Thread by @FrankJannuzi

Few thoughts on US Intel and DPRK.
1) No one should expect DPRK to halt production of fissile material without it being a part of a reciprocal process of denuclearization and sanctions relief. Absent that, DPRK will maximize its position until the deal is struck. Dealmaking 101.

2) "News" that DPRK has more than one HEU facility is NOT NEWS. Experts have long argued that the Yongbyon centrifuges could not have been assembled so quickly had DPRK not already had experience elsewhere. This has long been an "open secret" and is NOT new information.

3) US Intel assessments made public have NEVER argued that DPRK would abandon their nuclear weapons. The basic argument is that DPRK has too much invested and too much to lose to give up their security blanket. Diplomacy goal is to TEST that proposition -- with eyes wide open.

4) Timing of INTEL leak is suspicious. Since skepticism expressed undercuts diplomatic momentum, I smell a rat. Correct US response is not to abandon denuclearization effort, but to move step by step to coral DPRK nuclear capabilities, curtail their production fissile material.

5) Having said all that, the IC leak on DPRK's continued efforts to enhance their nuclear capabilities, even after a promise to denuclearize, underscores how naive Trump appears to be when engaging in high stakes diplomacy. Mistrust and verify should be the US mantra.

6) Next move is for USA to demand an end to fissile material production (Pu and HEU) and to send inspectors to verify same. Don't worry about weapons yet. First cap their program, then roll it back. Step by step is the only way that can work.

END) If US adopts risk-management strategy, rather than trying to play "gotcha," we stand good chance of capping and gradually dismantling DPRK's nuclear capabilities. This will make us and our allies safer, reduce risk of proliferation, and allow us to bring soft power to bear.