We’ve not had all attention on Iraq; there have been 6-party negotiations involving NK for years, plus an American military presence on the border. North Korea is a problem that affects some of our allies at least as much as us; South Korea and Japan have strong incentives to work with us there. I don’t think the administration approach is very likely to succeed, but I can’t think of a better one.
Some on the left like to accuse the administration and its supporters of arrogance, but they have the assumption that it is within the power of the United States to produce any outcome it desires if only it acts correctly. That’s not how the world works. There are other independent actors on the planet, with interests opposed to ours; sometimes there is no good way to stop them. North Korea may be like that.
Iran may be too far gone as well. Here again the administration has forgone military action and relied on negotiation and our allies, the exact strategy many bad-faith leftist critics urged for Iraq. Unlike in Korea, we have no allies willing or able to impose consequences on our opponent. I think the admin should have expanded the ground war years ago; instead Iran and Syria have served as safe havens for our enemies. Our effort in Iraq has suffered, and the danger from Iran has grown.
I can’t imagine options besides continued negotiation; increased military intervention; or surrender. The first and third will not reduce the risk from Iran, the second might. Bubba, do you have any other ideas?
