UK Warns of Sudden Nuclear War with the Chinese Horn: Daniel 7

UK National Security Adviser Warns of Sudden Nuclear War with China

UK National Security Adviser Warns of Sudden Nuclear War with China

Britain’s official National Security Advisor has warned that the risk of nuclear escalation is greater today than it was during the Cold War.

Britain’s official National Security Advisor has warned that the risk of nuclear escalation is greater today than it was during the Cold War, particularly with respect to China.

Britain’s official National Security Advisor has warned that the risk of nuclear escalation is greater today than it was during the Cold War.

29 Jul 2022Britain’s official National Security Advisor, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, has warned that the risk of nuclear escalation is greater today than it was during the Cold War, particularly with respect to China.Speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C., the former top bureaucrat at the Ministry of Defence

China’s ‘breathtaking’ nuclear arms push a rising challenge, Stratcom chief saysChina is expanding its nuclear forces at a “breathtaking” pace, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command warned in urging for strengthened U.S. nuclear deterrence against the danger.

Jack Montgomery 29 Jul 2022 Britain’s official National Security Advisor, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, has warned that the risk of nuclear escalation is greater today than it was during the Cold War, particularly with respect to China.”likely succeeded in making tactical advances in the Donbas around the Vuhlehirska Power Plant,” adding that some Ukrainian forces have”likely withdrawn from the area.“We must acknowledge that existing nuclear states are investing in novel nuclear technologies and developing new warfighting nuclear systems, which they are integrating into their military strategies and doctrines and into their political rhetoric to seek to coerce others,” U.Follow Us.

Speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C. — Blinken to speak with Russian counterpart about Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan release Jim Watson | AFP | Getty Images US Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks about US policy towards China during an event hosted by the Asia Society Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2022., the former top bureaucrat at the Ministry of Defence argued that the West “face[s] a much broader range of strategic risks and pathways to escalation” than during the Cold War, not least because, during that long-simmering conflict, the Soviet Union and its satellites reached something of a “shared understanding of doctrine” which made the threat of nuclear conflict more manageable — some notable flirtations with destruction notwithstanding. “For example, we have clear concerns about China’s nuclear modernization program that will increase both the number and types of nuclear weapon systems in its arsenal. He highlighted both “Russia’s repeated violations of its treaty commitments” and, perhaps more significantly, “the pace and scale with which China is expanding its nuclear and conventional arsenals and the disdain it has shown for engaging with any arms control agreements” as particularly dangerous, saying that nuclear doctrine today “is opaque in Moscow and Beijing, let alone Pyongyang or Tehran” — referring to the capitals of North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.S. A report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said China is pursuing a “substantial expansion” of its nuclear arsenal, including the development of new delivery systems and the construction of hundreds of additional missile silos.

The Russian Nuclear Horn is on High Alert: Revelation 16

Russian President Vladimir Putin visits the National Defense Control Centre in Moscow in 2018.
Russian President Vladimir Putin visits the National Defense Control Centre in Moscow in 2018.

Putin Puts Russia’s Nuclear Deterrent Forces On High Alert, Raising Tensions Further

President Vladimir Putin has put Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces on high alert amid escalating tensions with the West over his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking at a meeting with senior officials, Putin said on February 27 that leading NATO powers had made “aggressive statements” along with Western countries imposing crippling financial sanctions against Russia, including the president himself.

Putin ordered Russia’s defense minister and the chief of the military’s General Staff to put the nuclear deterrent forces in a “special regime of combat duty,” meaning the country’s nuclear weapons would be in an increased state of readiness to launch.


The order immediately raised concerns that the tensions with the West could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the alert is part of a pattern of Moscow manufacturing threats to justify aggression.

“We’ve seen him do this time and time again. At no point has Russia been under threat from NATO, has Russia been under threat from Ukraine. This is all a pattern from President Putin and we’re going to stand up to it. We have the ability to defend ourselves, but we also need to call out what we’re seeing here from President Putin,” Psaki said in comments to ABC.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said the order was an unacceptable escalation.

“It means that President Putin is continuing to escalate this war in a manner that is totally unacceptable and we have to continue to stem his actions in the strongest possible way,” Thomas-Greenfield said in interview with CBS.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg expressed alarm, saying it shows how serious the standoff over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is.

On February 26, a group of Western countries agreed to to block access for “selected” Russian banks to the SWIFT financial system and impose “restrictive” measures against Russia’s central bank over Putin’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.

The moves are expected to severely harm Russia’s economy and the ruble

Hamas urges terrorist attacks outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

 Palestinian police officers stand guard during a protest over the death of Nizar Banat, a critic of the Palestinian Authority, in Ramallah in the West Bank, June 26, 2021 (photo credit: REUTERS/MOHAMAD TOROKMAN)

Hamas urges PA police officers to carry out terrorist attacks

Hamas praises terrorist, urges PA security forces to “clash with occupation forces and settlers to defend our people and our land.”

Hamas has called on members of Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank to carry out terrorist attacks against settlers and IDF soldiers.

The call came after a Palestinian security officer was shot last week by soldiers as he opened fireat a military position near Nablus.

The IDF said that several armed Palestinians arrived by car at the military post between Nablus and Huwara. One gunman got out of the vehicle and opened fire.

The soldiers returned fire and wounded the assailant, who was taken to an Israeli hospital.

The gunman was identified as Mahmoud Hajeer, 23, an officer with the Palestinian Police from Balata refugee camp near Nablus.

The involvement of the police officer in the shooting attack came amid growing fear that the PA and its security forces are losing control of the situation in the northern West Bank, especially in the areas of Nablus and Jenin.

Palestinian sources said over the weekend that there were signs of increased cooperation between gunmen belonging to Fatah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in these areas.

Hamas spokesman Abdel Latif al-Qanou praised the officer who carried out the shooting attack and urged all members of the PA security forces to follow suit and “clash with the occupation forces and settlers to defend our people and our land.”

Qanou also called on the members of the PA security services to reject security coordination between the authority and the IDF.

Other terror groups respond

The PLO’s Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), a secular, Marxist-Leninist terrorist group, called on the PA leadership to turn thousands of its security officers into a “protective shield for our people against settler attacks and a deterrence force against the IDF.”

The DFLP said that changing the duties of the PA security services would “strengthen the cohesion between the people and their security forces.”

Nafez Azzam, a senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad official, said on Friday that the increased number of terrorist attacks in the West Bank have “confused” Israel.

Azzam said that he expected an increase in attacks.

“Israel does not want the resistance to spread to many Palestinian cities and villages,” he added. “But our people will not surrender. Israel won’t be able to stop the resistance.”

“Our people will not surrender. Israel won’t be able to stop the resistance.”

none

Senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad official Nafez Azzam

He ruled out the possibility that Israel would launch a military offensive in the Gaza Strip, “because it knows that the price would be very heavy.”

After Ukraine East Asia Will Go Nuclear: Daniel

After Ukraine, Should East Asia Go Nuclear?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has upended European geopolitics and marked the return of great power competition. However, the ramifications of the invasion will be global in scope as policymakers carefully learn from the Ukrainian experience. With the rise of China as a peer competitor to the United States and its recent aggressive turn towards military coercion, East Asian states have reason to worry.

The nuclear dimension of the war in Ukraine, in particular, is important because of the existential concern at stake. Chinese policymakers would certainly pay attention to U.S. reluctance to intervene militarily due to Russia’s nuclear arsenal. They might conclude that a conventional invasion of Taiwan—coupled with nuclear saber-rattling—will likewise prevent direct U.S. involvement in another regional conflict.

On the other hand, as many commentators have pointed out, the war has also revived the possibility of nuclear proliferation as smaller states recognize Ukraine’s mistake in giving up its inherited nuclear stockpile. Further, the failure of the United States and the United Kingdom to enforce the assurances of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty has dented the credibility of great powers to shield their smaller allies against nuclear-armed rivals.

In this context, facing nuclear-armed adversaries in China and North Korea, East Asian states such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan might re-evaluate their decisions to forsake nuclear deterrence and rely solely on the U.S. security architecture. Today, the uncertain geopolitical environment in East Asia stems from China’s military advantages and increasingly aggressive intentions; the relative decline, domestic fracture, and entrapment of the United States in Europe; and a clear recognition of the Chinese threat in domestic public opinion surveys.

Despite the strength of the international nonproliferation regime, including economic sanctions and the possibility of preventive military action, security considerations dictate that East Asian states would do well to take the nuclear turn in the short to medium term.

Nuclear Deterrence and Non-Existential Threats

The utility of nuclear weapons in deterring existential threats is well-recognized. As Ukraine faces an existential threat from Russia today, the folly of abandoning its nukes has become clear. However, it is also true that the possession of nuclear weapons does not preclude conflict at the conventional and sub-conventional levels. Nuclear-armed states have historically faced aggression and even defeat at hands of non-nuclear weapons states. The limited utility of nuclear weapons in conventional conflicts then becomes the basis of the claim that the East Asian states should not pursue nuclear weapons.

While backed by the empirical record, this argument ignores the potential deterrence effect that nuclear weapons can have on conventional conflicts. In the case of a conventional conflict involving rival nuclear powers, the possibility of escalation to nuclear use cannot be ignored in making calculations at the conventional level. In this sense, the presence of nuclear deterrence can have a mollifying impact in preventing reckless aggression, even when conflict remains conventional. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, President John F. Kennedy was so worried by the prospect of inadvertent nuclear escalation that he sidelined hawkish officials and cautiously implemented the naval blockade of Cuba.

Further, the argument that there is no existential threat to East Asian states needs to be tested. In the case of Taiwan, there exists a clear existential threat in the form of conventionally superior and nuclear-armed China which threatens its territorial integrity. South Korea and Japan do not face the prospect of an imminent conventional invasion from a proximate superior adversary but both have to deal with two nuclear-armed adversaries, North Korea and China.

Hence, all three states inhabit an acute security environment which should make them consider the nuclear option to deter unwarranted aggression and coercion. China’s military modernization, bolstered by increased defense spending; the development of anti-access/area denial capabilities, new aircraft carriers, a blue water navy, and new nuclear silos; and the augmentation of cyber warfare capabilities, does not bode well for its neighbors. China is likely to use its conventional superiority to make an aggressive attempt at achieving regional hegemony.

Extended Deterrence and U.S. Credibility

The nuclear option for deterring China can work in two ways for East Asian states. The easier option is to continue extended deterrence under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Japan and South Korea are treaty allies of the United States and have a guaranteed measure of protection in case of nuclear escalation. Taiwan’s relationship with the United States is governed by the Taiwan Relations Act which does not automaticallywarrant the use of nuclear weapons on the part of the United States to protect it. The second option for these states is to activate their own nuclear weapon programs and develop an independent deterrent. In the past, both Taiwan and South Korea have sought the bomb only to abandon their programs under U.S. pressure.

There are several thorny issues that East Asian states will have to deal with when deciding to go nuclear. Apart from both the U.S. extension of the nuclear umbrella to meet their security needs and its opposition to nuclear proliferation, the strength of the nonproliferation regime, including economic sanctions and the threat of preventive military action from the adversary during the window of vulnerability, poses significant costs for the proliferators.

In the case of Taiwan, the logic of the nuclear umbrella does not apply and the threat posed by China is existential, even if an invasion is an unlikely prospect for now. Despite the logic of the stopping power of water and the military balance favoring the defender, China’s improved capabilities will make it exceedingly difficult for Taiwan to deter a conventional amphibious invasion from the mainland. Hence, there exists a compelling case for Taiwan to develop its own nukes.

For Japan and South Korea, the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella has to come under question for these allies to develop their own deterrent. As others have previously argued, the United States’ reluctance to trade Los Angeles for Tokyo or Seoul poses the most significant challenge to the credibility of extendeddeterrence. The precedent for Tokyo or Seoul to go nuclear can be found in the French decision to develop its own bomb despite being under the NATO umbrella. The French fear of U.S. abandonment in the context of Dien Bien Phu and the 1956 Suez crisis overrode their faith in NATO’s assurances.

Even if the Trump interregnum, characterized by a zero-sum attitude toward allies, is seen as an aberration, the U.S. abandonment of Afghanistan and its inability to enforce the Budapest Memorandum should make U.S. East Asian allies consider the benefits of nuclear deterrence.

On the United States’ part, the costs of extended deterrence also need to be examined. As Doug Bandow has argued, in the case of South Korea, extended deterrence made sense so long as the North Korean threat was limited to a conventional level and Pyongyang did not have intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, due to China and North Korea’s nuclear buildup, the risks to the United States have increased and are likely to put a strain on the U.S. commitment as tensions heat up in the region.

While it comes with risks, allowing U.S. allies to go nuclear might actually ease the security burden for the United States. For instance, an independent Japanese or South Korean nuclear deterrent would allow the United States to reduce its spending on the maintenance of overseas military bases and troop deployments. In the case of Taiwan, it is in the U.S. interest to allow it to go nuclear so that China is unable to break out of the first island chain, a crucial step to China’s cementing of regional hegemony.

Further, doubts over the United States’ ability to mobilize resources to conventionally balance China in the Indo-Pacific region provide another rationale for horizontal proliferation in East Asia. While the United States has partially withdrawn from the Middle East and increased its focus on the Indo-Pacific region, Russia’s invasion has dragged it into the European theater to the detriment of its East Asian allies. The war in Ukraine has indeed galvanized European states in taking more responsibility for their defenseburden, but this has not translated into a drawdown of the U.S. commitment to the region. In the short run, for the next couple of years at least, the United States seems unable to get out of Europe.

Second, the severe partisan polarization of domestic politics might make it difficult for the United States to effectively mobilize resources in support of allies under duress. During the Ukraine crisis, this concern has been evident in the conservative defense of the Russian invasion and some Republican senators’ opposition to sending U.S. aid to Ukraine. This argument, however, has to be qualified by the generally hawkish attitude of Republicans and the Democratic Party’s propensity to taking a multilateral approach.

Finally, the influence of the restraint variant of grand strategy in the United States might lead to the drawdown of its direct entanglement in the region. While there exists a significant debateamong restrainers on tackling the China challenge, almost all variants would involve allies picking up more burden for self-defense.

Hybrid Warfare: A New Face Of Conflict before the First Nuclear War

Flags of India and Pakistan

Hybrid Warfare: A New Face Of Conflict In South Asia – OpEd

July 29, 2022

Flags of India and Pakistan

Hybrid warfare or hybrid threat seems to be the emerging modality in the changing nature of warfare. In the nuclear era, more attention has been given to the sub-conventional conflicts, because of the lethality of the nuclear weapons; the deterrence being created by the nuclear-weapon states prevents other nuclear-weapon states to wage a total war. Furthermore, international legal bindings of prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states eliminate the probability of an all-out war. Thus, the thrust of war has been envisioned by revisionist actors in the form of a new kind of warfare, predominantly through cyber-attacks and subversion, fake news campaigns, sponsoring of proxy forces, or even through economic blackmail. Hybrid warfare is a challenge, which brings into play an array of tactics and strategies thereby inflicting harm to the adversary, whilst exploiting the revolution in technological affairs. It targets the vulnerabilities of any society, with the aim to divide and dissuade the population, undermines the key institutions, and even deteriorates the bond between the states and international organizations. In a nutshell, hybrid warfare is a full-spectrum of war, which encompasses both physical and psychological aspects of the adversary.

Pakistan has also been the victim of hybrid warfare. Since its inception, India has been trying to wage a war or indulge in a conflict with Pakistan, in one way or the other. India is sparing no effort to target Pakistan at the domestic level which encompasses all the political, social, economic, and religious factors. In this regard, it has been leaving no stone unturned in defaming and maligning Pakistan in the international arena through its fake propaganda. Pakistani society is an amalgam of ethnic groups, sectarian faction, and cultural blocs, that are being exploited by India and used as a fault line as a grey-zone in conflict. India is operating a radicalized militant group in Pakistan and is fueling the unrest in Baluchistan. In pursuit of this, Afghanistan’s land is being exercised by India in its endeavor to destabilize Pakistan by operating terrorist organizations for launching sub-conventional warfare inside Pakistan.

Considering the spillover of untrue and fallacious information, the complexity of warfare has tremendously being increased. India is involved in various operations against Pakistan in order to defame and discredit the country, in its pursuit to isolate it internationally as well. Its conspiracy of defaming and maligning Pakistan has also been put out in the EU DisinfoLab Report of 2020. According to that report, India is operating the largest ever fake media network, with 750+ fake media websites, and resurrecting the dead scholars, and propagating the false news in the international media. Moreover, it misused the politicians who genuinely want to defend human rights, and provided platform to far-right politicians when convergent objectives were pursued.

Moreover, India is also keenly involved in terrorists and separatist activities, and trying its level best to sabotage the economic project of Pakistan- the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which certainly is a headache to the adversary. India is using a variety of subversive tactics of hybrid warfare, in order to destabilize Pakistan both externally and internally. Pakistan has encountered many security challenges successfully but has been prone to the non-traditional security challenge-the hybrid warfare, waged by India. Therefore, in the contemporary state of affairs, Pakistan must identify and efficiently counter the gradually escalating non-traditional threats such as the hybrid threats.

There is a need to pen down a grand strategy for countering all the traditional and non-traditional threats posed by the adversary. Pakistan needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to counter the aggression of hybrid warfare. It is appropriate for Pakistan to develop Hybrid Warfare and Stratagem Centre, with its aim to address policymakers of the threats posed by the hybrid warfare, develop metrics to get a grip on events, and to make them susceptible of the threats and cognizance for curbing them in the future. Media, on the other hand, is seen as one of the lethal and a sophisticated weapon to target the enemy’s will and exploit its weaknesses. It is used to target the opponent population by changing their perception regarding their government. Therefore, media has to play a pivotal role in curbing the fake news propaganda and misinformation, as it is the most significant tool used in propagating bogus information; besides, media should strictly promote Pakistan’s narrative in fighting against this ubiquitous threat. 

Furthermore, the law enforcement agencies should work in coordination with each other and should be properly trained and equipped to fight against this abstract threat, additionally, they should be able enough to smartly utilize Artificial Intelligence as well. The government must provide adequate awareness and vigilance to the local population of the country, in order to make them aware of the actions and ill-will of the adversary in its attempt to dissect the society, as the objective is to target the common people. Hence, the cautious and observant society is the first and foremost step in the line of defense against this new challenge, and the entire country needs to play the crucial role in curbing the spiteful act of the foe.

Scores injured as Antichrist’s men storm parliament for second time

Iraq: Scores injured as pro-Sadr protesters storm parliament for second time

At least 125 people, including demonstrators and police, were wounded during the breach, according to the health ministry

Supporters of the powerful Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Saturday stormed Baghdad’s fortified government zone and broke into parliament for the second time in four days, leaving at least 125 people injured and escalating a political stand-off.

The demonstrators were seen waving Iraqi flags and pictures of Sadr inside, as thousands protested outside amid a deep political crisis that has left Iraq without a government since October elections.

They entered after thousands of protesters had massed at the end of a bridge leading to the Green Zone before dozens tore down concrete barriers protecting it and ran inside, an AFP photographer reported.

“The demonstrators announce a sit-in until further notice,” Sadr’s movement said in a brief statement to journalists over the WhatsApp messaging platform and carried by state news agency INA.

“We are calling for a government free from corruption… and those are the demands of the people,” one protester, Abu Foad, said.

The scenes followed similar protests on Wednesday, although this time at least 125 people, including demonstrators and police, were wounded, according to a health ministry statement.

Security forces had fired tear gas and stun grenades near an entrance to the district, home to foreign embassies and other government buildings as well as parliament.

Some protesters on the bridge were injured and carried off by their fellow demonstrators.

“All the people are with you Sayyed Muqtada,” the protesters, some of whom threw stones, chanted, using his title as a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

Sadr’s bloc emerged from elections in October as the biggest parliamentary faction but was still far short of a majority and, 10 months on, deadlock persists over the establishment of a new government.

Supporters of the populist Shia cleric oppose the recently announced candidacy of Mohammed al-Sudani, a former minister and ex-provincial governor, who is the pro-Iran Coordination Framework’s pick for premier.

The protests are the latest challenge for oil-rich Iraq, which remains mired in a political and a socio-economic crisis despite elevated global crude prices.

Saturday’s demonstration comes three days after crowds of Sadr supporters breached the Green Zone despite volleys of teargas fire from the police.

They occupied the parliament building, singing, dancing and taking selfies before leaving two hours later but only after Sadr told them to leave.

‘We are here for a revolution’

On Saturday, security forces shut off roads in the capital leading to the Green Zone with massive blocks of concrete.

“We are here for a revolution,” said protester Haydar al-Lami.

“We don’t want the corrupt; we don’t want those who have been in power to return… since 2003, they have only brought us harm.”

By convention, the post of prime minister goes to a leader from Iraq’s Shia majority.

Iraq: Muqtada al-Sadr’s supporters storm parliament in Baghdad’s Green Zone

Sadr, a former militia leader, had initially supported the idea of a majority government.

That would have sent his Shia adversaries from the pro-Iran Coordination Framework into opposition.

The Coordination Framework draws lawmakers from former prime minister Nuri al-Maliki’s party and the pro-Iran Fatah Alliance, the political arm of the Shia-led former paramilitary group Hashed al-Shaabi.

But last month, Sadr’s 73 lawmakers quit in a move seen as seeking to pressure his rivals to fast-track the establishment of a government.

Sixty-four new lawmakers were sworn in later in June, making the pro-Iran bloc the largest in parliament.

That triggered the fury of Sadr’s supporters, who according to a security source also ransacked the Baghdad office of Maliki’s Daawa party on Friday night, as well as that of the Hikma movement of Ammar al-Hakim which is a part of the Coordination Framework.

“We would have liked them to wait until the government was formed to evaluate its performance, to give it a chance and to challenge it if it is not,” Hakim said in a recent interview with BBC Arabic.

“The Sadrist movement has a problem with the idea that the Coordination Framework will form a government,” he said.

“If it doesn’t turn out to be Sudani and a second or third candidate is nominated, they would still object,” he said.

Kim Jong Un Slams South Korean Nuclear Horn: Revelation 8

Kim Jong Un Slams South Korean President’s ‘Suicidal’ Military Moves
In this photo provided by the North Korean government, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un delivers his speech during a ceremony to mark the 69th anniversary of the signing of the ceasefire armistice that ends the fighting in the Korean War, in Pyongyang, North Korea Wednesday, July 27, 2022. Credit: Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP

Kim Jong Un Slams South Korean President’s ‘Suicidal’ Military Moves

Responding to Seoul’s hawkish action against the country, the North Korean leader said his country is ready to mobilize its nuclear war deterrent.

In a speech on Wednesday, North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jong Un denounced South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and his military for their actions in confronting his country’s nuclear and missile threats, calling his approach “suicidal.”

“If the south Korean regime and military ruffians think about confronting us militarily and that they can neutralize or destroy some parts of our military forces preemptively by resorting to some special military means and methods, they are grossly mistaken!” the North’s state-controlled media Korea Central News Agency (KCNA) quoted Kim as saying in his speech at the 69th anniversary of the armistice for the 1950-53 Korean War.

Since he took office in May, Yoon has reiterated the importance of strengthening military ties with the United States and its allies to cope with North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats. During his presidential campaign, Yoon brought up the possibility of striking North Korea preemptively when there is an explicit sign of Pyongyang launching missiles toward the South’s soil. Also, he once said that he would ask the U.S. to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea or sign a nuclear-sharing agreement. However, Washington killed this initiative right away and Yoon has not spoken about tactical nuclear weapons or nuclear sharing again.

Such remarks were interpreted as political rhetoric to garner support from South Korean conservatives as the U.S. has not supported such moves on the basis of its extended deterrence policy. Also, it is impossible for South Korea to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons or develop its own indigenous nuclear programs as it is a member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

However, Yoon’s military has been working to readopt the “three-axis” defense system, which includes preemptive strike scenarios against North Korea. Kim directly called this a “very dangerous self-destructive action.”

“Such a dangerous attempt will be punished at once by a powerful force and Yoon Suk Yeol regime and its army will be annihilated,” Kim said.

Hours after KCNA published the transcript of Kim’s speech, the South Korean Presidential Office of National Security expressed “deep regret” over Kim’s direct criticism of Yoon, saying that the government is holding a strong and effective readiness posture against any provocation from North Korea. While reiterating its stance to strengthen its self-defense under the ironclad military alliance with the United States, Seoul urged Pyongyang to return to dialogue for denuclearization and peace construction.

Washington and Seoul have not ruled out diplomatic overtures on North Korea issues. However, since then-U.S. President Donald Trump walked out of his 2019 summit with Kim in Hanoi, North Korea has been crystal clear that it will only consider returning to the negotiating table once Washington makes concessions first.

Yoon has said that his administration will be ready to propose an “audacious plan” to help North Korea revive its devastated economy if Pyongyang steps forward to denuclearize the country. He also expressed his willingness to coordinate this plan with the U.S.

However, Kim likely views denuclearization as a suicidal move, as there is no reason to fear a Pyongyang with no nuclear weapons. Kim has never expressed interest in Yoon’s “audacious plan” but ignored it by continuing the power game.

American and South Korean negotiators urged Pyongyang to return to the table without any conditions, but the leaders of the two countries have implied that the dovish overtures could be made when North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons – which is the old school policy that has long failed to entice North Korean leaders to denuclearize the country.

Kim pointed to the South Korea-U.S. joint military exercises as proof of the so-called “double standard” of the United States. He also accused the U.S. of demonizing his country to justify its “hostile” policies toward his country.

The South Korea-U.S. joint military drills, one of the “hostile” policies that North Korea has demanded Washington withdraw, are expected to be held in late August. Compared with the previous military drills for the past few years, the upcoming military drills are going to be conducted on a larger scale. Both Seoul and Washington have raised the necessity of reinvigorating the drills in a bid to respond to the unprecedented spate of the North’s missile tests this year.

Months ago, U.S. F-35 stealth fighter jets were deployed in the region and conducted drills with the South Korean military. As more and more powerful U.S. weapons are expected to be deployed for the joint military drills, even while North Korea is preparing to conduct its seventh nuclear test, the arms race on the Korean Peninsula will intensify in the coming months.Authors

Mitch Shin

Mitch Shin is Chief Koreas Correspondent for The Diplomat and a non-resident Research Fellow of the Institute for Security & Development Policy (ISDP), Stockholm Korea Center.

Top Obama Official — Reviving Iran Deal ‘Highly Unlikely’

Brett McGurk, US White House Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, speaks during the 17th IISS Manama Dialogue in the Bahraini capital Manama on November 21, 2021. - The three-day long Manama security conference is set to discuss pressing security challenges in the Middle East with over 300 …
MAZEN MAHDI/AFP via Getty none

Report: Top Biden Official — Reviving Iran Deal ‘Highly Unlikely’

28 Jul 2022

2:21

A senior Biden administration official reportedly thinks resuscitating the tattered nuclear agreement with Iran would be “highly unlikely” in the near future.

According to a report Wednesday by the Axios news site, White House National Security Council Middle East coordinator Brett McGurk believes Iran wants the U.S. “to add something to the pot” to help advocates of the deal the Islamic Republic’s internal debate with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but “we are not going to do that.”

Borrell has expressed that there are “serious reservations” in Iran.

But he argued the deal carries very significant benefits. “If the deal is rejected, we risk a dangerous nuclear crisis, set against the prospect of increased isolation for Iran and its people,” Borrell wrote. “It is our joint responsibility to conclude the deal.”

Talks in Vienna to revive the deal have been at an impasse for months. The Biden administration blames the Trump administration‘s decision to withdraw from the deal in 2018 for the current crisis, claiming the accord had been “working” even though Tehran was in clear violation of its terms prior to that.

Amid pressure from Israel, the U.S. last month said it would not concede to Iran’s demand to remove the IRGC from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, effectively torpedoing the negotiations.

McGurk said the Biden administration will continue to employ sanctions and diplomatic isolation against Iran, “but not needlessly escalate the situation.” It would only use military action as a last resort, he said.

In an op-ed in the Financial Times, Borrell said after more than a year of talks to revive the deal, the sides have reached “the best possible deal that I, as facilitator of the negotiations, see as feasible.”

The Iran deal “remains politically polarizing in Washington as the midterm elections approach,” Borrell said, and added that it “may not have addressed all U.S. concerns with respect to Iran.”

He added that the non-deal alternative was “dangerous.”

“If the deal is rejected, we risk a dangerous nuclear crisis, set against the prospect of increased isolation for Iran and its people,” Borrell wrote. “It is our joint responsibility to conclude the deal.”