STOP MAGNIFYING N. KOREA'S THREAT

I strongly disagree with Henry Kissinger when he writes in today's The Washington Post:

"The ultimate issue is not regional but concerns the prospects for world order, especially for a Pacific political structure along the lines put forward by the thoughtful Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd. There could scarcely be an issue more suited to cooperation among the Great Powers than nonproliferation, especially with regard to North Korea, a regime that is run by fanatics; located on the borders of China, Russia and South Korea; and within missile range of Japan. Still, the major countries have been unable to galvanize themselves into action."

I disagree with Kissinger's implications between the lines which I understand as using military power to stop North Korea.

I don't want a world order where the United States considers military action to solve what it considers "bad behavior" on the part of other nations.

First. No country other than America has ever used nuclear weapons against another. Having nuclear weapons seems to be the ultimate constraint against using them, especially when many other countries possess them. So North Korea, for all its bluster, is tied up by its own nuclear bombs. There is no need to do anything drastic for "world order."

Second. The U.S. should keep its nose out of the Far East. North Korea is no realistic imminent threat to the U.S., nor has it fired any of its missiles or weapons at the U.S. It is about as much danger to the U.S. as it is towards Norway.

Third. The "world order" in the 21st Century that Kissinger talks about is one of his own making, an order where the U.S. exercises complete hegemony over the rest of the world. This vision is outdated and should be scuttled. In other words, American war planes and tanks and drone missiles are counter-productive, dated and political destructive for the U.S.

KISSINGER CONTRADICTS N.I.E REPORT ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS

Now comes Henry Kissinger and says the NIE report on Iran means just the opposite of what it says. It says Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 but Kissinger, writing in today's The Washington Post, says it really means Iran has not ceased its nuclear weapons development.

Kissinger's op-ed is rife with innuendo and double speak, all leading to his dubious conclusion:

"In short, if my analysis is correct, we could be witnessing not a halt of the Iranian weapons program -- as the NIE asserts -- but a subtle, ultimately more dangerous, version of it that will phase in the warhead when fissile material production has matured."

Kissinger asks where the supporting evidence is for the NIE's conclusions. Yet he presents very little himself. All we get from Kissinger is his "theory," his doubts, his questions, his feelings, such as "we could be witnessing . . . ." (emphasis added.)

I for one am left with the feeling that Kissinger knows very little about what he speaks. Rather I suspect that he comes to this op-ed with his already-set antagonistic feelings and suspicions towards Iran. I also suspect that he would be much happier with a more confrontational stance, like that of Cheney, Olmert and the other war-mongering neo-cons who continually beat the drums for war against Iran.