North Korea Will NOT Be a Nuclear Horn, But Iran Will

North Korean and South Korean soldiersSouth Korea Proposes Cooperation With North Korea to Prevent Hostile Acts

By Reuters On 7/17/17 at 4:52 AM

South Korea on Monday proposed military talks with North Korea, the first formal overture to Pyongyang by the government of President Moon Jae-in, and said the two sides should discuss ways to avoid hostile acts near the heavily militarized border.

There was no immediate response by the North to the proposal for talks later this week. The two sides technically remain at war but Moon, who came to power in May, has pledged to engage the North in dialogue as well as bring pressure to impede its nuclear and missile programs.
The offer comes after the North claimed to have conducted the first test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) earlier this month, and said it had mastered the technology to mount a nuclear warhead on the missile. South Korea and the United States, its main ally, dispute the claim.
“Talks and cooperation between the two Koreas to ease tension and bring about peace on the Korean peninsula will be instrumental for pushing forth a mutual, virtuous cycle for inter-Korea relations and North Korea’s nuclear problem,” the South’s Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon told a news briefing.
The South Korean defense ministry proposed talks with the North on July 21 at Tongilgak to stop all activities that fuel tension at the military demarcation line.
Tongilgak is a North Korean building at the Panmunjom truce village on the border used for previous inter-Korea talks. The last such talks were held in December 2015.
Cho also urged the restoration of military and government hotlines across the border, which had been cut by the North last year in response to the South imposing economic sanctions after a nuclear test by Pyongyang. In all, the North has conducted five nuclear tests and numerous missile tests.
The South also proposed separate talks by the rival states’ Red Cross organizations to resume a humanitarian project to reunite families separated during the 1950-53 Korean War in closely supervised events held over a few days.
A South Korean security guard stands guard on an empty road which leads to the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) at the South’s CIQ (Customs, Immigration and Quarantine), just south of the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas, in Paju, South Korea, February 11, 2016. The Korean characters on the gateway reads “Inter-Korean Transit Office.”
The South Korean Red Cross suggested talks be held on August 1, with possible reunions over the Korean thanksgiving Chuseok holiday, which falls in October this year.
The last such reunions were held in October 2015 during the government of Moon’s predecessor under a futile push for reconciliation following a sharp increase in tension over border incidents involving a landmine blast and artillery fire.
The proposals come after Moon said at the G20 summit in Hamburg earlier this month that he was in favor of dialogue with the North despite the “nuclear provocation” of its latest missile test.
In the proposal for talks, South Korea did not elaborate on the meaning of hostile military activities, which varies between the two Koreas. South Korea usually refers to loudspeaker propaganda broadcasts by both sides, while the North wants a halt to routine joint U.S.-South Korea military drills.
Moon suggested earlier this month hostile military activities at the border be ended on July 27, the anniversary of the 1953 armistice agreement that ended the Korean War. Since no truce was agreed, the two sides remain technically at war.
When asked if South Korea was willing to “be flexible” on military drills with the United States should North Korea be open to talks, Cho said the government had not discussed the matter specifically.
Pyongyang has repeatedly said it refuses to engage in all talks with the South unless Seoul turns over 12 waitresses who defected to the South last year after leaving a restaurant run by the North in China.
North Korea says the South abducted the 12 waitresses and the restaurant manager and has demanded their return, but the South has said the group decided to defect of its own free will. Cho said this matter is not included on the talks agenda.
In an act to rein in the North, the United States is preparing new sanctions on Chinese banks and firms doing business with Pyongyang possibly within weeks, two senior U.S. officials said last week.

1884 A Forewarning Of The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

The Coney Island earthquake of 1884

Seismograph of New York Earthquake 1884

Seismograph of New York Earthquake 1884

January 20, 2010

New York City isn’t immune to earthquakes; a couple of small tremors measuring about 2.5 on the Richter scale even struck back in 2001 and 2002.
But on August 10, 1884, a more powerful earthquake hit. Estimated from 4.9 to 5.5 in magnitude, the tremor made houses shake, chimneys fall, and residents wonder what the heck was going on, according to a New York Times article two days later.
The quake was subsequently thought to have been centered off Far Rockaway or Coney Island.
It wasn’t the first moderate quake, and it won’t be the last. In a 2008 Columbia University study, seismologists reported that the city is crisscrossed with several fault lines, one along 125th Street. 
With that in mind, New Yorkers should expect a 5.0 or higher earthquake centered here every 100 years, the seismologists say.
Translation: We’re about 30 years overdue. Lucky for us the city adopted earthquake-resistant building codes in 1995.

Iranian Horn Not Complying with Nuclear Deal

Our friend Fred Fleitz, former CIA and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer and author of the book Obamabomb: A Dangerous and Growing National Security Fraud, has just posted a must-read article on Iran’s failure to comply with the terms of the nuclear deal Obama made with the rogue Islamist state.
Press reports from late last week indicated that President Trump will grudgingly agree to certify Iranian compliance again, but could change his mind.
Fleitz points out that per the Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015, the Trump administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is in compliance with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) and that this agreement is in the national-security interests of the United States. The next certification is due on July 17, 2017.
It is crucial, says Fleitz, that the Trump administration, in the next JCPOA certification statement, correct the gross error it made in April, when it certified that Iran was complying with this agreement and that the JCPOA is in the national-security interests of our country.
The April certification, concluded Fleitz, went against Mr. Trump’s accurate statements during the presidential campaign that the JCPOA was one of the worst agreements ever negotiated and that there was clear evidence of Iran’s failing to meet its obligations under the agreement as well as cheating. Although many Trump officials opposed the April certification — and this decision to certify appeared to irritate President Trump — State Department careerists succeeded in convincing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to agree to certify anyway.
Senators Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), Ted Cruz (R., Texas), David Perdue (R., Ga.), and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) made it clear in a July 11 letter to Secretary Tillerson that they do not want this to happen again and cited four ways Iran is not complying with the nuclear agreement:
One. Operating more advanced uranium-enrichment centrifuges than is permitted and announcing the capability to initiate mass production of centrifuges. (Although some agree with this concern, the U.S. should not have agreed to let Iran enrich any uranium while the JCPOA is in effect, never mind enrich it with advanced centrifuges. This is one of the JCPOA’s most serious flaws.)
Two. Exceeding limits on production and storage of heavy water, a substance needed to operate plutonium-producing heavy-water nuclear reactors. (Again, some agree, but the U.S. should not have agreed to a pact that allows Iran to produce heavy water or operate a heavy-water reactor.)
Three. Covertly procuring nuclear and missile technology outside of JCPOA-approved channels. There’s direct evidence of this, from German intelligence reports.
Four. Refusing to allow IAEA inspectors access to nuclear-research and military facilities.
Incredibly, says Fleitz, a State Department official said at a recent Washington lunch that the Department is trying to determine whether Iran is in “material breach” of the JCPOA, not whether it is in full compliance.
This means that the State Department is well aware that Iran is not complying with the nuclear deal, but is trying to find ways to discount these violations.
This kind of diplomatic hairsplitting seems to violate the Iran Nuclear Review Act, which mandated that the administration certify whether Iran is or is not in compliance with the JCPOA.
What’s more, Fred Fleitz, and Senators Cotton, Cruz, Perdue, and Rubio are not the only high-level observers of the Iran nuclear deal to see it this way.
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs has posted an op-ed in The Hill arguing that certifying that Iran is complying with its 2015 nuclear deal “will be the administration’s second unforced error regarding the JCPOA.”
Over the past two years, argues Ambassador Bolton, considerable information detailing Tehran’s violations of the deal have become public, including: exceeding limits on uranium enrichment and production of heavy water; illicit efforts at international procurement of dual-use nuclear and missile technology; and obstructing international inspection efforts (which were insufficient to begin with).
Certification is an unforced error says Bolton because the applicable statute (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, or “INARA”) requires neither certifying Iranian compliance nor certifying Iranian noncompliance.
As Ambassador Bolton and our friend Paula DeSutter previously explained, the INARA requires merely that the Secretary of State (to whom President Obama delegated the task) “determine…whether [he] is able to certify” compliance (emphasis added).
The secretary can satisfy the statute simply by “determining” that he is not prepared for now to certify compliance and that U.S. policy is under review.
The problem, says Ambassador Bolton, is within the Trump administration, JCPOA supporters contend that rejecting the deal would harm the United States by calling into question our commitment to international agreements generally. There is ominous talk of America “not living up to its word.”
This is nonsense argues Bolton. The president’s primary obligation is to keep American citizens safe from foreign threats.
To that end, Bolton says we must also urgently reassess the available intelligence on issues like joint Iranian-North Korea nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, free from the Obama administration’s political biases. Cooperation between Tehran and Pyongyang is deep and long-standing. North Korea’s July 4 ICBM launch should cause greater interest in the implications for Iran.
Much of the current JCPOA debate would be strategically irrelevant if, as seems virtually certain, the ayatollahs can send a wire transfer to Kim Jung-un to purchase whatever capability North Korea develops.
It is time for the Trump administration to stop “reviewing’ and stop issuing phony certifications it knows are lies. The Trump administration itself has already shown the courage of its convictions by withdrawing from the Paris climate accords. Compared to that, abrogating the JCPOA is a one-inch putt says Ambassador Bolton – and we agree.
As Fred Fleitz and Ambassador Bolton have pointed out many times, the Obama Iran nuclear deal is fatally flawed. We urge CHQ readers to use this link to contact the White House. Tell President Trump it is folly to falsely certify that Iran is in compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA and that it is time to fulfill his campaign promise to take America out of Obama’s dangerous Iran nuclear deal.

The Iran Deal May Be Broken (Daniel 8:4)

Trump Is Endangering Nuclear Deal, Says Iranian Foreign Minister

by Julia Conley, staff writer

As the United States and Iran mark two years since reaching their landmark deal on nuclear weapons, analysts say Iran has met its obligations stipulated by the agreement—while the U.S. has failed to do so.

The deal, forged in July 2015 by Iran and the Obama administration along with Germany and the four other members of the U.N. National Security Council, stipulated that sanctions on Iran would be lifted in exchange for its halting of nuclear development for the next decade and its compliance with continuous surveillance of its nuclear enrichment and storage sites, among other requirements.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was tasked with making sure Iran complied with the deal, and has reported that the country has done so. But with the introduction of a Senate bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran aimed at its ballistic missile program, the language of which the nonpartisan Arms Control Association calls “overly broad and imprecise,” critics say the U.S. has not met the deal’s terms, endangering the agreement.
In an interview on Sunday on “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that President Donald Trump has failed to hold up the United States’ end of the bargain by urging its allies to cut business ties with Iran, effectively enacting more sanctions.
“When…President Trump used his presence in the G20 meeting in Hamburg in order to dissuade leaders from other counties to engage in business with Iran, that is a violation of not the spirit but the letter of the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action], of the nuclear deal,” Zarif said.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) also expressed dismay at the state of the deal, noting in a press release, “The JCPOA represented an opportunity for the U.S. and Iran to change course, broaden engagement, and end the policy of sanctions and antagonism. Unfortunately that opportunity has largely been squandered.”
“Continued sanctions, calls from the White House for nations to refrain from investing in Iran, and an increase in military encounters between the US and Iran all threaten the deal,” the NIAC added.
Meanwhile, the grassroots disarmament organization Peace Action wrote on Thursday that the Iran deal should be held up as a model for diplomacy, as the U.S. weighs its options in handling growing concerns over North Korea’s nuclear capabilities—thus far, imposing sanctions and refusing to participate in talks with North Korea.
“One of the crucial features of negotiations with Iran was our willingness to negotiate without preconditions,” the group wrote. “Yet when it comes to growing concerns over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, the administration has instead opted for more ineffective sanctions and dangerous threats of military force. It’s time we apply the same diplomatic approach to North Korea that has proved successful with Iran.”