North Korea

It would be nice if the mainstream media could make up their minds. First, Trump was going to get us into nuclear war with North Korea, calling Kim Jong Un "Little Rocket Man," and all. Then, it was how dare Trump sit down with Kim and give him credibility on the world stage. True, he did seem to be excessively effusive about Kim. But the media does not get Trump's approach. It's the old carrot and stick.

Former undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman had an Op-Ed in the 6/14/18 USA Today. Secretary Sherman was the lead negotiator on the Iran nuclear deal, and was previously involved with the prior North Korean nuclear deal. She described the Singapore summit as not "much more than bluster and balloons." Really, what did she expect from an initial sit down? Kim did declare a "firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." But, words are cheap, especially so from dictators. So, we won't know until we know.

Secretary Sherman: the "official statement (signed by Trump and Kim) was far weaker than at least three previous documents signed by North Korea in years past. Unlike the agreements negotiated in 1992, 1994 and 2005, Tuesday's joint statement includes no verification requirements or framework to guide upcoming negotiations." What? Is that for real? Just how tough were the three prior agreements if Kim now has an estimated 60 nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile program?

Secretary Sherman continued that Trump does not understand that "any potential agreement would be durable only if South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are on board." Well, unlike Obama's deal with Iran, Trump says he wants any deal approved by the US Senate. Just what the Constitution demands. Why didn't Obama, the Constitutional law professor, know that?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the sanctions will remain in place until there are results. Pompeo also expressed the Administration's expectations that results will be seen within 2 1/2 years - by the end of Trump's (first) term. And just how impressed should we be with the Iran deal Ms. Sherman negotiated. No inspections on military bases. Continued development of Iran's ballistic missile program. And, of course, no requirement that Iran cease its terror supporting activities throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. But wait, I thought one of the criticisms of Trump was that he didn't insist on movement of the humanitarian issues in North Korea. Isn't stopping terrorist attacks a humanitarian issue? I guess not when the deal was Obama's.

I think that Caroline Glick had, perhaps, the best take on the Singapore summit. As with any such summit, there is no guarantee that the other side will agree to any deal. Glick: "Democratically elected leaders have a greater tendency than dictators to become convinced that their political survival is dependent on their ability to deliver the deal." And: "If a leader believes his future depends on getting a deal, the likelihood that he will accept a terrible deal skyrockets." Gee, that sounds an awful like Obama, who was willing to pass up on the missiles, support for terrorism, inspection on military bases, and a $150 billion present in order to get the deal that he believed would be his major foreign policy achievement.

But Trump is not Obama. Iran came to the table because Obama kept offering more and more to the Iranians. Sure, Trump is holding off on joint military exercises with South Korea; but those exercises can just as easily be reinstated. North Korea came to the table out of fear of Trump. That's a good thing. Because Kim undoubtedly understands that if he messes with Trump, he has no guarantee that he will remain in power. The Ayatollahs never feared that from Obama. A little fear goes a long way.