Trump Explains Why He's Okay With North Korea Having Nukes, But Not Iran

Here's what White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said a mere week ago on the rationale for the US attacking Iran: "The President is courageously ensuring that such an evil country never possesses a nuclear weapon, which will make the entire world safer and more stable," she said.This week President Trump was asked why he seems OK with a deeply totalitarian state like North Korea and its dictator Kim Jong Un having nuclear weapons, and not Iran.Trump's blunt response really deflates the sham talking points of the war's cheerleaders among Conservatism Inc, the FoxCon crowd, and NeoCon pundits and "intellectuals". So much for the whole defeat the "mullahs because they're evil!" fake morality tale...Q: You said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Why not? North Korea can have nuclear weapons. Trump: Ahh because you had a different president. Kim Jong un. He's a friend of mine. He likes Trump. I like him. As long as I’m around, he’s going to be fine. You know why? He… pic.twitter.com/TnnNJ5cMmJ — Acyn (@Acyn) September 29, 2026"Ahh, because you had a different president. Kim Jong Un. He’s a friend of mine. He likes Trump. I like him," Trump said when a reporter pressed him."As long as I’m around, he’s going to be fine," Trump continued. "You know why? He respects me."By this strange logic, Pyongyang - which has on many more occasions (than Iran) directly threatened the United States going back literally decades - possessing nukes is just fine. Or in other words Kim="friend"/Good, Ayatollah= Rogue Bad Guy, according to the simplistic equation. The inconsistency of the obviously self-defeating 'moral high ground' narrative advanced by the administration is baffling.On a more serious note, the above exchange highlights something deeper: nation-states most often seek nukes precisely in order to get respect especially when facing destruction at the hands of a more powerful enemy.The US and Israel have long claimed that Tehran is bent on annihilating Israel, and that its leaders will pull the trigger the moment they develop an atomic weapon (a pursuit the Iranians have over many years denied). Essentially, this is the mad mullahs myth, based on the NeoCon axiom that every Iranian leader is an irrational actor fundamentally bent on ushering in nuclear apocalypse against the Jews, self preservation or any other domestic consideration be damned.When Trump said of Kim, "he respects me" - the irony here is in reality it is Washington that's forced to 'respect' North Korea because it possesses dozens of nukes and has the military tech to deliver them. Countries like Iran want this 'respect' too.On the level of strategic realism, it's just the way the world works (ask Gaddafi)-->From the perspective of its beleaguered leaders who've been under US bombs and blockade for seven months, Iran has two choices. It must choose one:1. Become Libya2. Become North Korea"We Came, We Saw, He Died." — Hillary Clinton"We Came, We Saw, He Died." — Hillary Clinton pic.twitter.com/PeVRk2peiA — WarNuse (@WarNuse) June 27, 2025Below: On the 'moral mythmaking' of Neocons & Liberal Interventionists VS. strategic realism in international relations, an important conclusion:"These leaders need to be treated as rational actors that, in turn with other members of their government, act based on strategy."Rajan Menon, professor emeritus of international relations at the City College of New York, told Newsweek: "If you stand for nonproliferation, you can't say it's OK because they already have them." And the reality is, Menon continued, "there’s no reasonable way to undo the fact that North Korea is a nuclear-armed state."* * *An archived interview where retired diplomat Jim Jatras talks nukes and 'rogue' actors getting 'respect'...'Possibility' Iranians will now rather 'be North Korea' than become another Libya — former US diplomat Jim Jatras on repercussions of Trump's attack on Iran 'Kim Jong Un gets respect because he does have nukes' pic.twitter.com/YoS7dFaAFp — RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2025