In US strikes on Iran, North Korea sees nuclear vindication

Kim Jong-un will have seen the footage. A supreme leader of nearly 37 years, killed alongside members of his own family. Citizens celebrating in the streets. Rivals already angling for a role in the political transition. If the US-Israeli strike that killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday was intended to send a message to the world, analysts say North Korea almost certainly received it. Though the lesson likely learned – do not negotiate with the US and never be in Iran’s position in the first place – is perhaps not the one that Washington intended. “He will no doubt take steps to avoid a similar fate for his family and North Korea,” Leif-Eric Easley, a professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, said of Kim. “The lesson Pyongyang likely draws from these strikes is to reject interactions with Seoul that could weaken the Kim regime.” North Korea’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Sunday condemning the “gangster-like behaviour of the United States and Israel” over the killing of Khamenei. Both countries “place their domestic laws above universally recognised international law and do not hesitate to abuse military force whenever it serves their selfish and hegemonic ambitions”, Pyongyang said. The statement came hours after China and Russia had also denounced the strikes, with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi condemning the “blatant killing of a sovereign leader” and warning against escalation. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said news of the deaths had been received with “indignation and deep regret”, adding that Moscow opposed political assassinations. Nuclear vindication The US-Israeli strikes on Iran came amid negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme. They also followed the abduction on January 3 of former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro on US President Donald Trump’s orders. But North Korea occupies a categorically different strategic position than either Iran or Venezuela, analysts say – and Kim knows it. “North Korea is much further along than Iran in both nuclear warhead development and the weapons platforms, including ICBMs, to deliver them,” Easley said. “Pyongyang also possesses far greater conventional capabilities to attack Seoul and thus deter South Korea than Iran had against Israel.” Iran was struck while its nuclear programme was still a work in progress. North Korea, by contrast, has already enshrined its nuclear-armed status in its constitution and declared it “irreversible”, according to Son Yeol, a professor at Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Studies. “It would create a ‘double standard’ issue if Washington engages in talks with Pyongyang, which possesses nuclear weapons, while attacking Iran, which does not,” Son said. At last month’s ruling party congress, Kim left the door ajar to talks with Washington, saying “there is no reason why we cannot get along well with the United States” – so long as its nuclear-armed status was respected, according to state media. The White House responded on Thursday by reissuing a statement to South Korean media reiterating Trump’s openness to engagement “without any preconditions”. But Son sees a contradiction that the US-Israel-Iran conflict has now made starker. Any meaningful talks would inevitably circle back to denuclearisation – the one concession Pyongyang has permanently ruled out. “Even if talks are framed as unconditional, denuclearisation would be difficult to sidestep. This directly conflicts with Pyongyang’s strategy of seeking international recognition as a nuclear-armed state,” he said. North Korea has largely rebuffed Washington’s overtures since a 2019 summit in Hanoi collapsed, pivoting instead towards Moscow amid the Ukraine war. US-North Korea diplomacy had an added constraint, said security analyst Hong Min, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification: a potentially protracted confrontation with Iran could crowd out almost everything else on Washington’s foreign policy agenda. Trump is staking a big wager on this war … If it goes awry, he could lose everything Hong Min, security analyst “Trump is staking a big wager on this war,” Hong said. “If it goes awry, he could lose everything, including the midterm elections in November.” Pyongyang’s swift condemnation of the strikes was conspicuously restrained in its ideological framing, stopping short of the kind of “anti-imperialist solidarity” language that would signal a full embrace of Iran’s cause, said Yang Moo-jin, an emeritus professor at the University of North Korean Studies “Pyongyang is likely conducting a situational assessment and maintaining strategic equidistance – neither fully embracing nor distancing itself from Iran – in order to preserve diplomatic flexibility,” he said. For now, North Korea is watching, waiting – and drawing the conclusion that building out its nuclear arsenal was the right move, analysts say. “The North is expected to focus on further bolstering its nuclear arsenal while probing US intentions and exploring survival strategies,” Son said. Indeed, Kim himself described “further expanding and strengthening the national nuclear force and fully exercising our status as a nuclear weapons state” as the “unwavering will” of the ruling party at last week’s congress. Iran had no bomb. That, to Pyongyang, explains everything.

In US strikes on Iran, North Korea sees nuclear vindication

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Iran’s nuclear programme was aspirational. North Korea’s is not. That distinction explains everything, analysts say

Iran’s nuclear programme was aspirational. North Korea’s is not. That distinction explains everything, analysts say