North Korean Threat Not So Imminent?

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service.

Analysts for the Brookings Institution gathered to assess the North Korean threat on America and its allies in reaction to N.Korea's recent underground nuclear bomb detonation and the launch of two short-range missiles.

The think tank was pressed into discussing the matter following North-Korea’s acceleration in its military activity.

Pyongyang had already caught the international community’s attention in October 2007 by unsuccessfully testing a nuclear weapon.

However the threat posed by the North Asian state has reached new heights after N.Korea announced that it had conducted underground nuclear tests on Monday, followed by two short-range missiles (a ground-to-ship missile and a ground-to-air missile) launched from an east-coast base on Tuesday.

Michael O’Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution warned that although “Their options are limited,” threats must be taken seriously, they must be mitigated.

Richard Bush, a Senior Fellow and Director for the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, confirmed that “They have a problem though, and that is that deterrence is not yet credible; their missiles don’t fly far enough and accurately enough, the weapons design is not yet perfect and so they need to test, that's the only way they can demonstrate to others that they have the capability to inflict harm on the United States and on Japan.”

If the production of the missiles is one leap closer to achieving significant nuclear capabilities, O’Hanlon explained that “The real issue is the size of the weapon and how deliverable it would be by the North Koreans, if they were to choose to deliver it some day.”

Additionally, “[The missile] has to survive the stresses of missile flight, which are no trivial,” said O’Hanlon.

However, according to the analysts, this does not mean that a threat is nonexistent but rather that the U.S should not be concerned by missiles coming from North Korea directly.

O’Hanlon said “I would say the most worrisome question is the sale of nuclear material because if they attack South Korea, their regime will end.”

O’Hanlon concluded that “The only thing they can plausibly get way with is the sale.”

Rep. Franks: Iran, North Korea Threats Must Be Addressed

By Celia Canon - Talk Radio News Service

The U.S is not doing enough to counter the terrorist threat that Iran and North Korea raise, according to Republican Congressman Trent Franks (Ariz.).

“The jihadist mindset would like to see a nuclear blast in the U.S.,” Franks said today at the Capitol Hill Club. “They have irrational goals.”

The Department of Defense recently released its Fiscal Year 2010 budget, which amounts to “a proposed defense budget of $663.8 billion,” according to the DoD. Franks fears that the numbers reflect a lack of attention not being paid to countries considered threatening to U.S. national security.

In April, North-Korea launched a ballistic missile-bearing satellite. It is widely believed that the launch was an attempt by the country to test its weapons capabilities.

Franks said,“If North-Korea is willing to sell missile technology, then they might be selling war heads.”

Although Iran has been less aggressive in its rhetoric in the past months, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had strong words in the past, in particular towards Israel. He is thought to have said that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”

Iran is another country that needs to be watched, Franks said. “The last thing we want is Iran coming up with a nuclear technology that they can surrogate for terrorist groups,” he said. “It is very likely that they (Iranians) will put it in the hands of nuclear terrorists.”

Israeli President Shouted Down By Protesters

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico - Talk Radio News Service

Israeli President Shimon Peres spoke today in favor of peace in the Middle East, but some in the audience likely couldn’t hear his call, as protesters within the room shouted him down. Three eruptions of protesters in the audience were stopped by police. The protesters shouted from tabletops and waved signs saying “stop the occupation” and “free gaza.” This all transpired at the Washington DC Convention Center, at a conference led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Peres spoke of his commitment to the peace process, saying that one of the big challenges they all faced was to “disconnect religion from terror”, so extremists are not killing in the name of a higher power.

“History is on the side of peace... history’s on our side,” Peres said. He continued that the extremists leading Iran “are on the wrong side of history.” Peres acknowledged that most Iranians are good people whom he respects, but pointed his finger at extremists like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being the problem.

“Iran is not threatened by anybody,” Peres said, and continued that Iran’s new missile programs are unnecessary. He said that Iran’s missile development and nuclear program are a threat to Israel “and the global community at large.”

Peres said that he trusts President Obama to make meaningful bilateral negotiations, and to contribute significantly to the peace process.

Bi-partisan Bill Gives Obama More Power Over Iran Sanctions

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

Liberals and Conservatives stood together at a Senate press conference today to discuss the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

Senator Evan Bayh (R-Ind.) author of the bill, along with Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Senator Jon Kyl (D-Ind.), said that bi-partisanship had been achieved on this bill because of the “critical importance of this issue.”

The purpose of the legislation, which expands on the Iran Sanction of 1996, Lieberman said is, “to empower President Obama...by providing him with the explicit authority to target Iran’s achilles economic heel, which is its dependence on imports of petroleum...most notably gasoline.”

Lieberman accused previous legislation of being “quite ambiguous” and said that this legislation would “eliminate” that ambiguity. The new proposal would provide the President with a “powerful new weapon to use in the negotiations with Iran,” said Lieberman. Adding it is up to President Obama to decide, “when, where and against whom to use it.”

Bayh said the bill would help to “strengthen the President’s outreach” to Iran. Adding “if events continue go as they are currently going, then at some point during the next two to four years Iran will have a nuclear weapon”. This would have a “destabilizing” effect on the entire world,” said Bayh. This bill, he said, “gives us our best opportunity to avoid that outcome without the resort to military force.”

Kyl said the bill gives the President the tool to “stop companies who continue to sell refined gasoline to Iran or provide refining capacity from doing business in the United States or through the American banking systems.”

“In effect what we are saying to the few companies in the world who provide this refined gasoline to Iran is, ‘You can either do business in our $13 trillion economy with us, or you can do business with Iran with its $250 billion economy, but you can’t do both,’” said Kyl.

In closing Lieberman said, “this is important legislation introduced at a critical time whose consequences for the people of America, Iran, Israel and the Arab world are going to be quite serious.” Adding that he hoped this bill would make it “more likely” for the “diplomatic engagements” between President Obama and the Irani government to succeed and that “they will peacefully abandon their nuclear ambitions.”

Twenty-five U.S. Senators, from both parties, have currently signed their name as a co-sponsors to this piece of legislation.

Iraq ambassador/nominee dodges fire on the hill

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

The U.S. may be one step closer to sending a new ambassador to Iraq. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee convened on Wedneday to vet Ambassador Designate Christopher Hill. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) recognized the importance of getting a new ambassador to the region with expedience, but certain Senators have expressed concerns about Hill’s past.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who should be noted is not on the Committee, several weeks ago promised a fight in the Senate confirmation process because of actions that transpired while Hill was heading the six-party talks concerning North Korean nuclear disarmament. Brownback felt that Hill had misled Congress on his intentions to confront the issues of Human Rights with North Korea during the negotiations, since those issues ended up not being addressed.

Hill responded to Brownback’s concerns during the hearing today, and said that although he had agreed before Congress to address human rights, the process was stalled before the issue could be discussed. Human rights would have been on the table during the restoration of diplomatic ties with North Korea, Hill said, but that phase would have come only after the verification of North Korea's nuclear assets, and that verification never took place. Hill had planned on supporting initiatives from then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to put together a human rights program to tie progress in human rights reform to better diplomatic ties. Hill said today that America’s relationship with North Korea would not be normalized until North Korea completely did away with its nuclear stockpiles, and Hill could not fulfill his promise to Congress until the stockpiles had been eliminated.

It’s uncertain when the Senate confirmation vote will take place. There has been talk concerning delaying the vote until after the upcoming Congressional recess.