Can the Iran Negotiating Model Work with North Korea?
|It appears that David Sanger at the New York Times understands what I have been saying for years, no matter how much anyone want to talk to them, the Kim regime has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons:
From Pyongyang’s viewpoint, there is little incentive to give up the nuclear arsenal. The world is not exactly banging on North Korea’s door to do business the way it is with Iran: The North has no oil, no striving middle class and little strategic value in the modern world. Its greatest power is the threat it poses to one of the most prosperous corners of the globe.
But many also consider it too dangerous to allow North Korea to fail. The Chinese know that if it ceases to exist, the South Koreans, and their American allies, will be on the Chinese border. The South Koreans know that if a conflict breaks out, the North will lose — but only after Seoul, just 35 miles or so from the North Korean border, is a smoking ruin.
So the North Korean strategy is to up the ante and hope the world will acknowledge it as a nuclear weapons power that has to be dealt with. H-Bomb or no H-bomb, nuclear weapons are the country’s insurance policy, and the test was a sign that it has no intention of cashing it in. [New York Times]
You can read the rest at the link.
The “Iran Negotiating Model” isn’t even working with Iran.
Reagan said it best in 1964. You can have peace right now if you just surrender to everyone.
“You can have peace right now if you just surrender to everyone.”
Not a bad philosophy, really.
It works with my wife.