Is Iran serving as a warning of what might happen to North Korea if Kim Jong Un continues pushing an expansion of nuclear programs in his country? President Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use U.S. military power when confronting governments he opposes—give for example the events in Iran and Venezuela. While nuclear talks between the US and North Korea have remained open since last year, Kim Jong Un has taken a similar position to that of Iran, with the belief that nuclear and missile development are essential to national sovereignty and security. It should be noted that Kim Jong Un discussed with the U.S. the need to safeguard North Korea’s nuclear capabilities a week before the attack on Iran.  

Since the attack on Iran, North Korea has openly responded claiming that if Washington “respects our present [nuclear] position as stipulated in the Constitution…and withdraws its hostile policy…there is no reason why we cannot get along well with the United States,” Kim said at the Ninth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea, according to state media outlet KCNA. It is speculated that Trump and Kim Jong Un will resume discussions in-person between late March and early April when Trump travels to China.  

Accepting North Korea’s terms comes with a variety of challenges for the U.S. as North Korea has called for the expansion of its nuclear programs and being officially recognized as a nuclear state. Additionally, Kim Jong Un has also called for an end of joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea.  

Kim Jong Un is making his message clear: peaceful coexistence is possible, but having the ability to defend one’s country is essential. As he re-emphasized on the BBC, “If the United States, freeing itself from its absurd pursuit of others’ denuclearization and recognizing the reality…there is no reason for us not to come face to face with it.” For many governments watching the standoff, the broader question remains unresolved: does the United States’ pursuit of security and global influence reassure allies—or push rival states to strengthen their own deterrents? For countries like North Korea, the fear of external threats may only reinforce the belief that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee of survival. 

In the end, the current events highlights the complex reality of nuclear diplomacy. While the possibility of renewed dialogue with Trump suggests that diplomacy is not entirely off the table, the U.S. recent course of action indicate a U.S. first approach in which nuclear control is dominated by American priorities. Looking towards the future, the U.S. is influencing how other countries perceive their own security. A transition to a more utilitarian view of nuclear deterrence is occurring globally, and this mindset is prioritizing national survival and strategic advantage, rather than a commitment to peace and collective stability.