Follow us on social

51146039085_8d052817c9_o

Biden's new North Korea strategy is promising, but questions remain

For the administration's strategy to work, they will need bold moves to get North Korea back to the negotiating table.

Asia-Pacific

The news that the Biden administration will pursue a “calibrated, practical approach to diplomacy with the North with the goal of eliminating the threat to the United States” is welcome. The question is how much risk the White House and Congress are willing to take in order to break the deadlock and bring North Korea back to the negotiating table. 

President Donald Trump, to his credit, opened the possibility for a new kind of bilateral relationship with North Korea by engaging in direct talks with Kim Jong Un. The Biden administration should take full advantage of this opening by taking another unprecedented step in declaring the 70-year Korean War over and calling for a formal peace treaty. Such bold preemptive moves are urgently needed to end the original “forever war” and build trust between both countries.

Another open question is how the Biden administration will work with Congress on the North Korea issue. It is possible — even likely — that hawks in Congress will place unrealistic demands or create barriers to poison the atmosphere for negotiations. For example, some members of Congress may demand that the Biden administration appoint a hardliner for the role of Special Envoy for North Korea Human Rights, rather than someone who will pursue a more holistic approach for tackling both human rights and humanitarian issues facing North Koreans. 

Ultimately, any U.S. policy toward North Korea should advance American interests, even if that involves taking a certain amount of risk.


President Joe Biden salutes as he walks along the Colonnade of the White House on Friday, March 12, 2021, en route to the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

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.