Disarming Iran and North Korea
Christian Whiton is alarmed at President Obama's "profound weakness" with respect to the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. He then advises:
'We need a defense posture based on strategic deterrence, conventional military counterforce, economic pressure, information warfare and political subversion. This should include fielding a countervailing nuclear force adjacent to Iran and North Korea, reversing Mr. Obamaâ??s cuts to missile defense, running intelligence operations that are not paralyzed by risk-aversion, and realizing we will need ample conventional forces based in East Asia and the Middle East indefinitely.'
I'm not sure how stationing nuclear weapons adjacent North Korea and Iran is going to constitute a disincentive for them to abandon their own deterrent. If anything, it will reinforce the rationale for acquiring one. (Although to be fair, they're going ahead whether we put nuclear weapons on their doorstep or not.) Nor is it all clear that the current administration has abandoned deterrence with respect to either country. As for "political subversion," that's a non-starter in North Korea as it would require both the cooperation of South Korea and China, and obviously unnecessary in Iran (as they're subverting themselves just fine).
But the last bit of advice is the most troubling. Is it really wise to station military forces in the Middle East indefinitely?