Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1205439043-scaled

Why Biden can't laugh off Kim Jong Un's provocations

When Washington seemed to wave away North Korea's weekend missile tests, Pyongyang predictably upped the ante.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

We can fill a book full of troubling adjectives to describe the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, better known as North Korea, and all of the times they have needless raised international tensions to the point that many analysts worried about the possible resumption of the Korean War — a conflict that almost certainly would go nuclear. 

Whatever the case, we rarely talk about the times when U.S. policy towards the DPRK adds unneeded kindling to an already smoldering situation, when policymakers in Washington and even our own chief executive make a rhetorical or tactical mistake that makes a bad situation on the Korean Peninsula even worse. 

So when President Joe Biden seemed to laugh off North Korea’s latest missile tests over the weekend, missing a chance at more needed diplomacy, the stage was set for what Pyongyang always seems to do best: match pressure or perceived loss of face by a show of strength, or its own style of maximum pressure. 

And this is just the beginning. We should expect more back and forth tension creating events coming from both sides in the months ahead. First up is the Biden administration’s North Korea policy review findings, which will set the direction for Korean Peninsula strategy for years to come. Having failed to learn from the Trump years that there is a possibility of talking with the Kim regime, Team Biden seems to have all but determined to apply more pressure and double down on sanctions that have so many holes in them one could drive a truck through them. Washington also seems set to want to try and make China somehow responsible for sanctions enforcement, and is already trying a shaming strategy to get them to punish Pyongyang for its nuclear and missile advances. Clearly this is something Beijing won’t do, as it will never allow North Korea to become destabilized in any way — and that is what it would take for the Kim family to come to the bargaining table on its knees. 

Sadly it seems we are set to replay what every administration has tried to do for nearly three decades now, apply some sort of new pressure strategy to get North Korea to give up the only weapon it has to fend off its greatest fear, a future U.S. military campaign that seeks to change the regime in Pyongyang. Considering the billions of dollars invested and likely hundreds of thousands of North Koreans that have died due to a lack of investment in the most basic of societal needs because of its nuclear quest, there is no magic formula to get them to denuclearize. And yet, we play what politicians here in Washington have determined is a necessary game of posturing, as if we have some way to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons or missiles, because no administration wants to take on what is perceived as the political fallout of such an admission that only arms control and threat mitigation are the only rational policies left. 

What does all of this mean? Well, most likely, North Korea will lash out when it knows for sure the squeeze from Washington is coming once again, and will show off a weapon system that can do real damage, like a new medium or intermediate missile platform that can range U.S. bases in the Pacific such as Guam. North Korea could also even show off in some way that its longer-range missiles can survive atmospheric reentry, settling the silly debate once and for all that, yes, even a third-world state like North Korea can develop missile technology from the 1950s to hit the U.S. with a nuclear missile. This could come in the form of a test that shows off an ICBM going deep into the Pacific Ocean and dropping a dummy warhead into the sea or something more static, but the point would be clear: U.S. cities could be turned into nuclear fireballs within thirty minutes. 

From here, what would the Biden team decide to do? Clearly with pressure off the table as a viable denuclearization strategy, the administration would find itself historically at the same crossroads as every other group of U.S. policymakers finds itself when it comes to Pyongyang. My hope is for as short of an escalatory period as possible followed by a push towards diplomacy coming from Washington with major prodding courtesy of the Moon government in Seoul. If the Biden Administration can learn from its likely mistakes fast enough and pivot towards an agreement that caps the size of the North Korean nuclear and missile arsenal for sanctions relief, the faster it can move to what it seems to be it's more important task, figuring out what it will do about China’s rise and moves to alter the status quo in Asia to its liking. The only question now is how many weeks or months we will waste on a pointless pressure campaign, and can we avoid an accidental escalation that could cost lives or spark a horrific war no one wants? 


Kim Jong Un visits Mangyongdae School, Pyongyang, North Korea, May 22, 2018. (Torsten Pursche/Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
New House, Senate attempts to preempt war with Venezuela
Top photo credit:
U.S. Navy Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley arrives for a classified briefing for leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. strikes against Venezuelan boats suspected of smuggling drugs, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., December 4, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New House, Senate attempts to preempt war with Venezuela

Washington Politics

New bipartisan war powers resolutions presented this week in both the House and Senate seek to put the brakes on potential military action against Venezuela after U.S. President Donald Trump said a land campaign in the country would begin “very soon."

On Tuesday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), and Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) introduced legislation that would “direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”

keep readingShow less
Africa construction development
Top photo credit: Construction site in Johannesburg, South Africa, 2024. (Shutterstock/ Wirestock Creators)

US capital investments for something other than beating China

Africa

Among the many elements of the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) currently being debated in Congress is an amendment that would reauthorize the Development Finance Corporation (DFC). What it might look like coming out of the Republican-dominated Congress should be of interest for anyone watching the current direction of foreign policy under the Trump Administration.

In contrast with America’s other major development agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which the administration has largely dismantled, President Donald Trump has expressed support for a reauthorized DFC but wants to broaden the agency’s mandate so that it focuses less on investing in traditional development projects and more on linking investment to national security priorities.

keep readingShow less
USS Lafayette (FFG 65) Constellation-class
Top image credit: Graphic rendering of the future USS Lafayette (FFG 65), the fourth of the new Constellation-class frigates, scheduled to commission in 2029. The Constellation-class guided-missile frigate represents the Navy’s next generation small surface combatant. VIA US NAVY

The US Navy just lit another $9 billion on fire

Military Industrial Complex

The United States Navy has a storied combat record at sea, but the service hasn’t had a successful shipbuilding program in decades. John Phelan, the secretary of the Navy, announced the latest shipbuilding failure by canceling the Constellation-class program on a November 25.

The Constellation program was supposed to produce 20 frigates to serve as small surface combatant ships to support the rest of the fleet and be able to conduct independent patrols. In an effort to reduce development risks and avoid fielding delays that often accompany entirely new designs, Navy officials decided to use an already proven parent design they could modify to meet the Navy’s needs. They selected the European multi-purpose frigate design employed by the French and Italian navies.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.