
Why Trump's strikes on Iran will leave North Korea more determined than ever to keep its nukes
As American B-2 bombers streaked over Iran, targeting facilities tied to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, policymakers and analysts in East Asia were already grappling with a critical question: What signal does this send to North Korea, a country whose nuclear arsenal is far more advanced than Iran's?
Experts warn Washington's military actions may harden Pyongyang's resolve to accelerate its weapons program and deepen cooperation with Russia, as well as reinforcing its leader Kim Jong Un's belief that nuclear arms are the ultimate deterrent against US-enforced regime change.
Despite yearslong efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program, the Kim regime is thought to possess multiple nuclear weapons, as well as missiles that can potentially reach the United States – meaning any potential military strike on the Korean Peninsula would carry vastly higher risks.
'President Trump's strike on Iran's nuclear facilities will undoubtedly further reinforce the legitimacy of North Korea's longstanding policy of regime survival and nuclear weapons development,' said Lim Eul-chul, a professor of North Korean studies at South Korea's Kyungnam University.
'North Korea perceives the recent US airstrike as a preemptive military threat and will likely accelerate efforts to enhance its own capability for preemptive nuclear missile attacks,' said Lim.
That acceleration, analysts caution, could come through Russian assistance, thanks to a blossoming military relationship the two neighbors have struck up in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.
Since its formal establishment in 2024, North Korea's strategic partnership with Russia has become a vital economic and military lifeline for Pyongyang amid ongoing Western sanctions.
'Based on the strategic alliance between North Korea and Russia, Pyongyang is likely to move toward joint weapons development, combined military exercises, technology transfers, and greater mutual dependence in both economic and military terms,' Lim said.
North Korea has sent more than 14,000 soldiers and millions of munitions, including missiles and rockets, to aid in Russia's invasion, according to a report by the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT), an initiative made up of 11 United Nations members.
In return, Russia has provided North Korea with various valuable pieces of weaponry and technology, including air defense equipment, anti-aircraft missiles, electronic warfare systems and refined oil.
These actions 'allow North Korea to fund its military programs and further develop its ballistic missiles programs, which are themselves prohibited under multiple (UN Security Council resolutions), and gain first-hand experience in modern warfare,' the report found.
In Kim's eyes, recent US military actions in Iran follow a troubling logic: countries without nuclear weapons, from Iraq and Libya to Iran, are vulnerable to US-led intervention, said Victor Cha, Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. North Korea, having already tested six nuclear devices and developed long-range missiles, sees its arsenal as non-negotiable.
According to Cha, Washington's airstrikes against Tehran's nuclear assets will likely leave a lasting impression on the Kim regime. 'The strikes on Iran will only reaffirm two things for North Korea, neither of which play well for US policy,' he said.
'One: the US does not have a use-of-force option for North Korea's nuclear program like they had in Israel for Iran. Two: the strike only reaffirms in Kim Jong Un's mind his conviction to pursue and maintain a nuclear arsenal.'
And the contrast between Iran and North Korea is stark, particularly in terms of nuclear capabilities.
'Pyongyang's nuclear program is much more advanced, with weapons possibly ready to launch on multiple delivery systems, including ICBMs,' said Leif-Eric Easley, an international security professor at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, referencing intercontinental ballistic missiles which can travel around the globe, far further than any missiles Iran possesses.
'The Kim regime can threaten the US homeland, and Seoul is within range of many North Korean weapons of various types,' he added.
Iran, by contrast, has not yet developed a deliverable nuclear weapon and its uranium enrichment had remained short of the threshold for weaponization, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest assessment.
It had also pursued years of diplomacy with the US and Western powers over its nuclear program, diplomacy that was supposedly still in play when Trump ordered B-2 stealth aircraft to drop 'bunker busting' bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities.
North Korea is believed to possess between 40 and 50 warheads, along with the means to deliver them across the region and potentially to the US mainland.
'An attack on North Korea could provoke the risk of full-scale nuclear war,' Lim of Kyungnam University warned.
He added that under the US-South Korea alliance treaty, US military action against North Korea would also require prior consultation with the South Korean government, a step that carries political and legal implications.
There are also external powers to consider. Unlike Iran, North Korea has a formal mutual defense treaty with Russia, 'which allows Russia to automatically intervene in the event of an attack,' Lim underscored.
This matrix of deterrents – nuclear capability, US regional alliances, and Russian backing – likely insulates Pyongyang from the kind of unilateral military action Washington exercised in Iran.
In the end, said Lim, the strike on Iran might not serve as a deterrent to proliferation but as a justification.
'This attack will deepen North Korea's distrust of the US,' he said, 'and is expected to act as a catalyst for a shift in North Korea's foreign policy, particularly by strengthening and deepening military cooperation with Russia.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alejandro Barrientos, business executive and independent Democrat, running for Spokane City Council
Jun. 25—Alejandro Barrientos, chief operations officer for the SCAFCO Steel Stud Company, is making a bid for the Spokane City Council. Barrientos is running for a seat occupied by Councilwoman Lili Navarrete, who recently announced she is not running for a new term. If elected, he would be one of two council members representing District 2, which includes most of the city south of the Spokane River. Councilman Paul Dillon is the district's other representative and is serving a term through 2027. He is running in the Nov. 4 election against Kate Telis, a former prosecutor who has more recently worked on the campaigns of several Spokane-area candidates, including Dillon's. Barrientos is a self-described Democrat, but likely one of the defining pitches of his campaign will be his independence from the progressive cohort that has taken a supermajority on the Spokane City Council and works closely with Mayor Lisa Brown. He opposed most of the recent package of homelessness laws Brown proposed , which were meant in large part to replace the 2023 voter-approved anti-camping law struck down earlier this year by the state Supreme Court. He argues that they failed to deliver the immediate response voters had asked for and would have left people on the streets to die. While city council positions are ostensibly nonpartisan, party politics still animate the positions, and the South Hill is one of the city's most reliably Democratic voting blocs. This may explain why it has been years since a self-described Republican has made a serious run for one of District 2's seats; Dillon's opponent in 2023 was Katey Treloar, who ran as a self-described moderate unaffiliated with any party and tried, not always successfully, to avoid being associated with more right-leaning candidates and politicians. Whether Barrientos' explicit alignment with the Democratic Party will spare him the same characterization remains to be seen, including whether he can manage to secure a county Democratic Party's endorsement, which eluded Treloar. Many of his donors are reminiscent of Republican-affiliated candidates of years past: RenCorp Realty owner Chris Batten, Alvin and Jeanie Wolff of the Wolff real estate empire, and unsuccessful county commission and city council president candidate Kim Plese. Treloar has donated $100. Barrientos acknowledges that some have pointed to his employer, developer and SCAFCO owner Larry Stone, a well-funded opponent of Spokane progressives for years, to question his Democratic bona fides. But he believes that when voters meet him, they will know that he is a sincere believer in Democratic values. For instance, with family ties to Colombia, he says supporting immigrants amid the current campaign of mass deportation is important to him . He attended the June 12 protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detainment of 21-year-old Cesar Alexander Alvarez Perez, who is seeking asylum from Venezuela, and Joswar Slater Rodriguez Torres, a Colombian national also in his 20s. "I am a Democrat because those are the values that align more with who I am and how I grew up," he said in an interview. "I had a conversation with (former Democratic Senate Majority Leader) Andy Billig about that specifically, because he's somebody that works for (Spokane Indians and Spokane Chiefs teams owner) Bobby Brett." "He said, 'You know what? Sometimes you just have to prove it over time.' And so I just need to build that trust with people." Barrientos has lived in Spokane off and on for the past 17 years, and with his two children, the oldest of whom is 8, he said he has planted roots here for the long haul, prompting him to consider getting politically involved. It was on the Big Red Wagon last year, after his young daughter grabbed a piece of foil and Barrientos was gripped by fear that she may have come into contact with fentanyl, that he decided to run for Spokane City Council. He was born in Miami, where his grandfather and parents moved when his grandfather, a prominent attorney in Colombia, fled from a cartel he had been prosecuting. He moved to Medellín, Colombia — the country's second-largest city — at a young age. He attended Gonzaga University, drawn by a smaller university with a Jesuit tradition familiar from growing up in Colombia. He studied abroad in Italy for a stint, then moved to Mexico City to work in an international relations liaison position with Rocky Mountain Construction, a roller coaster designer and manufacturer, where he was promoted into various executive roles. Through that job, he had also lived in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, each for short periods. Throughout this jetsetting career, Barrientos said he regularly returned to Spokane, but returned for good after being offered a job by CWallA, another business in Stone's Stone Group of Companies. "I've lived in a lot of places, and a lot of big cities as well," Barrientos said. "And big cities, you know, at a young age, really attracted me for the different pace of doing things, but when you're raising kids and having a family, for me, there was no better place than Spokane." But Barrientos also believes that things have changed in the city in the past 17 years, some positives, but also some challenges that he has "seen and witnessed here in Spokane that I never saw growing up in Medellín." He believes that current leadership has struggled, or failed to try, to collaborate successfully with right-leaning governments in the county and surrounding jurisdictions. "We know that our county commissioners hold most of the mental health resources, and our city holds the housing resources, and I think it's crucial that we get our city and county working together," he said. "And sometimes party and politics gets in the way of that. "I can be that bridge to come to the table and connect people and work together."
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican who blamed the political left for her near-fatal ectopic pregnancy now says she's facing death threats
Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack has revealed that her offices had to be evacuated on Wednesday after she received 'imminent death threats' in response to comments she made last week about the treatment of her ectopic pregnancy in 2024. Cammack, 37, told The Wall Street Journal about her ordeal in a Florida emergency room after it was discovered that her baby's embryo was implanted where the fallopian tube meets the uterus, meaning it could not survive and that her own life was in danger without action. Writing on X on Wednesday evening, Cammack, who is pregnant again and due in August, recounted the disturbing backlash she had received in response to the article, posting screenshots of abusive messages she had been sent. 'Today, we had to evacuate our offices due to imminent death threats against me, my unborn child, my family, and my staff. These threats erupted after the Wall Street Journal reported on my life-threatening ectopic pregnancy – a nonviable pregnancy with no heartbeat,' she explained. 'Since then, we've received thousands of hate-filled messages and dozens of credible threats from pro-abortion activists, which law enforcement is actively investigating. In light of recent violence against elected officials, these threats are taken very seriously. 'To those spreading misinformation: I did not vote for Florida's heartbeat law; I serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, not the Florida Legislature. 'Let me be clear: I will not be intimidated. I won't back down in the fight for women and families. Ensuring women have the resources and care they deserve is critical. We need real conversations about maternal healthcare in America – conversations based on truth, not fear.' ABC News's Florida affiliate has reported that it was Cammack's Washington, D.C., offices that were evacuated in response to the threats, rather than her Sunshine State premises, and that the U.S. Capitol Police are investigating. A follow-up statement from her office declared: 'Congresswoman Cammack highlighted the critical women's health crisis in America, particularly the shortage of maternal health resources and the risks of politicizing healthcare. 'Her personal story illustrates how treating women's health as a political issue endangers lives. Misinformation campaigns, funded by pro-abortion groups, have intentionally confused healthcare providers despite the law being clear on exceptions; rape, incest, victims of trafficking and life of the mother. These dangerous pro-abortion ads contributed to delays that endangered her life. 'Since the Wall Street Journal article, she has received dozens of credible death threats against herself, her unborn child, and her family, which are being investigated by U.S. Capitol Police. 'Cammack's experience underscores the unacceptable reality that sharing a personal health story in an effort to improve women's healthcare can lead to violence and intimidation. Women deserve better, as does the national healthcare dialogue.' After deciding against surgery last year during her pregnancy, the hospital's doctors and nurses had to be persuaded to give her the shot of methotrexate she required to expel the pregnancy because, she said, they feared criminal prosecution under the state's six-week abortion ban, even though she was only five weeks pregnant at the time. The procedure in question was not an abortion. Surprisingly, the congresswoman did not take issue with the ban but instead blamed the medics' hesitance on scaremongering by Democrats.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Much Will the Supreme Court Let Trump Get Away With? We Got an Ominous Sign This Week.
Donald Trump won the presidency in part on promises to deport immigrants who have criminal records and lack permanent legal status. But his earliest executive orders—trying to undo birthright citizenship, suspending critical refugee programs—made clear he wants to attack immigrants with permanent legal status too. In our series Who Gets to Be American This Week?, we'll track the Trump administration's attempts to exclude an ever-growing number of people from the American experiment. For the past six months, President Donald Trump and his administration have contorted, stress-tested, and outright violated law to achieve his delusional 1 million deportations goal. The judicial system has been a critical check, forcing the federal government to follow the law—and at times it has worked as intended. But the Supreme Court has been throwing wrenches in our legal machinery that often seem to defy logic. In an order released this week, the court's conservative justices signaled they are unwilling to stand up to the Trump administration and would rather allow the White House to simply defy our justice system as it pleases. Meanwhile, one victim of the Trump administration's lawlessness, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was finally brought back to the U.S. after being mistakenly deported four months ago. But thanks to a newly unveiled criminal indictment and a pending immigration detainer, it's highly unlikely that he will be returning home to his wife and children anytime soon. Here's the immigration news we're keeping an eye on this week: Less than three months after the Supreme Court shot down an injunction preventing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, it released another historic shadow docket decision. The majority of the justices chose to lift a lower court judge's injunction that had, up until Monday, prevented the federal government from removing immigrants from the U.S. to third countries, instead of their home country of origin, without at least giving them advance notice and allowing them to object on the grounds that they face torture there. 'The court's order is certainly apt to have immediate and devastating consequences for all those in the crosshairs of the administration's chaotic and increasingly random deportation campaign,' Deborah Pearlstein, director of Princeton University's Program in Law and Public Policy and a professor of law and public affairs, told me. 'Moreover, it sends a really frightening signal about whether the court is going to stand up to what are increasingly blatant instances of administration defiance of court orders.' The Supreme Court's intervention comes after the Trump administration repeatedly violated U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's orders by attempting to send migrants to South Sudan, Libya, and El Salvador. The targets of this scheme argue that they will be tortured and killed if removed to these countries, making their expulsions unlawful under the Convention Against Torture and various federal laws. Murphy ruled that, at a minimum, the government must tell migrants where they are being sent, and give them an opportunity to object, with the assistance of counsel, on the grounds that they'll be tortured there. Roughly two weeks after Murphy issued his injunction mandating this due process, the Trump administration defied it. And yet, on Monday, SCOTUS rewarded the government by sweeping away the injunction and allowing these potentially lethal removals to resume. The high court's decision shocks the conscience, as it effectively allows the federal government to get away scot-free with defying a lower court judge's order, establishing an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. It also subjects thousands of migrants to potential torture and death overseas in clear violation of federal law. And the justices offered zero explanation, since they issued their order on the shadow docket. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a scathing dissent. 'Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable,' Sotomayor wrote, 'than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled.' The Supreme Court's decision is especially alarming in light of a new whistleblower complaint, Pearlstein noted. In the complaint, a Justice Department lawyer accused Emil Bove III, Trump's former personal attorney who has been named principal associate deputy attorney general, of telling subordinates he was willing to ignore court orders to fulfill Trump's mass deportation agenda. (Trump has nominated Bove to a federal appeals court; at his Senate hearing on Thursday, Republicans dismissed the complaint as partisan retribution.) 'I feel less confident in the court's willingness to stand up for an independent judiciary than at any point since Trump's inauguration,' Pearlstein said. After being mistakenly deported to El Salvador, denied due process, and placed in the country's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center for roughly three months, 29-year-old Kilmar Abrego Garcia was finally brought back to the U.S. this month. Now he faces a dubious federal indictment and is in federal custody. And despite U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes declaring he's eligible for pretrial release, it's unlikely he'll be going back to his family in Maryland anytime soon. On June 13, Abrego Garcia saw his wife and mother for the first time since before his March deportation, in a Tennessee courtroom where his lawyers argued against the Department of Justice's allegations that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang and smuggled migrants across the country. During a hearing over whether he should be held in pretrial detention, Abrego Garcia's defense attorney insisted he doesn't pose a serious flight risk, arguing that the government provided 'zero' facts to prove that his client has a history of evading arrest or engaging in willful international travel recently, or has strong relations in countries that cause him to seek refuge there or any prior felony convictions. Over the weekend, Judge Holmes ultimately agreed. She noted that the government's evidence that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 'consists of general statements, all double hearsay, from two cooperating witnesses,' both of whom have serious criminal histories and hope to avoid deportation or prison time if they cooperate with prosecutors. The very same day that Holmes ordered Abrego Garcia's release, government lawyers filed a motion to stay her decision. Homeland Security has an active immigration detainer against Abrego Garcia, which the Department of Justice says means 'he will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes' release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance.' Abrego Garcia says he was fleeing death threats and extortion by a local gang when he first entered the U.S. in 2012 at 16 years old. In 2019, he was arrested for loitering but had no previous criminal record, and a judge granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he allegedly faced persecution. Despite that, the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia in March—a move that officials admitted was an error—on flights that took off in defiance of a judge's restraining order. And despite the Supreme Court ruling in April that the government must 'facilitate' the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S. so he could receive due process, he was not flown back until June. In recent weeks, masked federal agents have raided car washes and other businesses in Southern California, even stationing themselves outside Dodger Stadium. (The team denied Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entry to the stadium itself.) In one incident, according to the Los Angeles Times, a man stopped his unmarked car in the middle of an intersection, took out his pistol, and aimed it at a group of pedestrians. He did not hurt anyone, eventually getting back into the car and driving off with red and blue emergency lights flashing. After reviewing surveillance footage, Pasadena police Chief Gene Harris told the newspaper his department concluded the man was in fact an ICE agent. 'They show up without uniforms. They show up completely masked. They refuse to give ID,' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said during a press conference. 'Who are these people? And frankly, the vests that they have on look like they ordered them from Amazon. Are they bounty hunters? Are they vigilantes? If they're federal officials, why is it that they do not identify themselves?' Similar scenes have been playing out in other parts of the country in recent months. Back in March, Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk was arrested by federal agents dressed in plainclothes and face masks and forced into an unmarked van. In Chicago earlier this month, masked ICE agents raided a building where an immigrant supervision program operates. At least 10 people were taken away in vans, with no clear understanding of why they were detained. 'We don't know who is arresting our brothers and sisters, because they are hiding behind masks,' Michael Rodriguez, a city alderman, told CBS News. New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who himself was arrested last week, witnessed immigrants getting arrested at a Manhattan immigration court 'by the same non-uniformed, masked ICE agents who gave no reason for their removal, ripped them out of the arms of escorts in a proceeding that bears no resemblance to justice,' he told CBS News. California state Sen. Scott Wiener compared federal agents' tactics to 'Nazi-level thuggery,' and has introduced legislation that would ban local, state, and federal law enforcement from covering their faces when interacting with the public—with some exceptions. Violations would amount to a misdemeanor charge. ICE acting director Todd Lyons defended the agency's use of masks, arguing it protects agents from people who 'don't like what immigration enforcement is.' He also blamed sanctuary jurisdictions, where local authorities do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, suggesting masks would not be necessary if they 'would change their policy.'