The Obama Guarantee

President Barack Obama made this guarantee in his statement at the end of his recent Meeting of the Deputies involving the Gulf Cooperation Council national leadership seconds.

The United States is prepared to work jointly with the GCC states to deter and confront an external threat to any GCC state’s territorial integrity that is inconsistent with the UN Charter. In the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression, the United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners to determine urgently what action may be appropriate, using the means at our collective disposal, including the potential use of military force, for the defense of our GCC partners.

Translation: we agree to talk about a response to an ongoing attack against one of you, and that response might include a military one. Hopefully, we’ll reach some sort of accommodation before you’ve been overrun.

That’s reassuring. There’s a real line there, one that should not be crossed. Else Obama might shake his finger very firmly at you.

“We are severely concerned….”

Indeed, we are. PRC Deputy Director of Foreign Ministry Information Department Hua Chunying said

We are severely concerned about relevant remarks made by the American side. We believe the American side needs to make clarification on that[.]

That’s in response to SecDef Ash Carter’s remarks that he’d asked his folks to look into potential responses to the PRC’s seizure and occupation of the South and East China Seas. In particular, those responses might

include flying Navy surveillance aircraft over islands and sending US Navy ships within 12 nautical miles of reefs that have been built up in recent months around the Spratly Islands.

We should be severely concerned. Those surveillance aircraft should be accompanied by fighter aircraft, and they should buzz the construction sites. And keeping the Navy a dozen miles away, instead of sailing up close and personal, seems awfully timorous to me.

Those islands, after all, are in international waters, and they’re in the Exclusive Economic Zones of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines—who have shown a willingness to resolve their dispute without military occupation. Thus, their aircraft and naval ships should be accompanying ours on those close approaches.

Our own action alone, though, would be a good start on a proper response to the PRC’s aggression.

Also creating severe concern—or should be—is this bit:

Privately, many diplomats and leaders in the region say they worry about the potentially destabilizing impact of a confrontation between Washington and Beijing.

No, guys, what would be destabilizing would be letting that PRC aggression go unchallenged.

Northern Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Are they getting ready to break out and vastly expand their arsenal and stockpile?

After three years of diplomatic deadlock, the Obama administration says it is willing to hold preliminary talks with North Korea to probe its intentions and assess the prospects of ridding the country of nuclear weapons.

Given the Obama administration’s performance with Iran, it’s a distinct possibility that northern Korea’s nuclear weapons program is about to take off.

In the case of Iran, the US has joined with several world powers in negotiating the framework agreement to prevent Teheran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

North Korea, though, does not seem to be looking to disarm anytime soon.

And neither is Iran looking at nuclear disarmament. There’s a hint there.

And

“We want to meet with the North first without any conditions to determine whether it has real commitment (toward denuclearization),” [RoK’s Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Hwang Joon-kook] said in Beijing on Thursday.

What was it someone said about doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results?

Oh, and here’s northern Korea’s answer:

Pyongyang answered the overture with a fresh show of force—test-firing a new ballistic missile from a submarine.

North Korea claimed Saturday that it successfully test-fired the newly developed ballistic missile. Not long after that announcement, South Korean officials said the North fired three anti-ship cruise missiles into the sea off its east coast.

That’s pretty clear, to those willing to listen.

The Land Grab Goes On

Even if they have to create the land, first.

China’s mysterious campaign to build artificial islands in disputed waters of the South China Sea has grown to cover roughly 2,000 acres, a senior defense official said Friday, as the Pentagon issued a report warning the sites could be used to bolster the country’s military infrastructure.

There’s nothing mysterious about it. This sort of thing is being built to support the People’s Republic of China’s air and sea forces as the PRC moves to concretize and enforce its attempts to occupy the East and South China Seas.

The DOD report warned that while Beijing’s island construction intent is unclear, five emerging outposts in the Spratly Islands could be used for surveillance systems, harbors and logistical support. The report said they could also hold “at least one airfield.”

That’s just dissembling or timidity. There’s nothing unclear about PRC intentions with these construction projects. Many of the sites are within the Exclusive Economic Zones of other nations on the rim of the Seas. If the PRC were just building these things to support fishery, or oil and gas, or rare earth mining and processing, they’d get permission from the host nations and cut costs by partnering with them for the development of these sites and split the processors’ output.

The PRC, though, is holding out, on threat of gunfire, those nations.

The Foolishness of the Left

Fareed Zakaria, writing in The Washington Post, has provided a living illustration.

Reality has changed, but look beyond the headlines. On closer examination, one can see that [the situation] has changed dramatically in Israel’s favor.

Here’s an example of how things have moved in Israel’s favor.

[T]here is the disappearance of the Arab threat. From its first day in existence, Israel has faced the danger of extinction by Arab armies. This is the threat against which the Jewish state has planned, armed and trained for most of its national life. Today, it’s gone.

Say, what? It’s true that some of the threat from nation-state Arab armies has lessened. Jordan and Egypt made peace with Israel decades ago. But on Israel’s southern border is the Palestinian Authority, which only last summer launched a terrorist-style war against Israel from Gaza and presently is being re-funded and re-armed by Iran. On Israel’s northern border there are Hezbollah, al Nusra, and Daesh…and Syria. Hezbollah is continuing operations against Israel in during the chaos of the Syrian civil war (which Zakaria argues with a straight face represents a lessening of the threat to Israel).

And: who will win the civil war? In the perspective of the threat to Israel, it doesn’t matter. If al Nusra and Daesh win, the one will resume operations against Israel, and the other will begin, and we’ve seen how Daesh treats those who oppose them. If al Assad “saves” Syria, that nation will resume harboring terrorist activities against Israel—and against Lebanon, thereby broadening Israel’s northern front.

The Iranians are on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons, and they’ve sworn to destroy Israel. Imagine what will happen at the hands of a nuclear-armed Iran. Things have moved in Israel’s favor?

Then there’s this bit of foolishness:

Whatever the outcome of nuclear negotiations, it is worth remembering that Israel has a powerful deterrent….

Deterrent against whom, exactly? A nation whose leadership doesn’t think at all like we do, doesn’t have the same pain thresholds, doesn’t even have the same triggers of pain? Men for whom death is not to be feared but a consummation devoutly to be wished, being martyrdom and a path to Heaven and to virgins?

Zakaria’s premise is false, and therefor so is his entire “argument.”