Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised Thursday a "burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.
As for the negotiations that the EU is pursuing, the Iranians make it clear that they are futile:
But Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told Reuters in an interview this week there was nothing the West could offer Iran that would tempt it to give up its atomic fuel cycle.
North Korea, too, reminded us why they are on the Axis of Evil:
"We ... have manufactured nukes to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
DPRK is short for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
"Nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances," the ministry said.
The Pillsbury Nuke Boy's nutball regime is backing out of talks for now:
"The Bush administration termed the DPRK, its dialogue partner, an outpost of tyranny," the ministry said, adding that the U.S. aim was to stifle the North and achieve regime change.
"This deprived the DPRK of any justification to participate in the six-party talks," it said.
So which nutball regime gets priority of attention?
First of all, all things being equal, I go back to my rule of thumb that it is better to deal with the nutball that wants its first nuclear weapon before dealing with the nutball that wants their second nuke. It is always better to deal with such regimes when they do not have nuclear weapons.
By this rule, we must deal with Iran first. Of course, all things are not equal. Iran and North Korea provide different threats and have different vulnerabilities. In practice, since different strategies are appropriate for each nutball regime, the choice isn't simply which country should we deal with first.
Iran has no nukes, has the ability to call on Moslems around the world to support terrorism, has a large landmass, has targets close by that it can attack that we don't want attacked, has no real conventional foe nearby to balance it, won't give up their nuclear ambitions, and has oil. And the Iranian people look up to the West and think well of America.
North Korea has an untested nuke (s), has no Kimmunists to spread their system or assist them, is small, has targets close by that it can attack but which harm those places close by more than us, has China to the north and the Republic of Korea to the south with large armies able to fight and defeat them, won't give up their nuclear ambitions, and has no oil. Oh yeah, and their people are starving.
A ground option is not available against either North Korea or Iran. Even if we were not fighting in Iraq, we would not have enough troops to occupy Iran. And we must have South Korea on our side to invade North Korea.
Luckily, Iran has no conventional response to fight us. Nor does North Korea. All the targets within reach of North Korea are not ours. Sorry to put it so starkly but it is true. If North Korea fights, they automatically create a coalition of the attacked. And if North Korea deploys missiles? In the short run we can live with it. The missiles can only reach Japan, China, and South Korea. Plus we have anti-missile defenses at sea around North Korea and we are building national missile defenses. And while you can bury nuclear facilities to keep them hidden and safe, nuclear missiles must be near the surface to fire them. We can take them out at that point. We won't even need nukes to destroy the launch sites.
We have the time to starve and squeeze the North Koreans until they collapse. The signs of collapse are there and so we have only to contain and squeeze Pyongyang slowly until they implode. And intercept any shipments of nuclear materials if it looks like they are selling them to paying customers.
Iran is a more immediate threat even though they have no nukes yet. They are a threat without nukes. There ability to call on radical Moslems means we cannot just let them get nukes and use anti-missiles around Iran to contain them. Nor can we count on containment to lead to collapse. Iran can sell its oil just as it did in the Iran-Iraq War despite our efforts to cut Iran off from the world. Although we can't invade Iran, we could intervene in Iran if we can foment a revolt of the army that can draw on the popular discontent with the mullah regime.
So technically, we need to work on Iran first. But in practice we can work on both since a different approach is appropriate for each.
Still, at crunch time, remember my rule of thumb. It is better to deal with the nutball with no nukes before the nutball who wants their second nuke.
