Other people familiar with the deliberations expect Mr. Trump will refuse to certify that Iran is complying with the agreement, although they note that the administration is known for changing policy directions.

Mr. Trump, speaking on Thursday ahead of a briefing with senior military leaders at the White House, said Iran had “not lived up to the spirit” of the nuclear deal and added, “You will be hearing about Iran very shortly.”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday that Mr. Trump has decided on the certification issue “and he’ll make that announcement at the appropriate time.” The president told reporters last month during United Nations General Assembly meetings that he had made a decision, but he didn’t divulge it. He also didn’t share his decision with either French President Macron or U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, officials said.

Mr. Trump is expected to deliver a speech in the next week or two to outline the broader Iran strategy, although officials said planning was preliminary and could change.

“The main focus that he has had has been a comprehensive strategy on how to deal with Iran,” Ms. Sanders said. “I think you will see that announced in short order. And that will be a comprehensive strategy, with a unified team behind him supporting that effort.”

Mr. Trump has called the accord “the worst deal ever” and told The Wall Street Journal in July that he planned to tell Congress that Iran isn’t complying, even if doing so meant going against the advice of his advisers. Many of Mr. Trump’s cabinet advisers, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and others support staying with the deal. They advised Mr. Trump to certify the deal as the policy review was under way. CONTINUE AT SITE

If the Trump administration withdraws from the deal, German Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Wittig said, it would send a signal to North Korea that diplomacy is not reliable.

“This nuclear deal is worth preserving. It prevents Iran for the foreseeable future to acquire a nuclear bomb. It’s a plus for region security. It’s a plus for global security, and it can’t be said enough. This is the most intrusive, most comprehensive inspection and verification regime in the world that this Iranian deal created,” Wittig said during a discussion about the future of the Iran deal last week at the Atlantic Council.

“Those who want to walk away or advocate to walk away, they will have to think about the larger issues. First of all, of course, yeah, there’s a danger that Iran resumes its enrichment activity. There’s a danger then that there will be a nuclear arms race in the region and beyond,” he added.

Trump reportedly plans to “decertify” the Iran deal, which would kick it back to Congress. There, lawmakers will determine if sanctions should be reimposed and if the agreement should stand.

Wittig said a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement would weaken the “nonproliferation regime” that has been established. He also said the French government believes there is no way the deal can be renegotiated.

“What kind of signal would this send to countries like North Korea? It would send a signal that diplomacy is not reliable – that you can’t trust diplomatic agreements, and then would affect our credibility in the West when we are not honoring an agreement that Iran has not violated,” he said.

“Those who advocate to walk away from this agreement have to come with an alternative – how to prevent, in a peace way, a resuming of Iranian nuclear capabilities and military capabilities. And those who advocate to renegotiate, and there are some who do, have to make a case whether renegotiation is possible and whether renegotiation will deliver better results. We don’t think it will be possible to renegotiate it, and we believe there is no practical peaceful alternative to this deal,” he added.

Wittig explained that France and the U.S. share concerns about Iran’s “nefarious role” in the Middle East.

“We can talk about it, but on the basis of complying with this agreement,” he said.

EU Ambassador David O’Sullivan said Iran is “fully living up to its commitments” under the agreement. CONTINUE AT SITE

The question is not whether President Trump should decertify President Obama’s farcical Iran nuclear deal. Of course he should. Indeed, he must: Even if we set common sense to the side, federal law requires it.

Instead, there are two questions.

1. Why has President Trump recertified the deal, not once but twice?

This is shameful. Remember, Trump insisted throughout the 2016 campaign that the deal — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — was the worst and most dangerous in the history of deals. Just two weeks ago, addressing the U.N. General Assembly, he described it as an “embarrassment” and “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” Yet, under the statute that calls for presidential findings every 90 days, the president, in recertifying, represented to Congress and the American people (a) that Iran is “transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement” and (b) that continuing the JCPOA is “vital to the national security interests of the United States.”

These assertions insult the intelligence.

The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is charged with what laughably passes for the “monitoring” of the JCPOA and related “side agreements,” which the Obama administration shielded from congressional inspection. Last week, the IAEA fessed up: The agency has been unable to verify that Tehran is implementing the deal. The regime has barred inspectors from inspecting military sites. Consequently, as the invaluable analyst Omri Ceren points out, the IAEA has no way of verifying that Iran has refrained from “activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device” (as required by the JCPOA’s Annex 1, Section T — see here, at p. 27).

This admission is not news. It just makes the obvious — the inevitable — explicit. It has been widely known from the first that the JCPOA is not verifiable, despite the Obama administration’s guarantees that it would be. It has long been known, moreover, that Iran is not in compliance with many of the JCPOA’s terms. That, too, illustrates the duplicity by which Obama sought his foreign-policy legacy monument: To get the deal approved by Congress — or, at least, to get it not disapproved under the cockamamie Corker-Cardin legislation — the prior administration solemnly pledged to hold the mullahs to the letter (and, of course, that this could be done verifiably). Obama officials further vowed that sanctions would “snap back” if Iran failed to comply. Once the deal got its congressional stamp of non-disapproval, though, we learned that Obama was quietly waiving violations left and right, and had even agreed to limits on what the IAEA could report — the better to conceal Iran’s breaches.

Bottom line: Iran has never, not for a moment, been “transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing” the JCPOA. The Obama administration knew this all along — and knew it would go this way. The Trump State Department, which is chockablock with Obama holdovers and has heavily lobbied the new president to stand by the deal, has known it from Day One.

And what about that second representation: vital to the national-security interests of the United States?

Seriously? With a straight face?

Quite apart from violating the terms of the JCPOA and refusing to permit verifiable inspections from the start, Iran continues to be the world’s No. 1 sponsor of anti-American terrorism, backing Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, a network of Iraqi cells, and the Houthis in Yemen, to cite just the best-known examples. That’s not just me talking; the regime continues to be one of just three countries on the U.S. government’s official terrorist list (the others are Syria, which is Iran’s cat’s-paw, and Sudan, which has longstanding ties to the regime in Tehran).

Moreover, Iran maintains its aggressive program of ballistic-missile development in defiance of Security Council resolutions. In fact, less than three months ago, Trump imposed new sanctions on regime officials and abettors. Iran is exporting arms and personnel to fortify Assad’s barbarism in Syria. It continues to threaten Israel’s destruction — in fact, two of the ballistic missiles it has test-fired were inscribed in Hebrew “Israel must be wiped out.” The mullahs are substantially responsible for the massive Hezbollah build-up (including an arsenal estimated at well over 100,000 missiles) that raises the distinct possibility of a catastrophic war. And, still proud to be the “Death to America” regime, Iran continues to abduct American hostages and menace American naval vessels.

For all the talk of “morons” Wednesday — did Rex Tillerson call Donald Trump a moron and what does that mean, if anything — the real issue for those not transfixed by media gotcha games is the certification, or not, of something truly moronic: the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA).

In normal times, devoid of mass murderers and endless natural disasters, the looming October 15 certification decision on this deal would be front and center in the national consciousness. It still should be because, ultimately, it is even more important than hurricanes and psychopathic killers. It’s about nuclear war.

The biggest mistake of the Obama years was not the Affordable Care Act — that can be fixed eventually — but the Iran deal, which has already resulted in massive catastrophe, causing irreparable damage. Iran, financially enriched by the agreement, has been able to play a growing and truly evil role throughout the Middle East (and even South America), but especially in the unending Syrian civil war through its brutal own Revolutionary Guard and its bloodthirsty Hezbollah cutouts. This war has undoubtedly changed the character of Europe forever by creating millions of refugees. Every one of our lives has been or will be affected by it, directly or indirectly. (Reminder: One of the Paris Bataclan theatre terrorists who slaughtered 130, more than twice Las Vegas, held a Syrian refugee passport.) Even now, as ISIS is being pushed back, Iran, not us or our allies, is moving in to take control of their territory. We can be sure the mullahs will use it to build children’s hospitals and cancer research institutes — either that or murder thousands more in the name of the Twelfth Imam.

Obama’s motivation to make this deal, to choose the mullahs’ side in the more than thousand-year-old Shiite-Sunni blood feud that comes to us as a horrifying ghost from the pre-Middle Ages, remains one of the great mysteries of our time. It was the kind of agreement only State Department bureaucrats could love or, for that matter, see. In that sense, the Iran Deal is a perfect “Swamp” agreement. Nobody really knows what’s in it, deliberately so — just like the Affordable Care Act, actually. Only in this instance, Nancy Pelosi did not have to tell us to sign it to know what’s in it, because it was never signed in the first place — nor intended to be. It was simply put in place — Constitution be damned — over the heads of an impotent Congress by Obama and his claque of unwise wise men and women.The Trump administration is expected to announce next week that it will not formally certify Iran as in compliance with the landmark nuclear agreement, a move that could kill the agreement and set the stage for Congress to reimpose harsh economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic, according to multiple U.S. officials and sources familiar with the situation.

While some senior Trump administration officials—including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis—are pushing for President Donald Trump to preserve the deal, it has become increasingly clear the president is frustrated with Iran’s continued tests of ballistic missile technology and rogue operations targeting U.S. forces in the region, according to these sources. CONTINUE AT SITE

As tensions mount with North Korea, fears arise that President Trump’s tit-for-tat bellicose rhetoric with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un might lead to miscalculations — and thus an accidental war that could have been prevented.

Is there evidence in history that wars break out largely because of an accident or over a misplaced word?

Seldom.

Enemies Fight, but Neutrals, Rivals, and Friends Rarely Do

The precise timing of particular outbreaks of war, of course, can depend on unique factors.

A sudden perception of a loss of deterrence can cause an army to mobilize. So can almost anything, from the introduction of a new weapon to a change in government.

Yet the larger events that originally drove two sides to fight are rarely, if ever, accidental in the manner of car wrecks.

Enemies go to war; rivals, neutrals, and friends rarely do. There is little chance that an accidental foreign incursion across the Canadian or even the Mexican border will result in war. The apparently accidental, but quite lethal, 1967 Israeli air attack on the USS Liberty did not result in a U.S. retaliatory strike on Tel Aviv, much less escalate to a general war. Yet a similar Soviet strike might have.

In general, the best deterrent policy in dealing with multiple aggressors is Teddy Roosevelt’s dictum to speak softly and carry a big stick — because loud speech is sometimes misinterpreted as a compensatory effort to disguise military incapability, and thus paradoxically it can lead to a fatal loss of deterrence.

Next best perhaps is speaking loudly while carrying a big stick. Intemperate words are not fatal if ultimately reinforced by overwhelming force.

Most dangerous is speaking loudly (and especially sanctimoniously) while carrying a twig — basically what we have seen in the past eight years with Russia, Iran, and Syria.

Was World War I Really an Accident?

It is often said that accidents and extraneous forces — nearly automatic and mindless mobilization, fumbled diplomacy, greedy arms merchants, archaic alliances on autopilot, confused messaging, or bellicose strutting and rhetoric in August 1914 — triggered World War I, which otherwise might have been prevented.

But a continental war had come close to breaking out earlier in 1911 over Morocco and again in 1912–13 in the Balkans. A war would likely have broken out later, if not in 1914. Berlin by 1914 held views that were incompatible with peaceful resolution:

1) Germany felt cheated that its economic dynamism, population, and military power somehow had not resulted in what Germany thought it deserved: commensurate colonial expansion overseas and dominant influence on the Continent;

2) the German army since 1871 had felt that its size, and organizational and technological excellence, increasingly replicated in a rising and powerful navy, made it nearly unstoppable vis-à-vis other European rivals;

3) any sudden German strike in either the East or West could not be immediately deterred or stopped by the existing forces of Britain, France, or Russia.

The net result of these unchallenged assumptions was a likely German war of aggression sometime in the second or third decade of the 20th century.