The Atlantic: What the Iran Deal Can Teach America About North Korea

The North Koreans will be watching what happens to the Iran deal, and it will be every bit the test of American credibility that Obama’s famous “red line” crisis over Syria was. Obama’s failure to punish the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons—after having declared their use a “red line” that would entail “enormous consequences” for Syria if crossed—was widely criticized, including in these pages. In his own defense, Obama dismissed the question of credibility in this context as “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone.” That view does enjoy some support in foreign policy circles, with some positing that theorists and policymakers have fetishized credibility to such an extent that it can pull the United States into wars that aren’t in its national interest. [...]

Still, Haley is right in her assessment: Countries’ track records matter. Without some level of predictability, all international agreements would fall apart. Moreover, the failure to see diplomatic solutions through can put countries in a worse position than they were in before negotiations started. And in focusing on Tehran’s track record, she fails to consider what her administration’s own actions are telling the world about the United States. [...]

Today, America is facing a mischievous Iran, whose nuclear program was curtailed by the nuclear deal. This summer, the UN nuclear watchdog verified the country’s compliance with the agreement for the eighth time since its implementation started less than two years ago. The Islamic Republic remains a challenge in a number of arenas, including its human-rights track record, support for terrorist groups, and general regional activities, as Haley correctly noted in her speech. But as America’s allies and negotiating partners—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, along with China and Russia—have stated repeatedly, the deal is working in its narrow aim of limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Haley said as much when she stated that “the deal was constructed in a way that makes leaving it less attractive.” In other words, while the deal isn’t perfect, alternatives to it are far worse. [...]

The United States shouldn’t make military or diplomatic decisions based solely on what will maintain its credibility. After all, credibility should be a means, not an end in itself. But the United States can’t continue to lead international processes designed to sanction countries and bring them to the table—and thereby avoid using force—without it.

read the article

Vox: Here’s Vladimir Putin’s weirdly on-point analysis of North Korea

it’s strange to think of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a reliable source when it comes to geopolitical analysis. Yet when Putin talked about the US-North Korea nuclear standoff in a press conference on Thursday night, his assessment of the situation matched far more closely with what you hear from US experts on North Korea than anything that the Trump administration has said.

Putin’s core point is that the central strategy of US policy under Trump, Obama, and Bush — attempting to pressure North Korea into giving up its nuclear program — has now conclusively failed. North Korea now believes that its nuclear arsenal is its best deterrent against an American invasion, and hence will not give it up no matter how much the United States tries to push them. [...]

That isn’t the Trump administration’s view. Just this week, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley called for “the strongest sanctions” to pressure North Korea into giving up nukes “before it's too late.” Yet the consensus position among America’s North Korea experts is that it is, in fact, too late: that nothing the US can do to Kim Jong Un could offset the deterrent value of his nuclear weapons. [...]

Finally, Putin argued that the best way to handle the nuclear crisis going forward is through negotiations — for the US and North Korea to develop better lines of communication in order to avoid a crisis escalating into a war that no one wants.

read the article

Quartz: Saudi Arabia is learning that preparing for life after oil is easier said than done

Just over a year after launching the plan, Saudi Arabia is going to redraft it by “stripping out some areas earmarked for change and extending the timeline of other targets,” as well as “change existing initiatives and add new ones,” according to the Financial Times (paywall). Apparently, the rethink is because Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s plans were overly ambitious. [...]

Such an unbalanced economy is dangerous when energy prices slump, as they have since 2014, with crude oil falling from above $100 per barrel to around $50 today. This has blown a hole in Saudi’s budget, forcing it to burn through its reserves and borrow billions to finance its deficit. This year, Saudi Arabia’s GDP growth is set to be “close to zero,” according to the IMF. Meanwhile, renewable energy is steadily becoming more competitive with fossil fuels. [...]

Saudi Arabia is looking to raise money by partly privatizing its state-owned behemoth of an oil company Saudi Aramco, in what will be the world’s largest IPO. Alongside the economic transformation plan, proceeds from the Saudi Aramco stake sale—scheduled for next year, but possibly subject to delay (paywall)—will be vital to funding the huge investments necessary to shift the country away from its reliance on oil.

read the article

Quartz: A major US church decided to remove memorials to Confederate leaders

Leaders of the National Cathedral in Washington, DC voted on Sept. 6 to immediately remove two stained-glass windows that honor generals of the Confederate Army in the US Civil War. The decision comes after two years of deliberation over whether the windows are “an appropriate part of the sacred fabric of a spiritual home for the nation,” according to church leaders. [...]

Previously, cathedral leaders justified these controversial Confederate windows, telling visitors on tours that their presence “underscores the building’s role as a repository of American memory, carrying the very wounds of war within its walls.” That is no longer sufficient, they believe. [...]

The reason for the delay, they explained, was that they sought alternative solutions, like perhaps contextualizing the windows somehow. However, the cathedral leaders wrote, “the recent violence in Charlottesville brought urgency to our discernment process…. The continued presence of white supremacy, anti-Semitism and other forms of hate in our nation cannot be ignored—nor will they be solved simply by removing these windows or other monuments.”

read the article

America Magazine: Steve Bannon says Catholics "need illegal aliens to fill the churches"

Mr. Bannon was the subject of a much-discussed article written by two associates of Pope Francis earlier this summer, in which they condemned what they see as a growing relationship between Catholic and evangelical fundamentalists in the United States.

Following Mr. Trump’s decision on Tuesday to rescind the program that could affect up to 800,000 young people currently living in the United States, Catholic bishops reacted strongly. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the decision “reprehensible.”

“The bishops have been terrible about this. By the way, you know why? You know why? Because unable to really...to come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches,” Mr. Bannon said, according to the transcript published by CBS News. “That’s—it’s obvious on the face of it. That’s what—the entire Catholic bishops condemn him. ... They have—they have an economic interest. They have an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration.”

read the article