Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TigerLikesRooster

The only scenario I can figure that ANYONE gains...is if Russia is the supplier and Iran the financier.

Obama settlement money could be funding this.

A wedge between the US and China is in Russia’s strategic interest. And tying the US up in an imminent conflict over WMD/Nukes/Missiles is in Iran’s strategic interest.

China and the rest of Asia lose big in all scenarios.

Either I’m nuts, or one has to wonder why a layman can figure it out and the country’s security organs can’t.


19 posted on 12/03/2017 7:37:56 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mariner
That is also my current working hypothesis. Iran pays Russia to deliver to N. Korea technical help in terms of sample components and missile design consulting. N. Korea successfully produce nuclear-tipped missiles and the N. Koreans will help developing the Iranian version of the same model. The entire loop is complete: Iran - Russia - N. Korea - Iran.

Russia is probably paid handsomely by Iran. The money Obama gave to Iran can do some wonders.

22 posted on 12/03/2017 7:52:03 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster (dead parakeet + lost fishing gear = freep all day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Mariner

I think the security organs (led by the likes of McMaster and Mattis whose lectures I have been listening to from before they were appointed) plus Tillerson —> can figure these things out... but Trump is stubborn due to the beef he has with our Western (E.U./NATO) allies, who are outright hostile to him.

Macron in France was nice with the Bastille Day visit...but England wants to ban him from entering period.

Whereas the Chinese, Saudis et al pull out the red carpet...

Putin seems to flatter him.

And Trump prides himself on negotiation. Which is why he wanted someone with unconventional perspectives by his side: like Mike Flynn, Who has proven to be a disaster and thorn.

Flynn has been highly critical of our historic alliances like NATO et al.


26 posted on 12/03/2017 8:05:34 PM PST by GoldenState_Rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Mariner; TigerLikesRooster

This is off topic from article above, but the question about whether the “security organs” in our country get whats going on struck me.

1) First of all, a *United Korea* is not in China or Russia’s interests.

2) I do sometimes think Trump holds out too much with regard to Russia...but I want to backtrack a prior presumption I made about General Flynn. In the little time he served, he did adopt a more traditional, pro-NATO approach to geo-policy.

From google search, I see articles about Flynn having backed Montenegro’s membership to NATO, which would be going against Russia.

3) European allies don’t want Iran deal undone.

4) Trump doesn’t put China/Russia on the spot as much as he can, but sanctions are addressing Russian entities who do business with North Korea. That is encouraging. And I am sure there are economic incentives to entertain for China.

But still...it all boils down to the prospect of a UNITED Korea being what our enemies fear...because the assumption is it will shift Asia closer to USA.


34 posted on 12/03/2017 11:02:28 PM PST by GoldenState_Rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson