Unafraid, Bipartisan, Uphold U.S. and Freedom     

We recommend that besides our article you read the paragraph we just inserted below  it from the powerful essay by Rabbi Prof Dov Fischer’s in Arutz Sheva [Israeli National News], “ August 19, 2017.




                                                                         Rabbi Dov Fischer

Arutz Sheva: When the President of the United States rightly excoriated law-breakers and thugs on all sides of a street conflagration, he came in for a torrent of media abuse, forcing even level-headed bystanders to take cover.

I just did something fascinating. I just watched the President’s entire 14-minute impromptu news conference at Trump Tower on Monday that sparked all the latest barrage of anti-Trump screeds from the left media that will criticize him every day, no matter what he does, augmented by the “Never Trump” Republicans and neo-conservatives who will not rest until they can re-conquer the political party they lost because of three terms of two failed Bush presidencies, followed by the two failed Presidential candidacies of Sen. John McCain and of Gov. Mitt Romney.

 For more go to:


        By Jiri Valenta

                                                            August 17, 2017

                                                    Unafraid, Bipartisan, Uphold U.S. and Freedom

    “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell’s 1984

 Before they descended on General Robert E. Lee’s statue in the middle of a Charlottesvile park, and started spitting on, kicking and demolishing the lonely man on his horse as he pondered the future of the defeated south, the angry mob of Antifa [Anti-Fascist Movement]and Black Lives Matter [BLMs] engaged in a mock trial. The BLM’s, known for marching through cities chanting “Pigs in a blanket,” and the Antifa found him guilty of slavery. What they obviously didn’t know was that Lee was a hero of reconciliation, did everything possible to achieve it, and was respected by Abraham Lincoln.

Using Jay Winik's brilliant book, April 1865; the Month that Saved America, these authors could have served as Lee’s public defender. First, let us remind leftist youngsters what they have not learned at their politically correct universities and colleges. In Winik’s words, most civil wars “end quite badly.” Think of Russia, China, Spain and Mexico but also Cambodia, the Baltics and the Caucasus nations, countries where we conducted comparative research. In all these countries you can find mass graves of the soldiers of losing sides, and photos of men shot and hanged from the gallows. The tradition of removing or destroying venerable statues has usually depended on the changing of a regime.

Mikhail Gorbachev pictures the fate of White Cossack s [losers in Russia’s civil War] in his memoirs “…the Reds, too, were ruthless…As a Red general of Russia’s Civil War confessed to the idealistic younger, communist reformer, Gorbachev, “We massacred the entire village during the Civil War…we slaughtered them…”     

Winik posits that in America we could have had a Russian style ending of the War. Confederate President Jefferson Davis favored a continuous war of attrition and anarchy, carried out by hundreds of roving bands of southern ex-soldiers until the weary North gave in. The United States, writes Winik, could have ''come to resemble a Swiss cheese, with Union cities here, pockets of Confederate resistance lurking there, ambiguous areas of no man's land in between.'' This is what Russia looked like in 1918-21.

On April 9 1865, a day that would remain in glory, two great soldiers met at Appomattox court house in Virginia, General Lee, commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, and Commander-in-chief of the northern forces and future president, General Ulysses S. Grant. Lee could have opted for attrition and anarchy, but unlike Jefferson Davis, he rejected   continuous guerrilla warfare. Grant could have behaved less generously. Luckily our president was Abraham Lincoln, whose powerful voice during his Gettysburg address and Second Inaugural, pledged a new dawn for a united America. Thus in Winik's words, ''Men were not hanged, they were saluted . . . they were not humiliated or beaten, they were embraced. Some of this was by design; much of it occurred spontaneously. They [the defeated] were even allowed to keep their horses.” 

Donald Trump is not Abraham Lincoln. A patriotic builder, yet at times erratic, he is learning on the job the art of politics and even our history. He is also beset with continual harassment by the alt left while trying to fulfill his awesome presidential duties. A thoughtful, yet fallible and emotional human being, he is making elementary mistakes.

He is simply not politically correct like most of the members of the Washington swamp. He refuses to be scripted with the standard declamations of moral righteousness. The daws pecking at him are thus having a field day distorting what he said and what he meant. Yet with his Orthodox Jewish daughter Ivanka, the former Democrat is surely neither a bigot nor an anti-Semite. And with his history of opening his golf courses to blacks before almost anybody, he is no white supremacist. “Bigot,” “racist” and “alt right” are names and tales the donkeys automatically pin to any elephant.

Like Trump these writers, both of whom had Jewish relatives killed in the Holocaust, view left wing BLMs and Antifas, as dangerous to our democracy as the neo-Nazis and ultra nationalists in America. Did we forget how the BLMs used to disrupt Bernie Sanders’ rallies while helping sly Hillary? Or how they carried signs at large rallies with murderous calls for killing cops-- pigs in a blanket?

Trump was also right that some demonstrators in Charlottesville were “good people” who came to show respect for Robert E. Lee as a matter not just of of southern pride but because of the statue’s cultural and historical value. Many others would defend the statue from destruction if they knew the crucial role Lee played in national reconciliation.

Trump also asked a crucial question: Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves. Should we take down the monuments our Founding Fathers too?”  Should we judge them in their time by the standards that prevail in ours? 

Let us rather, in the spirit of our national martyr, Abraham Lincoln, l display once again that we are an exceptional nation. Providence calls upon us in Lincoln’s tradition, to forgive the sins of the Confederacy and move on.  

Again let us recall that without brave and wise general Robert E. Lee,   generous Grant and compassionate Lincoln we would have ended up with a Russian kind of denouement. Instead we were able to forge the beginning of our long and arduous reconciliation. The final liberation of our black and brown brothers and sisters. came with another national martyr, Dr. Martin Luther King, and with the support of another white southerner Texas-born, President Lyndon Banes Johnson and his civil rights under his Great Society.

We are in need now of another reconciliation and President Trump must finally demonstrate that he can lead the nation in that direction. He must try to do it as Lincoln did, “with malice towards none, with charity for all.”


IStatue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Tags:   Bashar al Assad       Donald Trump and Syria       Richard Lloyd Report         Seymour Hersh      Whose Sarin?      Putin                          


                                         RUSSIAGATE: ANOTHER WATERGATE?

                                                                             Jiri Valenta  and Leni Friedman Valenta

                                                                  August 15, 2017

Published by BESA Center for Strategic Studies, Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv, Israel Center Perspectives Paper No. 560, August 15, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Just as occurred during the Watergate crisis of 1973-74, America – the world’s indispensable power – is again facing a constitutional crisis, with a paralyzed president writhing beneath the Damoclean sword of Russiagate. New evidence sheds fresh light on the origins and making of both “gates,” as does a closer exploration of the Nixon-Brezhnev and Trump-Putin bromances.

Russian leaders have always closely followed US presidential elections, yet they have only twice attempted to seriously affect the outcomes: during the elections of 1968 and 2016. New evidence reveals that the 1972 Watergate drama was rooted in President LBJ’s 1968 “October Surprise” and President Richard Nixon’s Machiavellian response.  

Few Americans are aware of the hugely detrimental effects of Watergate on US and Israeli national security prior to and during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Given the enormous challenges the US and Israel are currently facing, more may now be at stake than Trump’s presidency.


The term “Russiagate” refers to the 2016 theft by Russia of the DNC’s emails and hacking of Hillary Clinton’s insecure server to provide opposition research favorable to Donald Trump.

“I love it,” responded Donald Trump, Jr., to an email from Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, promising “high level and sensitive information that would incriminate Hillary.” On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump, Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with Veselnitskaya and a group of Russian American lobbyists.

While she represented the Putin government at the meeting, Veselnitskya was also associated with Washington research firm Fusion GPS, which provides opposition research for both Democrats and Republicans. Her true aim was to lobby against the US Congress’s Magnitsky Act, which sanctions pro-Kremlin moguls guilty of human rights abuses.

As of this writing, investigators have uncovered no evidence of any law breached by any Trump, although that can change. Special prosecutor Bob Mueller has assembled a grand jury to continue his investigation. (Moreover, we have just learned that in pursuance of financial issues, Mueller got approval for an unprecedented FBI morning raid of Manafort’s home two weeks ago. Stay tuned.)

Watergate and LBJ’s 1968 Bromance with Kosygin

The term “Watergate” refers to the 1972 illegal break-in of DNC headquarters in Washington by Richard Nixon’s secret police unit, the “plumbers.” Four decades later, we have learned that the road to Watergate was paved in the 1968 US presidential election.

At the time, the Kremlin backed Lyndon Johnson’s [LBJ’s] vice president, Hubert Humphrey, based on the assessment of both Prime Minister Alexi Kosygin and Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Dobrynin that he was the more “stable and predictable” candidate. Note that the minority KGB held a different view. In the eyes of their Washington Resident, KGB General Oleg Kalugin, Nixon – the staunch, anti-communist Republican –was more capable than liberal Democrat Humphrey of taking “…giant steps that could lead to a marked improvement in Soviet-US relations.”

In 1968, Soviet Premier Kosygin, not General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, was responsible for negotiations with the US. When Nixon took an early September lead in the polls after the August 20 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Kremlin, as Dobrynin reveals, “… took an extraordinary step, unprecedented in the history of Soviet-American relations, by secretly offering Humphrey…financial aid.”  Humphrey turned it down, but never told anyone of the offer (including LBJ) for fear of a backlash. By today’s standards, he could have unleashed a Russiagate.

LBJ’s “October Surprise” – Bombing Halt

On October 25th, LBJ received a letter from Kosygin apprising him that, after weeks of talks, Hanoi had finally agreed to come to the negotiating table with Saigon. Peace talks could begin right away – 14 hours after an LBJ bombing halt. To former Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Kosygin’s letter “smelled of vodka and caviar.” As Rusk explained to this writer on July 26, 1974, he knew Kosygin was eager to have a Moscow summit to kick off SALT I and minimize the detrimental effects on the Russo-US relationship of Russia’s 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. 

Both LBJ and Kosygin knew this “October Surprise” could slash Nixon’s lead in the polls and help elect Humphrey – but Nixon got wind of the ploy. The powerful Chinese-American lobbyist Anna Chennault, known as “Little Flower” or “Dragon Lady” and head of Republican Women for Nixon, became Nixon’s back channel to South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu via his embassy in Washington. Nixon’s message to Thieu was to refuse to attend the Paris peace talks, with the promise that South Vietnam would receive more favorable treatment if he won.

The FBI, however, had bugged the South Vietnamese embassy and “Little Flower’s” phone, and on November 2, 1968, LBJ learned of Nixon’s communication with Thieu. Furious, LBJ threatened Nixon that he would go public with the allegation that Nixon had committed treason by throwing a monkey wrench into the Paris peace negotiations.

Unlike today’s politicians, however, LBJ ultimately decided to put the interests of the country before politics. Said the late Nixon speechwriter turned New York Times columnist William Safire, “Nixon probably would not be president if it were not for Thieu.”

Nixon’s Bromance with Brezhnev

Brezhnev’s bromance with Nixon – an unexpected phenomenon – was soon in full bloom, and following their May 22, 1972 summit, the two leaders signed both SALT I and an ABM treaty and agreed to large-scale emigration to Israel of Soviet Jews. Nixon should have felt he was a shoo-in against any Democratic candidate – yet days after the summit, he ordered the plumbers to break into the Watergate Hotel. Why?

1972 Watergate Rooted in 1968 “October Surprise”

In America’s Stolen Narrative, Robert Parry demonstrated that it stuck in Nixon’s craw that evidence of his treason was still in the possession of LBJ or the Democratic Party. Any published evidence of his 1968 sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks could sink his election prospects. Nixon’s extension of the war to 1973 had cost the lives of 20,763 US soldiers, with 111,230 wounded. About a million Vietnamese also died.

To Nixon’s horror, on June 14, 1971, The New York Times began publishing leaker Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War. Fearing disclosure, Nixon wanted those files at any cost. Thus he ordered his plumbers to firebomb and break into the Brookings Institution, the think tank of the Democratic Party. “You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in,” he ordered his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman.

Fortunately, the Brookings plan was scuttled. But Nixon sent his plumbers twice to the Watergate Hotel, the first time on May 28th, 1972, days after the Moscow summit. They bugged the facility, but the files they retrieved did not satisfy Nixon. They were sent in again on June 17, and that time, they were caught. After White House tapes established Nixon’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he resigned.

But what happened to LBJ’s “X file?” In an interview with Johnson’s NSA, Walter Rostow, on July 30, 1974, this writer learned that after LBJ’s death in 1973, Rostow had given the file to the LBJ Library with instructions that it not be opened for 50 years. It was declassified after 20.

Putin’s Bromance with Trump

Trump’s bromance with Putin in 2016-17 evokes Nixon’s with Brezhnev in 1972-74. By 2012, Russia’s 2009 “reset” with the US, as attempted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was over. As Putin saw it, she had fomented the huge demonstrations against him during Russia’s parliamentary elections in October 2012.

Moreover, it can be inferred from the US Congress’s investigation of Clinton’s unsecured and illegal server that Putin’s hackers must have learned that the Obama administration, led by Clinton, was covertly seeking regime change in Libya and Syria. The Americans were consequently arming rebels who had morphed into jihadists. In 2015, Putin militarily intervened in Syria to protect both his investments there and the Syrian dictator, Assad.

The turning point for Putin likely came in the summer of 2016, when former CIA Director Mike Morell – a Hillary adviser – recommended, with her support, the “killing [of] Russians in Syria.” Unsurprisingly, Putin became an open supporter of Donald Trump. “We liked President Trump … because … he was willing to restore American-Russian relations.”

Unlike any other Russian leader, Putin – the “cool calculator of Russia’s national interests,” in Kissinger’s words – was mesmerized by the Trump campaign. He declaimed to interviewer Oliver Stone, “[Trump] knew the fiber in the souls of the people … [he] knew how to play to their hearts.” He also rhapsodized about Trump’s “protection of traditional [family] values.”

Putin’s “Almost” Bombing Halt in Syria

Almost a half century after LBJ’s 1968 “October Surprise” bombing halt in Vietnam, President Barack Obama sought a ceasefire and bombing halt in Syria in October 2016. Like Nixon, Putin channeled Machiavelli. His complying with the halt would have helped Obama’s candidate, Hillary. He said time had run out, and in any case, “Our foreign ministry says we would have to talk to the new administration [hopefully Trump’s].”

Still believing Hillary would likely win, Putin resorted to harsh Cold War rhetoric and even canceled a US-Russian agreement on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium. On election night, however, there were champagne corks popping in the Kremlin.

A consequence of Trump’s election, however, was Democrat fury over Russia’s hacking of the DNC’s and Hillary’s e-mails. Choosing to blame Hillary’s defeat on Putin rather than on the candidate, they sought to make any contact the Trump team had had with Russia radioactive.

Brezhnev’s Deception

While he appears eager to restore relations with Russia, Trump should remain vigilant. Russian leaders care about Russian national interests. Indeed, Brezhnev – even as he was consoling Nixon about Watergate at San Clemente in the summer of 1973 – was involved in a serious deception.  

At that time, it was assumed that Russia had infuriated Egypt by refusing to provide modern weapons to it or to Syria. Anwar Sadat had expelled most of Russia’s military advisers, and it was widely believed that there would be no war with Israel anytime soon. But while Brezhnev issued general warnings to Nixon about possible war in the Middle East, he did not reveal that Russia’s tiff with Egypt had been overcome. Russian military experts were already aiding Sadat’s generals for a surprise Egyptian and Syrian attack on Israel on Yom Kippur.

This truth, unknown for decades, resided in the Russian archives. On July 15, 1972, Gorbachev’s foreign policy adviser, the late Anatoly Chernyaev, wrote in his secret diary:    

Egypt’s premier Sidki was persuaded to come to Moscow, and … I think, they have settled it … they must have given much to him, if not all he wanted.

The ruse was confirmed by the Egyptian government-controlled Ruz al-Yusuf magazine, which reported that “various [Egyptian] government agencies spread rumors” about the Russo-Egyptian rift to support the deception. Eventually, Sadat himself called it “a strategic cover – a splendid strategic distraction for our going to war.”

“Egypt will not invade”

During this period, Kissinger described Nixon as “loaded” with alcohol and often incapacitated. Meanwhile, his NSA, General Alexander Haig, was appointed Chief of Staff. Much like Trump’s own newly appointed Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, Haig held the White House together during the chaos of Watergate.

“Domestic Considerations” [Watergate]

With war now in the offing, Israel needed 72 hours to prepare full mobilization. But, because of the ruse and the failures of US intelligence during Watergate, the Israel Defense Force [IDF] didn’t get that precious time. Nevertheless, recovering from its initial shock, the IDF regrouped, crossed the Suez Canal, and began encircling Egypt’s 3rd Army Corps. IDF tanks began to head towards Cairo.

Dobrynin would later recall that Sadat phoned Moscow begging for help. Brezhnev then sent a message to Nixon suggesting a joint intervention by the US and Russia to restore peace, with a veiled threat that Russia was ready to act alone if necessary.

The US went on Defcon 3 (combat alert), and the normally cool Dobrynin furiously demanded an explanation. Kissinger told him the action was “mostly determined by domestic considerations [read: Watergate]” and “not to be taken by Moscow as a hostile act.”

Unlike during the Cuban Missile crisis, where the US went on Defcon 3 and even Defcon 2, the combat alert was revoked after one day. Nixon, in an attempt to soothe Brezhnev, conceded that “he might have lost his cool a bit during the crisis, but that could be explained partly by the siege of his political opposition and personal enemies who were using the pretext of Watergate to undermine his authority.”

Nixon’s military aid to Israel helped save her, but it did not save his presidency. Forced to resign after 15 months of agony, he ended up with only one friend, Leonid Brezhnev, who supported him to the end. America and Trump should heed the lesson.

The repercussions of an agonized, weakened, and finally vacated Nixon presidency were felt not only in the Middle East but also in southeast Asia. Shaken by Watergate, Congress cut military aid to South Vietnam. Thus, instead of peace in Vietnam came a large conventional invasion by the North Vietnamese. Saigon fell in 1975. Three falling dominoes became communist countries: South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Watergate and the fall of Vietnam severely depressed the spirit of the American people and weakened the presidency for years. Moreover, it encouraged the Kremlin’s joint interventionism with Cuba in several Third World regions.

Preventing Russiagate from Becoming Another Watergate

Russiagate is not Watergate – yet. The leaks, denials, cover-ups, and even witness-tampering show politically naive novices stumbling and scrambling to protect themselves while learning on the job. These kinds of obstacles can be overcome.

There is nothing more dangerous to the US than a president politically paralyzed and isolated by long-term investigations in the face of nuclear and other major geopolitical threats. The most significant challenges to the nation arise from deep partisan disunity at home and selfish rivalries over power and revenge. In contrast to Nixon in 1960 and LBJ in 1968, when neither leader protested a lost election but put the country first, the leaders of today are placing personal and party interests first.

Haunted by the spirit of Watergate, the forging of national unity within the US – the indispensable world power – is the most crucial mission currently faced by our national leaders. May they rise to the task.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family


 Tags:  Rex Tillerson    Kim Jong II     Strategic patience      Donald Trump       Bill Clinton      Madeleine Albright        Condi Rice         Dick Cheney       


 We are Crazy, so Waltz Me Around Again Willy!

 Jiri Valenta with Leni Friedman Valenta


                                                                                 Updated April 30, 2017

A few weeks ago, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proclaimed the ending of the doctrine of strategic patience with rogue regimes like nuclear North Korea. At the U.N., however, he seemed to be suggesting we can seek a resolution of the crisis through economic pressure and diplomacy. In response, the North Korean regime fired a ballistic missile. It exploded but the response tells all about the North Korean willingness to find any meaningful compromise. We’ve tried such solutions for a few decades. They have not worked. 

The basic theme of North Korean response can be posited as “We are crazy, so, Waltz me around again Willie.” The dictators, father and son, only used our diplomacy as a respite to advance their nuclear and ballistic missiles programs. In our view, more negotiation will be interpreted by both North Korea and Iran as more of Obama’s strategic patience.
Yes, this time China is more helpful. Donald, Secretary of Defense Mattis and NSA H.R. McMaster deserve credit for using the attack on the Syrian airport in the midst of dinner with the Chinese president to change Chinese perceptions. They do have economic clout with North Korea. Although we are not convinced Beijing wants to replace the friendly communist regime on its borders with another South Korean-type one, they are already convinced them that freezing North Korea’s testing of nuclear weapons is in their interests.  
Don´t we know the steps of this U.S. - North Korean waltz by now? Menacing threats against democratic U.S. allies, South Korea and/or Japan, while testing WMD or its delivery system. “We are crazy,” is the implicit message, “and you better send a high level person to mollify us and give our starving country (above all its nomenclature and military) economic aid.”
President Clinton fell into the trap after sending special envoy Jimmy Carter to Pyongyang in 1994. In October 2000, he sent Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.  Her successor, Condi Rice, described Albright’s mission rather unkindly as her “… somewhat infamous visit…” complete with a stadium presentation of more than 100,000 North Koreans in a “cultural performance…” intended to invoke a presidential visit.  But the intended goal of verifying U.N. inspections of nuclear development and turning over spent fuel rods was not achieved.  
In October 2008, before the presidential election, the North Korean dictator tried to lure another high envoy into his hermit kingdom.  President Bush initially rejected that option. “No! That would really legitimize him!” 
But Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, nevertheless dittoed Madeleine’s mistake. She drew criticism from Vice President Dick Cheney on how she tried to reach a nuclear weapons agreement with North Korea. He recorded Rice saying to Bush, ‘“Mr. President, this is just the way diplomacy works sometimes. You don´t always get a written agreement.”’  

Calling Rice´s advice on this issue “utterly misleading,” Cheney further complained that she made  "... concession after concession to North Korea and turned a blind eye to their misdeeds.”
Sadly, some of her proposals were approved by Bush.  North Korea was removed by Rice from the State Department´s list of terrorist-sponsoring states!   “It was a sad moment,” commented Cheney, reversal of so much of what we had accomplished in the area of non-proliferation in the first term.”. Recalled Bush’s defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, “Rice and Ambassador Christopher Hill, [the diplomat who convinced Condi to appease North Korea and is now pontificating on American TV], seemed to believe they could obtain North Korea’s agreement to end its WMD programs.” 
In 2014, President Obama sent DNI James Clapper on a secret, mission to North Korea, ostensibly to secure the release of two hostages, which he did. But we still don´t know all the details of the presidential message. What was he negotiating about? Was it once again waltz me around again Willy?
Rex Tillerson must not repeat the mistake of the other two secretaries of state. Rather than giving in to their usual pattern of blackmail, hostage-taking, promises, withdrawal from negotiations, U.S. high level visits, resumption of negotiations, more lies and more threats. Trump and his top team are surely looking at options, while they sit out this dance. We hope they are drafting other options -- something similar to what Bill Clinton seriously considered before he sent Madeleine Albright to waltz with Willy.

Our chosen option must be framed by strategic savvy, rather than going back to strategic patience. Besides strong economic measures in combination with China, we have only three options. One is to dismantle the North Korean nuclear program in a single, massive surprise strike. . However this option is extremely dangerous and very costly. 

 A second one is to freeze North Korea’s nuclear testing by preventive cyber warfare or other very limited, military means such as a strike on the launching pad and hope they get the message. This is unlikely to provoke an attack on Seoul. The young dictator likes his power, big parades, his wife, the food that his skinny people never get, and killing an occasional relative now and then. He doesn’t want to die and he knows if he attacks Seoul, he will.

The third option  is bankrupt --strategic patience.If we simply engage in in  negotiation with North Korea before showing we mean business, they will cheat, and will also continue aiding Iran in their own development of nuclear weapons and deliveries systems.  The decision to negotiate will be surely interpreted by foes and friends as continuation of Obama ‘s strategic patience. Strategic savvy dictates we must not allow North Korea to continue their nuclear testing.