[Zirro]

"...imposing further sanctions on North Korea, which he said was “not even close” to taking steps to end its nuclear programme."

North Korea - under the current leadership - will never end its nuclear programme. It is their most important leverage in discussions with other nations, and the main reason they get much more international attention and aid than other equally poor countries.

They may slow down development for a while, or claim to cease development at some point in return for aid, but a few years later it will return stronger than before. We've already seen this happen once.

Efforts to end the North Korean nuclear programme without significant changes to their situation are futile. The US should know this by now.

[smcl]

"Efforts to end the North Korean nuclear programme without significant changes to their situation are futile. The US should know this by now."

I don't think the US government are so naive as to not know this by now. I think both US\NK have accepted that it's a situation that cannot be easily considered "resolved" so instead each side heats\thaws relations as appropriate to suit their own particular needs at any given time.

[baseballmerpeak]

Exactly, it's just another card in the deck to play as needed.

[trhway]

>North Korea - under the current leadership - will never end its nuclear programme.

well, Iran wasn't going to too (and add to that that there was Israel against the deal). I wonder what are the chances that in the time left Obama would do NK too, after Iran and Cuba (each will prove to be at least a regional history changing events).

Obama seems to be dropping the blind following of the ancient dust covered principles which were inherited from different epoch and acts pragmatically with open mind, and this is exactly what NK situation needs to. NK is already a nuke nation and they obviously wouldn't give it up (giving the history of their region, and the current regional situation..., and among other they obviously aware about the fate of Iraq who failed to develop their own and Ukraine who gave theirs up voluntarily 20+ years ago - the world is a tough place). Bringing them back into civilization though would let them to enjoy its fruit and thus would increase their perceived cost of using nukes, it would make them into situation where they would have a lot to lose while less reasons to use, thus decreasing the probability and interest in using the nukes.

[ikeboy]

Iran still hasn't agreed to halt its nuclear program.

[drzaiusapelord]

>well, Iran wasn't going to too

The proposal by the Obama administration does not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. From a very, very optimistic perspective it may delay that by a few years. Iran will have nukes pointed at Tel Aviv sooner than later. Of course Israel is upset at the deal. Iran screams about starting a new Jewish Genocide daily. Israel has the moral right to defend itself and the Obama administration has throw it under the bus.

Diplomacy didn't stop Syria's nuclear program either. Israeli jet fighters did (Operation Orchard). When a nation has decided to get nuclear arms, only violence stops them.

Oh well, here come the downvotes from the anti-Israeli types.

[vezzy-fnord]

Iran screams about starting a new Jewish Genocide daily.

the Obama administration has throw [sic] it under the bus

Probably these two statements that would elicit allegedly anti-Israeli downvotes. Mostly I do not understand how a preliminary measure is throwing Israel's "moral right to defend itself" under the bus.

[EliRivers]

Israel has the moral right to defend itself

Do other countries not have that right as well?