So long mom, I'm off to drop the bomb....

Tom Lehrer - A man who was way ahead of his time in many ways. I only wish he would (and could) write and perform some new tunes for today's absurd reality. But I can't stop thinking of his song written in advance for World War 3: "So long mom (A song for World War 3)."

North Korea is taking advantage of the weakness it sees in the West to become even more belligerent. Trump is the critical weak point in the West's resolve to keep the peace, a peace which allows South Korea to prosper. And I can only see war in the future, with the likely possibility that nuclear weapons will be used as they may be the only tools which will stop North Korea from becoming a threat to the entire Western world.

- - - - - -

The problem dates back to the 1950's, when China decided to fight with North Korea against America and its allies to keep the American forces from coming too close to their border. China got stuck with protecting the Kim family's dysfunctional regime. We were at the beginning of the Cold War with Communist states, and the fighting in Korea was an anomaly. The Kims saw that they could become miniature emperors as long as they tied their wagons to Communist horses.

After almost 70 years since the uneasy peace was declared, the Kim family is still in power. They have used an elegant form of ransom to extract money from the West - holding Seoul as an effective hostage. Since South Korea has become a wealthy nation, the West would lose even more wealth if war were to break out again. So it decided to pay the ransom and kick the can down the road to future leaders to deal with. This was a big mistake.

The Kims made a big mistake too. They decided on building both ICMS and nuclear weapons, with the goal of being able to hold any nation on the planet hostage to their aims. The USA can not afford to lose any of its major cities. (Insert cynical joke here, based on your politics.) So we will likely be forced to act, even though the West will lose South Korea's economy and wealth in the process.

Strangely, as much as I hate Trump the man, I'm glad that he will let the military make the decisions needed to fight North Korea when the time comes. The military knows he is not competent enough to make decisions required of a commander in chief. So they will act responsibly, but give him enough cover to look presidential.

But what happens after the war? Ay, there's the rub. In order to limit the damage, South Korea will need to be protected from reunification. Since the North Korean people have been brainwashed to worship the Kim family, it will be a great effort and risk to absorb this useless population into a South Korea that will be trying to rebuild a country after a major war. They will want (but never saying this) as many primates as possible exterminated between the DMZ and the Yalu river (the Chinese Border). This means that South Korea has an interest in America to test and use as many of its military toys as possible in that war. And our military will only be too glad to oblige.,

Am I being overly cynical and pessimistic? Maybe. But I haven't thought of any other possible solution that could occur with less bloodshed and suffering....

Iran - Again

What many of us often forget is that the people of Iran are human beings just like us.  Yet, a letter from the op-ed page of the New York Times stated that the only way to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons would be to bomb the country into submission.  This offends me. Iran and the USA may have been participating in a cold war against each other, but we have not been bombing each other's cities, nor have the two nations been in direct ground conflict with each other. Shouldn't diplomacy be given a chance before we see more American man and women come home in body bags?

In 1979-1980, I would have advocated blasting Iran off the map during the "Hostage Crisis". But as official US documents (carefully pieced together after having been shred) show, we were about to attempt to overthrow their democratically elected government. How could they trust any peace overture that could have been made? (especially when none were made for years.)  And yet, our current president overcame 35 years of hostilities to work with 5 other nations AND Iran to cut a deal that reduces the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The following text was in an article written by Bill Moyers: 

"In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon." 

This makes me wonder - Is Iran really the threat our media has made the country out to be? I doubt it.  But, if Iran were to restart Uranium refinement, it could trigger a Middle East arms race, as noted in the New York Times op-ed piece:

Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.

If one ignores the bellicose position of the op-ed piece's author, John R. Bolton, one sees that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks have been considering going nuclear in response to Iran's position. Yet, the Iranians are willing to ratchet down their nuclear technology and use it (for now?) for peace. Currently, the Saudis and Iranians are on opposite sides of a war being fought in Yemen. Could you imagine what would happen if either (or both) nations had nuclear weapons at its disposal? Could you imagine what would happen (and I believe it would) if any of this material would make it out of the labs and into unauthorized hands?

To Israel, any but the most restrictive and emasculating deal is unacceptable - Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state. But is this deal unacceptable to America's long term interests? Israel pays us no taxes. Israel does not vote in our elections. And Israel is not necessarily an ally we can trust. If the Prime Minister of Israel can destroy the hope for a two-state peace solution for Israel and Palestine in a reelection bid, can we trust him to act in other ways that benefit the United States?

Yes, gradual normalization of relations with Iran is a risk. But it is the only path that makes sense. As I see it, there will be three regional players jockeying for influence in the Middle East - Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. And it is America's interest to make sure that none of these powers becomes a hegemon - especially when the world is still addicted to Middle East Oil. America needs to disentangle itself from the Middle East, and a deal with Iran may be our ticket to leave the region. Given our headaches in the region since 1980, this may be the only time we can use that ticket and go home.  If the Chinese need that oil, let them get stuck in the regional quagmire!