North Korea’s response to the US-Israeli strikes on Iran draws attention for two notable reasons. In a statement released through the Korean Central News Agency on March 1, a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson strongly condemned Washington and Tel Aviv’s “shameless rogue act” of launching a “war of aggression,” but stopped short of mentioning reports about Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or directly criticizing US President Donald Trump.
These omissions reveal Pyongyang’s stance on two critical issues. First, the violent removal — or even the perceived vulnerability — of a supreme leader by a foreign adversary is not a narrative the North would want to circulate domestically. Such a precedent could suggest that even the most powerful figure in a tightly controlled state can be tracked and targeted. North Korean state media has shown similar restraint in other cases, omitting sensitive developments while still condemning foreign intervention. For example, it denounced the US special forces’ predawn raid in Caracas, Venezuela, in January, but without mentioning the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Second, Pyongyang appears to be leaving open the possibility of Kim Jong-un reengaging in personal diplomacy with Trump. It is widely speculated that military action against Iran, a long-time partner of North Korea in military cooperation, could reinforce Kim’s determination to retain and expand his nuclear arsenal. From Pyongyang’s perspective, Iran’s vulnerability may be interpreted as a consequence of not possessing nuclear deterrence. At the same time, Kim is likely aware that he himself could become a future target.
Kim and his national security officials are likely scrutinizing every aspect of US military operations, assessing how quickly Washington can shift from negotiation to force. Just days before the reported strike on Iran, Kim addressed a ruling party congress, reiterating his intention to expand the country’s nuclear arsenal while leaving room for dialogue, depending on Washington’s approach.
Kim’s heightened threat perception could push him back toward negotiations — but only on the condition that “the United States withdraws its policy of confrontation by respecting our country’s current status (as an irreversible nuclear-armed state).” Given Trump’s long-standing interest in summit diplomacy with Kim, another meeting remains possible, particularly when Trump travels to Asia for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping. A planned Beijing summit, reportedly delayed by several weeks due to developments in the Middle East, could provide such an opportunity.
A fourth Trump-Kim summit might serve as a catalyst for reviving stalled inter-Korean relations. Yet it also raises concerns that negotiations could unfold largely on North Korea’s terms. Kim may seek to manage Trump’s unpredictability in pursuit of regime security, while Trump could prioritize the optics of striking a deal with another authoritarian leader. In such a scenario, denuclearization and lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula may remain elusive.
Trump is already entangled in a complex conflict in the Middle East with no clear resolution. Before engaging again with his “friend” in Pyongyang, he must recognize that North Korea presents a fundamentally different challenge. Unlike Iran, North Korea is widely believed to possess dozens of nuclear warheads, along with sufficient fissile material to produce more, and delivery means to reach anywhere across the mainland United States. However, they have not been fully tested, and the North's nuclear facilities are dispersed and deeply concealed across the isolated country, making rapid denuclearization unrealistic.
A phased approach to denuclearization — long advocated by North Korea and more recently supported by the Lee Jae Myung administration seeking improved inter-Korean relations — may be the only viable path forward. However, leaders involved in such negotiations must not lose sight of a more urgent issue: the humanitarian plight of the North Korean people.
Under a hereditary dictatorship that prioritizes weapons development over civilian welfare, much of the population continues to endure severe hardship. Chronic food insecurity, widespread malnutrition, systemic forced labor and pervasive state surveillance define daily life for many. Recent reports by Daily NK say that soaring grain prices are driving a sharp increase in food shortages, particularly in rural areas. As of early February, rice prices were already high, and subsequent increases have placed basic food even further out of reach for ordinary citizens — especially given estimates that average incomes remain far below the global extreme poverty threshold of $2.15 per day.
Corn prices, a critical staple for lower-income households, have also surged, reportedly reaching record highs since the 2009 currency reform. Such price spikes are especially alarming for vulnerable populations. A major contributing factor appears to be the steep depreciation of the North Korean won, with market exchange rates reaching unprecedented levels.
It is time for Kim Jong-un to seriously reassess the trajectory of his governance. He would do well to reflect on the costly decisions of his predecessors — particularly his grandfather Kim Il-sung’s initiation of the Korean War and the regime’s long-term pursuit of nuclear armament, coupled with deepening isolation after the Cold War. These choices have shaped the enduring crisis North Korea faces today.
Lee Kyong-hee
Lee Kyong-hee is a former editor-in-chief of The Korea Herald. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
