Donald Trump

Following a dizzying on-again, off-again week of no-shows, cancellation threats, high-level summitry, and dramatic announcements, a glide path is emerging in the direction of the Trump-Kim summit to be held on June 12. Since there may yet be twists and turns in the coming weeks and the roller coaster ride has focused more on logistics than substance, it is important to step back and review the chronology of developments during the past week. Chronological Review of Major Developments in Preparation for the June 12 Summit At a May 22 summit meeting between Donald Trump and Moon Jae-in at the White House, the South Korean and the American leaders discussed preparations for the U.S.-North Korea summit to be held in Singapore. In press availability prior to the Trump-Moon summit, President Trump suggested flexibility on a phased versus all-in-one approach to denuclearization while expressing his strong preference for an all-in-one approach and cast doubt on China’s intentions based on an apparent change in direction by North Korea following the surprise summit meeting held in Dalian only a week earlier between Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un. On May 23, North Korean Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Choe Son-hui released a statement complaining about Vice President Mike Pence’s “unbridled and impudent remarks that North Korea might end like Libya” and stated that “whether the U.S. will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behavior of the United States.” On May 24, President Trump released a letter announcing cancellation of the Singapore summit in response to the “tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in [Vice Minister Choe’s] most recent statement.” However, President Trump also indicated a willingness to come back to talks if the North Koreans showed an interest in resuming contact. Back in Seoul following his whirlwind trip to the United States, Moon convened his national security council and announced his perplexity regarding recent developments. The summit cancellation coincided with North Korea’s detonation of several entrances to their nuclear test site at Pungye-ri, witnessed by international journalists. On May 25, North Korea Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Kim Kye-gwan issued a statement expressing “our willingness to sit down face-to-face with the U.S. and resolve issues anytime and in any format.” President Trump responded with verbal remarks and tweets suggesting that the summit preparations could still happen in time for a June 12 meeting in Singapore. At a press briefing in Washington, a presidential spokesman briefed that the North Koreans had stood up a high-level American delegation that had traveled to Singapore to negotiate logistical matters in advance of the U.S.-North Korea summit and had not kept pledges regarding allowing experts to travel with journalists to witness the closing of the North Korean nuclear test site at Pungye-ri, but Trump disavowed the statement as fake news in a tweet. On May 26, apparently at the request of the North Koreans, Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un met for the second time at Panmunjom, this time on the northern side and in secret. The meeting was announced following its conclusion, and President Moon announced a press conference for 10 am the following day to discuss the results. On May 27, President Moon announced that Kim Jong Un had confirmed his commitment to complete denuclearization but showed distrust in U.S. pledges of regime assurances in their Panmunjom meeting. The two Koreas committed to resumption of high-level ministerial meetings scheduled for June 1 and to the resumption of inter-Korean Red Cross meetings. President Trump expressed his approval of these developments and mentioned that preparatory contacts had resumed. Subsequently, it was reported that a U.S. delegation led by former six party negotiator and current U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, Sung Kim, was holding preparatory meetings for the summit on the northern side of the border at Panmunjom. In addition, a delegation led by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin is meeting with North Korean counterparts in Singapore to discuss protocol for the summit. On May 29, reports broke and were subsequently confirmed via President Trump’s tweet that North Korea’s Vice Chairman Kim Yong Chol is traveling to New York for additional talks with the United States. General Kim is a senior military official in charge of inter-Korean dialogue and former head of the Reconnaissance General Bureau who attended the closing ceremonies of the Pyeongchang Olympics and both inter-Korean summits between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong Un. If the Trump-Kim Singapore summit is to be successful, much remains to be done during the next two weeks to close the decades-long gap over the pace, price, and process of denuclearization between the two sides.

It is often said, perhaps with some hyperbole, that Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers was the best hope for conflict resolution in the Middle East. Its architect John Kerry argues instead that the 2015 deal’s limited parameter of closing Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon is sufficient on the merits. The Trump administration is taking a different view, focusing on Iran’s escalating threats to U.S. allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Those threats, which have included missile, drone, and cyberattacks on Saudi oil facilities, are looming large over the global economy because they are squarely influencing the volatility of the price of oil. One could argue that the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Iranian deal, referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has injected an even higher degree of risk into oil markets, where traders now feel that the chances of Mideast conflict resolution are lower. But, the Trump administration could argue otherwise. From its perspective, the United States extended to Iran $6 billion in frozen funds, opened the door for a flood of spare parts to be shipped into Iran’s suffering oil and petrochemical sector, and looked the other way while European companies rushed in for commercial deals. In exchange, it’s true, Iran began to implement the terms of JCPOA, but as Secretary of State Pompeo laid out in a major speech on the subject, the nuclear deal has failed to turn down the heat on the wide range of conflicts plaguing the Mideast region. Rather, Secretary Pompeo explained, Iran’s proxies have raised the stakes for U.S. allies, and regional conflicts have been dangerously escalating. U.S.-Iranian exchanges in Syria are also on the rise. The deal could still move forward, according to Secretary Pompeo, but not until Tehran addresses a laundry list of U.S. demands. Washington expects its action and rhetoric to spur more productive negotiations that would allow the United States to link restoring the nuclear deal with political negotiations to de-escalate conflicts. Since re-imposition of renewed oil sanctions doesn’t take hold for several months, wiggle room still exists for such diplomacy. But markets reflect doubt about those chances, reflecting the view of many respected commentators. Oil prices hit $80 a barrel and even the five-year forward oil price rose above $60 for the first time since the end of 2015. Speculators are still holding substantial long positions and industry has been slower to hedge, lest oil prices go higher still. In the world of oil, it’s hard to compartmentalize complex geopolitical conflicts. In condemning the Trump administration’s move, Iran’s hardliners actually accused the United States of withdrawing from the JCPOA to raise the price of oil and called on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to raise its production to resist the United States. In a tweet from the Iranian Oil ministry via @VezaratNaft on May 11, Iranian oil minister Bijan Namdar Zangemeh is quoted as saying “President Trump playing double game in oil market. Some OPEC members playing into U.S. hands. U.S. seeking to boost shale oil production.” Simultaneously, Iranian media promulgated a spurious rumor that Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had been assassinated. The context for both was dialogue between the United States and its regional Arab allies (kicked off by a Trumpian tweet on OPEC) on the need to cool off the overheated oil market with higher oil production to ensure that the re-imposition of sanctions did not destabilize markets further. In seeking “better terms” for the Iranian nuclear deal, the Trump administration is counting on the fact that the Iranian government faces more internal opposition from its population than it did when the deal was negotiated back in 2015. That popular discontent is palpable and explains why the Iranian rhetorical response to the U.S. withdrawal announcement has been relatively mild compared to historical precedents. But this is no cakewalk, since Iran is counting on Europe and other major trading partners to resist U.S. sanction efforts.   In recent years, China has established its own networks of financial channels and institutions that could be used to allow Chinese companies to pay Iran in its currency, the yuan, in a manner that avoids the Brussels-based SWIFT financial messaging system, which can be subject to U.S. tracking and intervention. China has already tested using the yuan to pay for imports from Russia and Iran via China National Petroleum Corporation’s Bank of Kunlun. The Tehran-based business daily The Financial Tribune suggested that other countries, including Europe, could tap “alternative Chinese financial networks.” But the practicalities of China taking the lead on behalf of Tehran when other U.S.-China bilateral trade issues loom large is more complicated now than it was back in 2012. In 2012, China agreed to meet the Obama administration’s request that it cut its Iranian imports by the minimum 20 percent. As robust a response as the United States may now say it wants from Beijing on Iran, Washington similarly has to consider other priorities on the table with China right now, including negotiations regarding North Korea. Iran has been exporting roughly two million barrels a day (b/d) of crude oil. Europe purchases over a quarter of that volume and is—if push comes to shove—likely to go along with U.S. policy if no diplomatic progress can be made. For now, European leaders are trying diplomacy to keep the nuclear deal alive separately from the United States and to press Iran to address some of the common concerns on Secretary Pompeo’s list. Back in 2012, Europe cut virtually all of its oil imports from Iran. Japan had already conservatively lowered its purchases from Iran in March and even India’s oil giant IOC is now saying publicly that it is looking for alternative barrels to replace its 140,000 b/d of purchases from Iran, suggesting the oil will be made available to India from Saudi Arabia. South Korea is also expected to wind down its purchases from Iran given the imperative to display common ground with the United States; Seoul has already reduced purchases from 360,000 b/d last year to 300,000 b/d more recently. In sum, although Iran can conduct oil for goods barters with Russia and Turkey, it could potentially lose one million b/d of sales or more, if it the current geopolitical stalemate stands. But more is at stake for Iran than short run oil sales since Tehran has learned it can get those back eventually if the political will towards sanctions wears off over time. The curtailment again of international investment in its natural gas industry is a bigger setback for Tehran, which needs natural gas not only to inject into its oil fields to drive production but also for residential and commercial use. If the United States manages to drive French firm Total back out of the important South Pars natural gas venture, the chances of Iran reestablishing itself as a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter dissipates once again, possibly this time for decades given potential U.S. exports and other market conditions. China, which is also an investor in South Pars, does not have experience developing LNG exporting projects. Unfortunately, the global natural gas stakes could make it harder to draw Russia along with any U.S.-led conflict resolution effort. Even if Tehran was willing to cooperate in Syria or Yemen, Russia—a major natural gas exporter to Europe and Asia—benefits from U.S. sanctions that block competition from Iranian exports. Motivating the Kremlin into any diplomatic deal that restores U.S.-Iranian cooperation could be a heavy lift.   Russia is expected to begin supplying natural gas by pipeline to China via the Power of Siberia pipeline by late 2019 but Russia’s Gazprom has had difficulty locking down sales to China from additional pipeline routes. Successful negotiations on the Korean peninsula could help in that regard, since one potential fix to North Korea’s energy needs could be a Russian gas peace pipe. But the availability of direct natural gas exports to China and South Korea from the United States muddies the waters further. Beyond holding Iran out of the long run natural gas market, Russia could similarly be unwilling to agree to conflict resolution in Yemen and Syria because of the benefit it enjoys from keeping Saudi Arabia under financial and political pressure. Riyadh’s economic pressures, driven in part from its high military spending in Yemen, have made Saudi Arabia all the more willing to collaborate with Moscow on managing oil markets—a geopolitical reality that has strengthened Russia’s global standing significantly. It’s hard to see what would motivate the Kremlin to let Saudi Arabia off the hook given that a resumption of a tight alliance with Washington and Qatar is a material danger to Russia’s geopolitical and economic well-being, as demonstrated when the three countries collaborated in the early 2010s to weaken Moscow’s grip on European energy markets. Russia’s posture is not the only barrier, however, to conditions that would allow progress on U.S.-Iranian conflict resolution. Even if the economic penalty of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions were sufficient to motivate Iran back to the negotiating table, it remains unclear to what extent Tehran can influence its own proxies who have independent goals that could not align fully with any conflict resolution deal Iran could strike with the United States and its allies. Moreover, it is similarly unclear whether the United States could draw Saudi Arabia into a workable political settlement for Yemen. Thus, while the United States could have a strategy in mind that could improve upon the status quo in the Middle East, a deeper dive into the energy realpolitik of the matter shows the complexities that stand in the way of progress. With so much at stake, an incredibly disciplined and patient hand will be necessary to work through the wide host of internecine, interconnected issues.  

On Thursday, the White House canceled the highly-anticipated June 12 summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un. Despite will on all sides for the summit to proceed, a fundamental disagreement on the roadmap to denuclearization looms large.

Sungtae (Jacky) Park is a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. A version of this piece was first published on CSIS PacNet here. As the top-level summit between the United States and North Korea nears, policy analysts have been expressing skepticism about the Trump administration’s goal of complete denuclearization of North Korea and calling for tempered expectations and objectives. They argue that North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons program that Kim Jong Un sees as critical to the survival of his regime and that Pyongyang will use the summit and negotiations to buy time and loosen sanctions while making limited concessions. While I am a pessimist myself, I worry that cognitive bias is leading to excessive pessimism. An outcome that experts might find satisfactory, while falling short of complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement (CVID), might be possible. Cognitive bias #1: Bad guys do it better The first factor that affects analyses of North Korea is a belief that the North Koreans are brilliant manipulators and strategists, while U.S. officials are incompetent and regularly being duped. The notion that “bad guys do it better” seems to be ingrained in every aspect of the U.S. policy community’s view of the world, whether in discussions about North Korea, Russia, China, or Iran. Consistent with this view, the Washington policy establishment has accused Donald Trump of being manipulated into a summit with Kim and pursuing the unrealistic goal of complete denuclearization. Ironically, Trump himself has accused previous U.S. presidents of being “outplayed” by the North Koreans and has pledged to be different. Is this perception true? Many analysts have argued that the United States has had an increasingly dysfunctional national security decision-making process since the end of the Cold War, but a working process does exist. The separation of powers in the U.S. government often leads to confusion and delays in policy implementation, but Congress also brings a level of oversight to the executive branch. The shift in power at the White House from one party to another sometimes brings changes in policy, but it also prevents foreign affairs from being dominated by a single school of thought. North Korea’s policy process remains a black box, but it is hard to imagine that it functions properly in a setting where officials risk being purged if they say the wrong thing. Moreover, while North Korean officials have access to outside information, they do not have the same level of information freedom that exists in the United States and are working in an ideological framework into which they were indoctrinated as children. North Korea’s intelligence apparatus is brutal, but North Koreans do not have intellectual and technological resources to match those of the U.S. government. There is also no accountability in North Korea, and Kim makes decisions with his close associates and sycophantic advisors. While North Korea has a clear strategy in negotiations with the United States, it is dealing with as much uncertainty as the United States. As a result, diplomacy with North Korea is not necessarily a rigged game in which Kim Jong Un is pursuing an exceptionally clever strategy. Both sides are playing the game partially blindfolded and a satisfactory, if not ideal, outcome that includes North Korea’s denuclearization in some form should not be discounted. Cognitive bias #2: Attributing the current situation to a single, fixed intent The second cognitive bias is the belief that North Korean leaders have made and stuck to a single, fixed choice, instead of having kept as many options available (hedging) or having made disparate decisions at multiple inflection points throughout the history of the U.S.-North Korea nuclear conflict. Korea watchers generally believe that the current crisis reflects North Korea’s unwavering desire to obtain nuclear weapons. However, no one will know what happened with all previous nuclear agreements with North Korea until archives on both sides are open to researchers. Counterfactuals are impossible to prove, and no one can be sure what would have happened if the United States and North Korea had made different choices at different junctures in the nuclear conflict. Yet, the fact that the complex and never-ending debate over how and why the Agreed Framework and later agreements failed exists suggests that North Korean decision-making has been far more complicated than understood in the United States. The assertion, then, that Kim Jong Un will never give up his nuclear weapons program and will inevitably cheat on any agreement is flawed, as it is not clear that North Korea has always had a single fixed position on nuclear weapons. With the right incentives and disincentives, the United States might be able to sway Kim’s decision-making. A counterargument could be made that Kim Jong Un is coldly rational and does hold a single, fixed position because he views nuclear weapons as the key to his survival, especially after witnessing the fall of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who completely gave up his nuclear weapons program, only to be killed in 2011 in a rebellion protected by a Western no-fly zone. Yet, if Kim were truly rational and faced with “the existential choice between survival and nuclear status,” as noted by Scott Snyder, due to internal and external pressure of varying nature, then a satisfactory level of denuclearization, by logic, should not be discounted. Cognitive bias #3: Past patterns must continue The final cognitive bias is the tendency to conclude that past failures with North Korea mean that current diplomacy is also unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome, even though a number of factors are different this time. To begin with, leader-to-leader diplomacy has never been tried. Conventionally, diplomats lay the groundwork, prepare the details, and then have top leaders meet and sign relevant documents at a summit. But the North Korean political system is uniquely centralized and personalized, meaning that only the top leader can exercise true flexibility on policy issues. Kim Jong Un likely is also cautious about airing his true intentions because even the most brutal dictator has to consider the effects of his words and actions on domestic legitimacy, particularly among elites. Hence, leader-to-leader diplomacy might be the only way to gauge Kim’s inner thinking and reach a solution. In terms of regime security, Kim Jong Un is facing far more pressure compared to his predecessors. Kim would like to remain in power for decades, perhaps for more than half a century. Yet, he is facing rapid marketization of the North Korean economy and increased information flow within the country that he has managed to co-opt, but not halt. This comes at a time when an unprecedented level of sanctions has hurt Pyongyang (despite some recent signs that the Chinese might be loosening their grip). In addition, the North Koreans seem to fear that the Trump administration might launch a military strike, particularly in light of talk about a “bloody nose” strike. At the elite level, Kim and his generation are more aware of the outside world compared to their predecessors. North Korea’s first generation of leadership under Kim Il Sung consisted of revolutionaries who believed they were on the winning side of the Korean conflict. The second generation under Kim Jong Il was indoctrinated in socialism but saw the socialist world collapse, along with its model of development. They did not have the right education and skills to adapt North Korea to changing circumstances. The current generation under Kim Jong Un was educated in Western schools and is the most aware when it comes to the West. This generation likely is the most willing to offer nuclear weapons as bargaining chips for aid and Western technology that might be necessary to sustain the regime for decades. In terms of alliance policy coordination, this is the first time the United States and South Korea are truly in lockstep on North Korea. During the 1994 crisis, Bill Clinton clashed with South Korea’s hardline president, Kim Young-sam. Clinton was briefly in sync with the dovish Kim Dae-jung administration from 1998, but South Korea’s progressive governments and the Bush administration clashed from 2001, while there was minimal diplomatic opening under Barack Obama, Lee Myung-bak, and Park Geun-hye. Unlike previous diplomatic phases, U.S. and South Korean leaders are coordinating well. Take all precautions, but be on the lookout for creative possibilities The United States and South Korea should not embrace North Korea with open arms or buy everything that Kim Jong Un is trying to sell. The Trump administration should take all precautions in negotiations that might follow the summit with Kim. Even if a deal emerges, it could be an imperfect one with much ambiguity. Nevertheless, diplomats and Korea watchers should be open to creative diplomatic possibilities, lest they fail to be noticed due to excessive pessimism.

Accord focused on soybeans and gas does nothing about huge tech-sector challenges.

The Trump administration’s foreign policy moves with respect to Iran and Jerusalem can have consequences, perhaps unintended, for U.S. bilateral relations elsewhere. John Stremlau, an American academic based at South Africa’s prestigious University of the Witswatersrand (“Wits”) in Johannesburg, has published an article on the impact of Trump’s foreign policy on South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s efforts to repair the damage to his country’s governance by former President Jacob Zuma. He argues that the U.S.-South African bilateral relationship is likely to deteriorate further. Stremlau cites South African resentment of U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s statement that countries that do not support U.S. policies at the UN will somehow be punished. In 2017, South Africa voted with the United States only 18 percent of time. From Ambassador Haley’s perspective, the South African record is among the ten “worst.” President Ramaphosa has also publicly opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, and he is pursuing stronger economic ties to Iran that are likely to collide with new U.S. sanctions there. With respect to the U.S. move of its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the Ramaphosa government has recalled its ambassador to Israel over the killing of Palestinian protesters in Gaza by Israeli security forces. Stremlau also points out that South Africa is likely to take one of the “African” seats on the UN Security Council at the upcoming session. Stremlau is calling on the many “entrenched networks” of cooperation between the United States and South Africa to “shield South Africa from Trump’s bullying.”  According to Stremlau, the bilateral relationship faces a rocky road ahead. Under President Zuma, the relationship was no better than “correct,” despite protests by both sides that it was friendly and warm. Ramaphosa is a businessman and one of the architects of South Africa’s “non-racial” democracy. Many of South Africa’s American friends had hoped that there would be a reset in the bilateral relations once Ramaphosa was in office. That appears unlikely for the time being. While on the UN Security Council, South Africa is likely to adopt positions on issues ranging from Iran to Palestine and Israel that will be opposed by the Trump administration. There are also tariff and trade issues that will set back the relationship.

North Korean authorities issued two separate statements on May 16, 2018, that have been reported to cast doubt on prospects for the Trump-Kim summit scheduled to occur in Singapore on June 12. The statements accuse South Korea of disregarding the newly-minted Panmunjom declaration by allowing U.S.-South Korea joint air drills including nuclear-capable aircraft to go forward on the peninsula and challenge the characterizations and objectives of U.S. senior officials regarding prospective U.S.-North Korea nuclear talks in advance of the Trump-Kim summit. The statements declare the terms upon which North Korea perceives that it is entering into the summit and threaten to walk away from summit talks if the United States pushes for North Korea’s unilateral denuclearization without meeting Pyongyang’s conditions for pursuing “complete denuclearization.” The timing of the first Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) statement occurred on the eve of the first ministerial-level talks scheduled to occur following the April 27 inter-Korean summit at Panmunjom. North Korea had proposed the ministerial talks a day prior and canceled at the last minute the night before the two sides were to meet. The timing of the announcement appeared designed to maximize impact on South Korea’s Moon Jae-in administration by underscoring that his achievements were premised on North Korean cooperation and that North Korea intended to utilize the ambiguously worded Panmunjom declaration to suit its purposes and pursue its objectives. The timing of the statement and the temporary interruption of inter-Korean contacts was probably designed to induce caution by the Moon administration and to press South Korea to utilize the Panmunjom declaration as an instrument for inducing restraint and curbing the scope of U.S.-South Korea joint exercises. It was probably also to influence Moon to show solidarity with the spirit of the declaration only days prior to his arrival in Washington for a preparatory May 22 summit designed to enhance U.S.-South Korea coordination and facilitate Trump’s preparation for his own highly anticipated June meeting with Kim Jong-un in Singapore. The statement criticizing the air drills was almost exclusively targeted at South Korean authorities’ will to adhere to the Panmunjom declaration. But it did include a vague reference linking the fate of the Trump-Kim summit to North Korea’s desire that the United States and South Korea show greater self-restraint in their conduct of joint military exercises. North Korea’s second May 16 statement was issued in the name of the country’s Vice Minister Kim Kye-gwan, a senior North Korean official with deep prior experience in U.S.-North Korea negotiations, who had been virtually invisible to the public up to now under Kim Jong-un. The statement was primarily aimed at taking issues with public comments by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton that characterized North Korea as having been coerced into a summit meeting by sanctions pressure and rejected expansive U.S. objectives for North Korean denuclearization based on the Libyan model or based on a compensation model that would reward North Korea economically for denuclearization. This statement was likely designed to publicly set conditions and limits around North Korea’s initial position on denuclearization and to reject Bolton’s Libyan model in favor of a negotiated process in which North Korea engages with the United States on an equal footing as a nuclear state. Most importantly, North Korea reiterated its longstanding view that its return to denuclearization dialogue is rooted in North Korean strength and is conditioned on expectations for tension-reduction and diplomatic normalization with the United States. Kim Kye-gwan’s statement provided a useful public illustration of the extent of the gap between the United States and North Korea over the definition, scope, and duration of a denuclearization process. These are huge issues that arguably should be resolved prior to a high-profile summit meeting between the leaders of the two countries. Kim Kye-gwan’s statement underscores Pyongyang’s sensitivity to the Trump administration’s messaging surrounding the summit and attempts to highlight gaps between Bolton and Pompeo as a means of preemptively deflecting a good cop-bad cop approach that might be used to maximize pressure on North Korea in the context of summit negotiations. The North Korean statement is not designed to end a process of preparation for a summit, but rather reiterates North Korea’s longstanding opening position in anticipation of further negotiations with the United States. It attempts to rule out some recent U.S. statements as off-limits and suggests that North Korea is prepared to drive a hard bargain at the same time that Trump must deal with increasingly inflated expectations for what he is likely to realistically accomplish toward the stated goal of complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement. It is likely that that there will be further volatility, contradictory statements, and brinkmanship on both sides in the run-up to a U.S.-North Korea summit. The date of the Trump-Kim meeting could even face temporary postponement. But, in the end, the summit is likely to happen since both leaders will likely find a mutually acceptable basis upon which to proceed. In the meantime, the magnitude of the task of closing the gaps in understanding between the two sides and the all-critical task of fashioning an agreed-upon denuclearization process that would follow on the event of a Trump-Kim meeting will likely require additional high-level meetings between the two sides. Although there are rumors that intelligence officials may have stayed behind in Pyongyang to continue working out a modus operandi, the more likely scenario is that Secretary of State Pompeo will have to make yet another visit to Pyongyang for follow-on talks designed to sketch out the framework for the Trump-Kim summit and the implementation process that would follow. In the meantime, rhetoric on both sides will continue, despite the accompanying risk that misstatements will result in delays. In the meantime, the two North Korean statements will have also had near-term impact on how Moon approaches Trump in their White House meeting on May 22. North Korea will no doubt evaluate the results of that meeting and assess whether this week’s statements have had the desired effect on Moon and Trump as part of their preparations for next steps toward the Trump-Kim summit.

To work toward peace, the White House will need to lead a tightly coordinated balancing act to deter Kim Jong-un’s worst intentions while leveraging his desire for economic development.

In any future talks on the nuclear program, the United States can’t exclude Iran’s regional behavior from consideration.