Pompeo: Admin Hopeful DPRK Will Take Major Steps Toward Denuclearization By Beginning of 2021

http://thehill.com/policy/international/392059-pompeo-us-wants-concrete-steps-towards-north-korea-denuclearization

Sec State also pushed back against the suggestion that omitting an explicit reference to a rigorous verification process undermined the efficacy of the agreement signed on yesterday.

Full disclosure, I was already critical of this practically weightless agreement and the kabuki show that preceded its conclusion. But I do understand the administration's position that follow-on negotiations could produce the kind of concrete assurances that would render the entire production as something more than a PR coup for DPRK and a small foreign policy feather in Trump's hat (at least as he and his supporters perceive it). I further understand that full nuclear disarmament can be a multi-year process requiring not simply the dismantling of weapons, but also the safe removal and disposal of material, the re-purposing of expertise, in-depth and independent verification, and a host of other steps.

But given DPRK's history of wringing whatever concessions they could out of the West and then reneging on their end of the bargain, I would expect a time-table that's a good bit more ambitious. The obvious parallel is the JCPOA (the Iran deal), which though it addressed an arguably less pressing and less difficult problem, had much more bite and was much more aggressive and explicit in its benchmarks and verification protocols. Its core provisions, including the removal of 97% of Iran's enriched material, were fulfilled within a matter of months of the agreement's adoption. And yet Trump and every one of his more adoring sycophants blasted that deal as weak and toothless.

That will be more than enough time for North Korea to develop guidance systems for their ICMB's.

Ive seen more comparisons of the Kim meeting to the Iran deal than I can handle. We're talking about two completely different things anc comparing them, at least at this point, is intellectually dishonest.

The JCPOA was worked on internationally for YEARS prior to its approval. It was a product of the UN as much as the US. It has a sunset clause. After 15 years it doesn't apply any more. It allows around the clock IAEA access at only two sites. For any other sites the IAEA has to request access. It limits the methods the IAEA can use to detect undisclosed sites. If the IAEA does detect an undeclared site there is an absurdly long negotiation process they need to go through before they can get access to the site. The "deal" was little more than political "glitter glue" designed to look like actions were being taken against Iran while in reality nothing changed.

If the North Korea deal, which hasn't even really been started yet, ends up the same way THEN we can all criticize it. Until then it only makes sense to sit tight and see how things turn out. It's absurdly unfair to call the deal a failure or a failure in progress when nothing has been done yet. So far we got some political prisoners back and we got a few world leaders talking to each other instead of shooting at each other. That SHOULD be seen as a step in the right direction but, unfortunately, lots of people are so damned blinded by political bias that they aren't even willing to wait and see.

Yes, the parallels to the Iran deal are appropriate and are stark and sad.

If Obama had done this North Korea deal, Trump would have blasted it so hard.


If Obama had met with Kim on the terms Trump did, Trump would have blasted him.



Obama got blasted for suggesting he would talk to Kim.

NK denuclearization will CRAWL, read my lips CRAWL on the timeline determined by Xi/KJU and to some extent Moon. the element that will matter is the degree to which KJU achieves the kind of improvements in his family position and his country's economy that he desires again on HIS timeline and based on HIS standards. Those will also be at a snail's pace because they have to be at a snail's pace. We are talking 10 years here anyway..having nothing to do with Iran or the JCPOA. They will also make things like Trump's idiot perspective on things like NK beachfront property entirely irrelevant.

So we shafted allies and gave things up as immediate concessions, but in return we get to "hope" that something might happen by 2021?

Amelia said:

Obama got blasted for suggesting he would talk to Kim.

Click to expand...

Indeed. When I think the hypocrisy meter cannot possibly go higher, up they drive it.

Lutherf said:

I
The JCPOA was worked on internationally for YEARS prior to its approval. It was a product of the UN as much as the US. It has a sunset clause. After 15 years it doesn't apply any more. It allows around the clock IAEA access at only two sites. For any other sites the IAEA has to request access. It limits the methods the IAEA can use to detect undisclosed sites. If the IAEA does detect an undeclared site there is an absurdly long negotiation process they need to go through before they can get access to the site. The "deal" was little more than political "glitter glue" designed to look like actions were being taken against Iran while in reality nothing changed.

Click to expand...

Aren't you guilty of the critic's error? You can criticize any deal but that doesn't mean that whatever better deal you have in mind was negotiable. Certainly, the Iran deal was better than Iran continuing to develop nuclear weapons without a deal or a war.

You can always imagine a better deal. Getting a better deal is another issue. It's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

Now that Trump has ripped up the Iran deal, where is the better Iran deal?

And if you really understood what was going on the Middle East you would know that Saudi Arabia and Israel don't want any deal with Iran and that's what this is really all about. They don't want to see Iran lifted from sanctions. Even if Iran agreed to total free inspections anytime anywhere they would then insist that Iran stop supporting their enemies. But the reality is there is a cold war in the Middle East between Iran and the Saudis. With Trump, we've just taken sides with the Saudis. Instead of America first, we're doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia.

Lutherf said:

Ive seen more comparisons of the Kim meeting to the Iran deal than I can handle. We're talking about two completely different things anc comparing them, at least at this point, is intellectually dishonest.

The JCPOA was worked on internationally for YEARS prior to its approval. It was a product of the UN as much as the US. It has a sunset clause. After 15 years it doesn't apply any more. It allows around the clock IAEA access at only two sites. For any other sites the IAEA has to request access. It limits the methods the IAEA can use to detect undisclosed sites. If the IAEA does detect an undeclared site there is an absurdly long negotiation process they need to go through before they can get access to the site. The "deal" was little more than political "glitter glue" designed to look like actions were being taken against Iran while in reality nothing changed.

If the North Korea deal, which hasn't even really been started yet, ends up the same way THEN we can all criticize it. Until then it only makes sense to sit tight and see how things turn out. It's absurdly unfair to call the deal a failure or a failure in progress when nothing has been done yet. So far we got some political prisoners back and we got a few world leaders talking to each other instead of shooting at each other. That SHOULD be seen as a step in the right direction but, unfortunately, lots of people are so damned blinded by political bias that they aren't even willing to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I understand that the two aren't precise comparisons and I have a pretty intimate understanding of JCPOA due to my former employment. In reality, Iran's nuclear program was severely curtailed (critics really seem to underestimate the significance of what they gave up) and they have, by all accounts, complied with the provisions of the agreement almost without fail. If you want to call the sunset provisions a weakness of the deal. Hey, I'm right there with you. If you're critical of its failure to comprehensively address their advancements in conventional arms in contravention of standing sanctions and agreements. Fine. If you want to say that it didn't deal with their support for LH, their other Shia proxies, and extremist and malign activities throughout the ME and the world. Again, I'm with you. Those are drawbacks. It was far, far from a perfect deal.

But as far as its stated goal of putting the brakes on any latent Iranian ambitions to develop a bomb (they hadn't really been pursuing it in earnest since the mid-2000s, tbh) it's done its job.

SonOfDaedalus said:

And if you really understood what was going on the Middle East you would know that Saudi Arabia and Israel don't want any deal with Iran and that's what this is really all about. They don't want to see Iran lifted from sanctions. Even if Iran agreed to total free inspections anytime anywhere they would then insist that Iran stop supporting their enemies. But the reality is there is a cold war in the Middle East between Iran and the Saudis. With Trump, we've just taken sides with the Saudis. Instead of America first, we're doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

Correct. They don't want to see the Iranian people given the chance to be brought into the global fold, given room to liberalize, and eventually positioned to cast off their tyrannical theocratic government. They'd prefer the constant tension to eventually boil into a war (which we would have to fight on their behalf) to cripple Iran for the foreseeable future.

SonOfDaedalus said:

Aren't you guilty of the critic's error? You can criticize any deal but that doesn't mean that whatever better deal you have in mind was negotiable. Certainly, the Iran deal was better than Iran continuing to develop nuclear weapons without a deal or a war.

You can always imagine a better deal. Getting a better deal is another issue. It's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

Now that Trump has ripped up the Iran deal, where is the better Iran deal?

And if you really understood what was going on the Middle East you would know that Saudi Arabia and Israel don't want any deal with Iran and that's what this is really all about. They don't want to see Iran lifted from sanctions. Even if Iran agreed to total free inspections anytime anywhere they would then insist that Iran stop supporting their enemies. But the reality is there is a cold war in the Middle East between Iran and the Saudis. With Trump, we've just taken sides with the Saudis. Instead of America first, we're doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

The JCPOA DOES NOT stop Iran from developing nukes. It stops processing of Uranium to certain levels at two sites only. It doesn't even make Iran get rid of material it has already produced. It puts restrictions on certain testing but the enforcement mechanisms which insure that those restrictions are adhered to are so cumbersome and limited as to be essentially useless. Furthermore, the whole deal sunsets in 15 years so any impediments to nuke development the deal imposes just flat out stop in the relatively near future.

Amelia said:

Yes, the parallels to the Iran deal are appropriate and are stark and sad.

If Obama had done this North Korea deal, Trump would have blasted it so hard.


If Obama had met with Kim on the terms Trump did, Trump would have blasted him.



Obama got blasted for suggesting he would talk to Kim.

Click to expand...

Trump could go on camera and take a dump on the seal in the oval office and the right wingers would make some excuse about how awesome that was.

SonOfDaedalus said:

Aren't you guilty of the critic's error? You can criticize any deal but that doesn't mean that whatever better deal you have in mind was negotiable. Certainly, the Iran deal was better than Iran continuing to develop nuclear weapons without a deal or a war.

You can always imagine a better deal. Getting a better deal is another issue. It's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

Now that Trump has ripped up the Iran deal, where is the better Iran deal?

And if you really understood what was going on the Middle East you would know that Saudi Arabia and Israel don't want any deal with Iran and that's what this is really all about. They don't want to see Iran lifted from sanctions. Even if Iran agreed to total free inspections anytime anywhere they would then insist that Iran stop supporting their enemies. But the reality is there is a cold war in the Middle East between Iran and the Saudis. With Trump, we've just taken sides with the Saudis. Instead of America first, we're doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

The entire "US didn't get anything out of the Iran deal" is just typical hack nonsense of throwing out stupid statements with nothing to back it up. We got Iran to allow inspectors and stop nuclear program. That's essentially what the UN/US wanted. Iran got its money back and sanctions lifted. And moderates racked up wins in elections in Iran

Reneging on the deal, and slapping sanctions back on Iran is going to do nothing but embolden the hardliners. The reality it, the hardliners, although they have power in government and elections, like our hateful, ignorant right wingers, more people don't want the religious extremism. The religious extremism is more prevalent in the rural areas, like in the US

Lutherf said:

The JCPOA DOES NOT stop Iran from developing nukes. It stops processing of Uranium to certain levels at two sites only. It doesn't even make Iran get rid of material it has already produced. It puts restrictions on certain testing but the enforcement mechanisms which insure that those restrictions are adhered to are so cumbersome and limited as to be essentially useless. Furthermore, the whole deal sunsets in 15 years so any impediments to nuke development the deal imposes just flat out stop in the relatively near future.

Click to expand...

1. JCPOA does stop Iran from developing nukes.
2. It limits Uranium enrichment to 3.67% (far below weapons-grade) nationwide
3. It removed 97% of enriched Uranium from the country within 3 months of adoption.
4. It has inspection and enforcement protocols which, though imperfect, haven't yet revealed any significant lapses
5. It does sunset in 15 years. A major drawback in my opinion. But the idea was to keep open engagement during this period to move them toward stability, liberalism (don't think left v right, think broader), and an adherence to global norms and international order without them holding a nuclear gun to the world's head.

You were 1 for 5. That's not good.

LincolnRossiter said:

1. JCPOA does stop Iran from developing nukes.
2. It limits Uranium enrichment to 3.67% (far below weapons-grade) nationwide
3. It removed 97% of enriched Uranium from the country within 3 months of adoption.
4. It has inspection and enforcement protocols which, though imperfect, haven't yet revealed any significant lapses
5. It does sunset in 15 years. A major drawback in my opinion. But the idea was to keep open engagement during this period to move them toward stability, liberalism (don't think left v right, think broader), and an adherence to global norms and international order without them holding a nuclear gun to the world's head.

You were 1 for 5. That's not good.

Click to expand...

Those may be the standards in the agreement but when you've only got regular oversight at two plants, limits on the type of equipment you can use to locate undisclosed plants and a nightmare bureaucratic process to get to any undisclosed sites you might find those standards are little more than window dressing. It's like getting an agreement to stop gang activity in your city but the cops can only embed with two cliques, are limited on the intel they can collect and have to go through a month of negotiation before they can inspect warehouses and vacant buildings.

Lutherf said:

Ive seen more comparisons of the Kim meeting to the Iran deal than I can handle. We're talking about two completely different things anc comparing them, at least at this point, is intellectually dishonest.

The JCPOA was worked on internationally for YEARS prior to its approval. It was a product of the UN as much as the US. It has a sunset clause. After 15 years it doesn't apply any more. It allows around the clock IAEA access at only two sites. For any other sites the IAEA has to request access. It limits the methods the IAEA can use to detect undisclosed sites. If the IAEA does detect an undeclared site there is an absurdly long negotiation process they need to go through before they can get access to the site. The "deal" was little more than political "glitter glue" designed to look like actions were being taken against Iran while in reality nothing changed.

If the North Korea deal, which hasn't even really been started yet, ends up the same way THEN we can all criticize it. Until then it only makes sense to sit tight and see how things turn out. It's absurdly unfair to call the deal a failure or a failure in progress when nothing has been done yet. So far we got some political prisoners back and we got a few world leaders talking to each other instead of shooting at each other. That SHOULD be seen as a step in the right direction but, unfortunately, lots of people are so damned blinded by political bias that they aren't even willing to wait and see.

Click to expand...

Two different administrations with two different philosophies dealing with two different despot regimes yet all these talking heads wanting to make comparisons usually to criticize the Trump administration when these talks are in their infancy. Yeah I am getting tired of it too.

Luther we STILL don't know all the details that were in the Iran deal the Obama administration made. To this day I don't believe every congress critter has even been given access to them. Remember how secretive it was after months of the deal it was finally provided to only certain persons in Congress and they had to go to a special room to read it? But what has been leaking out in the press lately about the whole thing should make every American concerned.

The same people that thought Trump was going to start WWIII over NK are the same critics trying to hijack and muddy an effort that could bring about peace in the region. Pox on their houses.