Not that there is anything more than the JCPOA that could be done. Bombing DPRK would have led to Seoul being leveled with artillery while trying to attack Iran? Well, the US should first try to actually succeed in Afghanistan before trying to attack a much larger country which is a lot more prepared and has a terrain that gives nightmares to every military planner ever. We're coming close to twenty years of continual NATO failure in Afghanistan now, just like the Soviets and the Brits before, so I don't see why anyone would think Iran would go better, particularly considering that their nuclear program is homegrown, therefore cannot be destroyed for good without either genocide or half a century of occupation - and I hope you are not suggesting genocide is a correct option.
So, yeah, diplomacy was actually working decently with Iran until someone decided they wanted to threw the agreement to the garbage bin for childish reasons.
As for DPRK or Iran having nukes? Frankly, I'm not that much bothered considering who else has them - the UNSC P5 being made of the world's foremost coup enablers, terro... sorry, freedom fighters' supporters and outright invasion planners, for example. If they do? Congrats, the rules of the game are simple, and they're called MAD. We don't attack them, they don't attack us, and I can live very well with this ruleset. If anything, nukes make countries more polite to one another, which is something direly needed.
I long for the good old times of Westphalian diplomacy, when the concept of national sovereignty still had meaning rather than 'let's sent little green men to set up a civil war and annex part of the territory' or 'let's coup a democratically elected government because they wanted to nationalize our pals' oil company'.
Hell, if we're pissed that DPRK gets nukes, then let us allow SK to get their own nukes as a reminder that invasion is not an option.
|