What does North Korea want? Wrong Question. What does China want?

Obama and and his party apparatchiks are busy trying not to waste the crisis/opportunity in North Korea. First we get the blather about the "international community."

The "international community" if it really were a community, would call in the police. I assume that they would be the"international police" but we all should know that is absurd. The last time that happened, American pilots were bombing hapless civilians in Belgrade and we aced the Chinese Embassy. So we can forget precision targeting of the Norks. There is no international community that will approve that and there are no international cops. I suppose we could form a posse of the willing, but why bother?

The question that needs to be asked is not what North Korea wants, but what does China want? The Norks have already exchanged missile technology for nuclear technology with our good friends the Pakis. I have no doubt that was not the full extent of their trading. The criminal family business of North Korea Inc. exists because the Chinese tolerate it. North Korea collapses without Chinese tolerance.

China wants a new world order, here is their chance.

____________

Diplomats have lost the plot over North Korea
Posted By: Con Coughlin at May 26, 2009 Telegraph

Am I missing something, or has a mood of complacency settled on the international diplomatic community regarding North Korea's latest nuclear test?

Despite the fact the latest nuclear device tested by the highly secretive regime in Pyongyang is said to be equivalent in size to the atom bomb the Americans dropped on Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War, the general message emanating from international diplomats is that there is no need to worry because North Korea has no intention of using the device, and that the North Koreans are too isolated to constitute a threat to the outside world.

What nonsense. Irrespective of what the North Koreans intend to do with their nuclear arsenal once they have mastered the technology, the very fact that an unstable regime like Pyongyang has access to weapons of mass destruction constitutes a major threat to world peace.

North Korea is one of the world's key proliferators. It attempted to provide Syria - another rogue regime - with nuclear technology, and works closely with Tehran to develop ballistic missile systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

To my mind, the more progress North Korea makes on its nuclear programme, the more afraid the world should be. So my message to the diplomatic corps is: snap out of it. There are many reasons to be worried by the latest developments in North Korea, and rather than taking the sanguine attitude that it doesn't really matter, let's see some robust action that will bring the North Koreans to their senses.

Nuclear Power is Inevitable in the Middle East

"There was no Syria-North Korea co-operation whatsoever in Syria", said Bashar Jaafari, Syrian ambassador to UN. Here is a pdf of The Institute for Science and International Security report that says differently.

Syrian oil reserves have been declining and Syria has been switching power plants over to natural gas so that they can continue to export oil at new and rising prices. This poses a dilemma for Israel and the West. Nuclear proliferation will not be limited to Iran.

With all the oil revenue flowing into the Middle East and as we get further into the period of "peak oil", the ME has the resources to purchase and the need for nuclear power plants. It is simply not going to happen that Israel or any other power will be able to prevent every Arab country from obtaining nuclear power. China, Russia, France, Germany, the UK and the US will all be encouraging the use of nuclear power. It is a new growth industry.

The US when it had a nuclear monopoly could not prevent the Russians and the Chinese from acquiring nuclear technology in the fifties. Nuclear power in an age of $120 oil is inevitable. Nuclear is coming to the ME. How do we work with that?

_______________________

BBC

N Korea 'linked to Syria reactor'

Officials say the site was the target of an Israeli attack last year
North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor, US officials are to tell lawmakers in a closed session.

Unnamed officials told a number of US newspapers that the US had video footage of the Syrian facility with North Koreans inside.

Syria has repeated denials that it has any nuclear weapons programme, or any such agreement with North Korea.

It follows an unexplained air strike by Israel last September on a target inside Syria.

According to the Washington Post, the alleged nuclear facility was the target of the bombing.

'Not operational'

The video footage - said to have been obtained by Israel - also showed striking similarities between the Syrian facility and the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, reports said.

However, the facility was not yet operational and there was no fuel for the reactor, officials said.

The White House has not commented on the reports, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates said information on the issue could be made public "soon".

Syria's ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, denied the links.
"There was no Syria-North Korea co-operation whatsoever in Syria. We deny these rumours," he said.

North Korea has previously denied transferring nuclear technology to Syria.
In a landmark deal reached in February last year, Pyongyang agreed to close its main reactor and divulge the full extent of its nuclear programme by December.
However, it missed the deadline, and while it is taking steps to close its Yongbyon reactor, it has yet to produce a declaration of nuclear activities to the international community's satisfaction.

The Hard Time Reality of a Nuclear Iran

Talking will not stop them. One bomb will become five. Five, then fifty. Oil trumps paper and the paper will buy submarines and more missiles. Tactical theater weapons will soon be strategic and we know what their strategy is. We can bob and weave a defensive strategy or we can smoke them while we have them. Doing something or nothing will be costly. A half measure will be deadly. Time keeps on moving into the future. What is a man to do?

Iran moves closer to making a nuclear bomb

By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:58am BST 22/06/2007

Iran has moved significantly closer towards acquiring the ability to make a bomb as the regime claims to have stockpiled 100kg of enriched uranium.

So far, this uranium has only been enriched to the level needed for generating electricity in civilian nuclear power stations.

But if Iran chooses to enrich it to 84 per cent purity, it would reach weapons-grade level and become the essential material for building a bomb.

Iran would need 50kg of weapons-grade uranium in order to make one nuclear weapon of the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

By storing twice this quantity of low-enriched uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime is widening its options.

It could choose to enrich the stockpiled uranium to weapons-grade level in a matter of months – perhaps after formally withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and breaking out of all international safeguards.

Uranium is enriched using machines called centrifuges. These have now been installed in Iran's nuclear plant at Natanz. A snap inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency last month found that 1,312 centrifuges were operating.

Iran's official target is to bring 3,000 into action – enough to produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium for one bomb in about a year.

Mustapha Pourmohammedi, Iran's interior minister, told the official news agency that the moment of maximum international pressure on his country had passed and that Teheran would press ahead with the nuclear programme.

"When the world saw that the nation is pursuing this goal with unity, the world has surrendered. We have passed the dangerous moment," he said.

Iran claims that its nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful and designed to do nothing more than generate electricity for its growing population of 70 million. But western governments disbelieve this assertion.

Iranian and Russian love affair develops a rash.

The Endgame Moscow Should Have Expected
By Georgy Bovt, The Moscow Times

Russia's relations with Iran have come to resemble its relations with Belarus. In both cases, the each side started out assuring the world of how much they had in common, how mutually advantageous their relationship was, and how they had established an equitable partnership. Most of all, they unfailingly added that all of this had been achieved in spite of the West, and the United States in particular.

Then these wonderful relationships unexpectedly began to fall apart. The declarations of love were replaced by accusations of underhandedness and evil intentions.

This happened with Belarus at the end of last year, when Russia got fed up with subsidizing its economy by selling it oil and gas at bargain prices. In a snap, all thoughts of Slavic brotherhood were forgotten as each side accused the other of acting in bad faith and Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko attempted to blackmail Moscow by threatening to establish independent relations with the West. A similar problem appears imminent between Moscow and Tehran.

The problems with Iran date also to the end of last year, when reports began to surface that Iran was late on payments to Russia for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Iran blamed the delay on its decision to convert its cash reserves from dollars into Euros. Two months have since passed without the promised payment, and Russia has declared it will halt construction on the Bushehr station. The Iranians provided assurances that some payment had been made, but that no further money would change hands until Russia delivered the first shipment of nuclear fuel. Moscow answered that deliveries of fuel were pointless at this stage, as the reactor was not yet ready to receive it.


This all look like political gamesmanship, especially given Washington's support for Moscow's calls that Iran stick to its contractual obligations. After all, business is business and the Iranians should accept that a contract is a contract.

There is also the creeping suspicion that Moscow is using the late payments as an excuse to pull out of the controversial Bushehr project altogether. Washington has long demanded just this, and blaming Tehran for everything would allow Russia to pull the plug without appearing to have bowed to U.S. pressure.

In a situation like this, most Soviet leaders would have waived the contractual obligations and finished building the plant just to spite the United States. But the current crew in the Kremlin isn't as interested in "altruistic" projects, and when the price tag for opposing U.S. policy becomes prohibitively high, it tends to opt for pragmatism. Nobody -- or at least nobody in Russia -- is ready to foot the bill for the Bushehr power plant.

Iran's motives are unclear at first glance. The Iranian government owes Russia something in the neighborhood of $200 million to $250 million, a sum it could produce instantly if it wanted to. The ultimatum regarding fuel deliveries appears to be deliberately impracticable, which gives the impression that the Iranians themselves are now less interested completing the construction at Bushehr. This could be because the project has become a political lightning rod. Iran doesn't want to incur any increased obligations in its relationship with Moscow or join it in an anti-U.S. crusade. It doesn't want to become dependent on Russia for its nuclear energy program as it doesn't entirely trust Moscow. The money withheld from Russia will probably be set aside for a different plant or to enable the Iranians to finish the Bushehr project themselves.

Russia comes out the loser here. It tried to play the "Iranian card" by building a special relationship with an unpredictable, fanatical regime strongly opposed to the United States. This was Moscow's way of demonstrating its independence or, using the terminology currently in fashion in the Kremlin, its "sovereignty" in foreign policy.

But one particular characteristic of authoritarian or dictatorial regimes -- whether run by Iranian mullahs or by a former chairman of a Soviet collective farm like Lukashenko -- is that they are unpredictable. They change the rules of the game according to their own whims and wishes, and without consultation.

Furthermore, they only understand one language -- the language of force. Had Russia acted in concert with the large international group trying to bring pressure on Iran -- as it did, for example, with the group of six nations addressing the issue of North Korea's nuclear program -- it would have left Tehran without maneuvering space and reduced its ability to blackmail others.

Whatever the case, canceling the Bushehr contract -- a move that looks increasingly imminent today -- would not have left Moscow in the awkward position in which it now risks finding itself. This is the result of naively placing all its hopes on Iran and vehemently rejecting every suggestion from Washington that Russia and the United States coordinate their policies toward Iran. Once the disagreement arose with Tehran, Moscow was stuck.