about nato and article 5 but we have mutual defense treats with japan and south korea. and other countries, vietnam there is a freudian slip. vietnam asking us to be vigilant because they re concerned as well. the mutual defense treaties are the heart of the matter as to which we think about missile launch tonight as worrisome. if you think about the possibility that north korean missile launches could blow up mid-air as they sometimes do it might have been possible that debris could have fallen on japan which would have risen to the level of something approaching an armed attack. and because the united states is pledged to defend japan that is a deadly serious proposition for washington, too. now thankfully that did not happen. hopefully north korea will not make this normal course of business. but when it comes to the question of what the administration should do next item number one is reassure the allies in japan and south korea
official mouthpiece, and by the way, north korea, don t launch a pre-emptive strike on anybody else in asia, because you re on your own then too. as a guy with a lot of military experience in asia we have relations we often talk about nato and article 5 but we have mutual defense treaties with japan and south korea if they are attacked. and others as well. you have other countries like south vietnam like vietnam, there s a freudian slip for you. like vietnam asking us to be vigilant because they re concerned as well. the mutual defense treaties are the heart of the matter as to why we think about this missile launch tonight as worrisome. if you think about the possibility that north korean missile launches could blow up mid-air, as they sometimes do, it might have been possible that debris could have actually fallen on japan. which would have risen to the level of something approaching an armied attack. and because the united states is pledged to defend japan that is
year and this year, you projected there would be regional counterattacks if the u.s. were to strike the assad regime. so why would the iranian regime in the first place be risking a confrontation with the united states and the west if this strike is directed against syria? i actually insisted on the fact that it is a strategic decision made in tehran. this is a result, number one, of the strategic alliance between the syrian regime and iranian regime. we have nato. they have a series of treaties between themselves. defense treaties that include hezbollah. if one is attacked, all others will counterattack. that is something to be taken seriously into account. the most important reason is that the iranian regime will lose everything regionally if they lose syria. if we look at the map, the bridge between the iranian regime through iraq and syria and to hezbollah goes through damascus, goes through the syrian regime if it goes down or is weakened or attack, expect
saz i said, we don t have a mutual defense treaty with egypt like we do with our nato allies. since the u.s. also does not have mutual defense treaties with the non-nato allies like israel, state department spokeswoman victoria nuelans briefing got a bit awkward. i m going refer you to the white house for further parsing on this. as reporters pressed, she gave in and said egypt is an ally. we regard egypt as major non-nato ally and recipient of the privileges that that entails? yes. the mixed message continued op capitol hill. i don t know about the word ally. we ll see. confusion comes as violence spreads across the middle east. with hundreds of protesters storming the u.s. embassy in yemen. as the president continueed his second partial day of campaigning out west he referenceed a phone call he had with egyptian president mohammed morsi, prodding him to protect the u.s. embassy in cairo, which has faced violent protests for days. we re in contact with other governme
south korea, they are predicting some kind of response from north korea, and the u.s. is obligated and said it will stand by south korea as defense treaties obligate, and the u.s. is saying north korea is responsible for these provocations, and south korea has this right to undertake these exercises as part of its self-defense. but there are two schools of thought here, don. on one hand, south korea has a right to these exercises, and to stop them, to let north korea intimidate them is going to send the wrong message, that its belligerent behavior is working, and that they re going to be rewarded for bad behavior. on the other hand, there is a concern that north korea will retaliate and the south will be forced to respond. don, south korea has enormous exercise exercised enormous restraint over the last several months with the sinking this submarine earlier this year and then with the shelling of this island last month. what the u.s. is concerned about