In 1961, the Soviet Union and North Korea signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. In 1963, the Soviets provided North Korea with a research reactor at the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center and significant missile technology assistance - and the promise of a light-water reactor - until the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991. North Korea’s alliance with the Soviet Union emboldened North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, resulting in myriad terrorist acts. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, North Korea lost a key ally and supporter. It was forced to rely solely on China, with whom it had a 1961 Mutual Aid, Cooperation and Friendship Treaty, committing China to provide military assistance if North Korea were attacked. This treaty is renewed every 20 years - 1981, 2001 and 2021. But it was China that normalized relations with South Korea in 1992 and focused on economic development and stability in the region. Leaders such as Deng Xiaoping no doubt made it clear to North Korea that its past reckless behavior was not in China’s interest. Indeed, in 1992, North Korea and South Korea signed a denuclearization agreement, committing both nations to refrain from testing, manufacturing, producing, receiving, possessing, storing, deploying or using nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy would be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. North Korea in the 1990s and 2000s sought a good, normal relationship primarily with the U.S. but also with South Korea and Japan. With the death of Kim Il Sung, his son Kim Jong Il took over and moved forward with the Agreed Framework with the U.S. and the Six-Party Talks hosted by China. Both agreements committed North Korea to complete and verifiable denuclearization in return for economic development assistance and a path to normal relations with the U.S.

In the early Soviet period, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians were forcibly sent to remote parts of Russia. In their place, Russian peasants were brought to Ukraine to dilute the Ukrainian population and to provide the labor needs created when Holodomor, Stalin’s famine of 1932-33, resulted in the deaths of at least 4 million Ukrainians. Senior Russian officials have repeatedly made territorial claims against the seven countries that, as a percentage of their gross domestic product, provide the most aid to Ukraine. Five of them (Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) joined NATO more than two decades ago as the only practical way of dealing with Moscow’s imperialistic ambitions. Two others, Finland and Sweden, joined only after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine made it impossible to see Moscow’s threat to their sovereignty as anything but existential. They are not the only ones. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other European countries have also come to believe that Russia’s imperial aims will not stop with Ukraine. There is a growing consensus among European leaders that should Russia prevail in Ukraine, it would become necessary to deploy a large number of troops to NATO’s eastern borders. That conviction drives their ongoing support of Ukraine as well as their own internal efforts to increase their respective defense budgets and industrial capabilities. Absent an adequate U.S. supply of arms, Russia will likely continue to chip away at Ukrainian territory. Given that reality, providing Ukraine with the weapons is the surest way to hasten the day that Russia offers Ukraine a peace.

China continues to encircle and threaten Taiwan and claim sovereignty over the South China Sea despite a 2016 U.N. Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling in favor of the Philippines that said China’s actions were unlawful. China continues to ignore the ruling. This is also the China that continues to provide support to Russia for its war in Ukraine. North Korea has about 50 nuclear weapons and enough fissile material to produce seven nuclear weapons per year. It also has a chemical and biological program, and in 2002, it was the only country that withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since the failure of the February 2019 Hanoi Summit, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has been in a race to build more nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to launch them as far as the U.S. Recently Mr. Kim threatened to use nuclear weapons and destroy South Korea if provoked. Mr. Kim made it clear: North Korea would use without hesitation all offensive forces, including nuclear weapons, if South Korea encroaches on its sovereignty. North Korea is aligned with Russia, and they have pledged to defend each other if attacked. Indeed, North Korea is providing Russia with artillery shells and ballistic missiles for its war in Ukraine. Iran enriches uranium to 60%, enabling it to produce weapons-grade uranium in a few weeks. The International Atomic Energy Agency monitors Iran’s nuclear-related activities and has expressed concern about not getting the access its monitors require to certify that Iran is in compliance with IAEA safeguards. Moreover, Iran’s ballistic missile program is impressive. It is only a matter of time before Iran has ICBMs capable of targeting Europe and the U.S.

The axis of authoritarian states (Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) is determined to change the world order. Russia has been on a roll: the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine surprised an overconfident Vladimir Putin, yet the war continues, with Russian casualties exceeding 500,000. From the time Russia invaded Ukraine, Mr. Putin has threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons. He recently announced a new nuclear doctrine: Aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear one, should be considered a joint attack. Moreover, he said Russia would be prepared to use nuclear weapons “upon receipt of reliable information of a massive launch of air and space attack weapons and their crossing of the state border.” Russia has about 5,580 nuclear weapons, with 1,710 deployed; the U.S. has about 5,044 nuclear weapons, with about 1,770 deployed. Russia and the U.S. adhere to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which limits the number of deployed nuclear weapons. Last year, Mr. Putin announced that Russia was suspending its participation with the U.S. in the New START treaty, the only treaty that limited both countries’ nuclear weapons. China is focusing on an ambitious nuclear expansion program. It has about 500 nuclear weapons and is expected to have about 1,000 nuclear weapons by 2030 and 1,500 by 2035. China’s Rocket Force, established by President Xi Jinping, receives significant resources for the nuclear modernization program. China is not a member of New START and continues to refuse to discuss its nuclear program with the U.S.

Thus, smartphones are making us all a bit dumber, particularly our children. How can we reverse the damage? First of all, as parents, we need to stop looking at smartphones as a digital babysitter that will entertain our children while we do other things. Children crave relationship and interaction, especially with their mother, father and siblings. Without it, they struggle to grow beyond their finite world. Without it, they are like a plant kept in a dark room. They slowly wither away and never reach the potential of the plant that is exposed to light. Thus, by not allowing them into our world, we are denying them the ability to flourish and thrive in the greater world. We also need to read to our children so they can grasp language and expand their imagination. One study cited by Mr. Coulson found that parents who read one picture book with their children every day provide their children with exposure to an estimated 78,000 words each a year. These children enter school well ahead of their peers who have not had this experience. And it means we need to quit burying our heads in our screens while ignoring the cognitive and relational needs of our children. This requires sacrifice which is critical to our well-being of all of us. By pursuing the gratification of the moment offered on our digital screens, we are neglecting the long-term investments that we, as parents, need to make in our children for them to be successful in life. Perhaps it is time for people of all ages to put down their smartphones - except for essential purposes - and start interacting with one another again - and articularly with our young children.

In 2007, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs announced the launch of the first iPhone (smartphone), a hand-held device that would radically change the way we think as well as interact with one another. Within a few years, with smartphones operating on the Android system also entering the market, the digital revolution was in full bloom. Today it is nearly impossible to do anything without owning a smartphone. While there are many advantages to smartphones, there are a lot of disadvantages ? mainly the toll they have taken on our mental and emotional health. This is particularly true when it comes to children, as Justin Coulson points out in a recent article for the Institute for Family Studies. Citing a recent Australian study that tracked screen time and how affected children between 12 months and 36 months old ? the very early part of a child’s development ? he reports that for every minute a toddler spends watching a screen, there is a significant decline in their language development as they have less exposure to meaningful human interaction. A Japanese study showed that toddlers who spend significant time on smartphones also have lower developmental scores. He writes: “By age three, the cumulative effect is staggering. Imagine a child’s world diminished by over 1,100 adult words per day, over 840 fewer opportunities to express themselves, and nearly 200 missed changes to engage in the back-and-forth of conversation.” Compounding this problem is that parents often have their heads buried in their smartphones and are not talking with or reading to their children, key elements that help a child’s socialization, language and critical thinking skills.

preemption is better than reaction after an attack, especially when one’s enemies repeatedly assert their intentions. The Obama and Biden administrations have tried to pacify, mollify and, in sending billions of dollars of unfrozen assets to Iran, effectively subsidize the regime. Amid pressure from the United States, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly agreed not to strike oil or nuclear targets in Iran. It is Iran that seeks to widen the war by continuing on a path that could potentially result in their use of nuclear weapons. Iran apparently senses a moment of American weakness and indecision and exploits it on several levels. According to a report on extremism by George Washington University, Iran has operatives in the U.S. who are spreading anti-Israel hate and propaganda on college campuses and cozying up to U.S. officials. More people should be paying attention, though the national media aren’t. We are long past early detection when it comes to Iran, whose leaders are not hiding but proclaiming their intentions while claiming a religious mandate to accomplish their goals. Preemptive and retaliatory attacks against Israel’s and our enemies are nothing new. History proves weakness invites aggression by other nations and terrorist entities. Iranian elections, which have been fixed by the regime with opponents murdered or jailed, have shown large numbers of Iranians oppose being ruled by the ayatollahs. U.S. policy should be the replacement of the religious fundamentalists with democratically elected leaders in Iran.

They also railed against NATO’s “continuous strengthening of military-security ties with Asia-Pacific countries.” That’s Mr. Xi’s way of saying: “Asia is mine!” The Chinese Communist Party’s influence has been growing in Latin America and Africa as well. Mr. Xi’s brokering of detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia demonstrates that he’s successfully competing against the U.S. in the Middle East too. Many members of Congress are now worried about Beijing’s behavior-its thefts of intellectual property, cyber- and balloon-enabled spying, industrial influence campaigns, unmatched military systems development, and other stratagems. At a House hearing, Republicans and some Democrats expressed serious concern that TikTok is vacuuming up huge amounts of data on millions of Americans - data the CCP can command TikTok to hand over. Mr. Biden seems less concerned. He said: “I don’t take China lightly, I don’t take Russia lightly, but I think we vastly exaggerate.” Do we? Defending human rights, Mr. Biden has said, is “at the center of my administration’s foreign policy.” Has he read the report released by his State Department saying that in China “genocide and crimes against humanity” continued in 2022 “against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang”? Has he read the section on Tibet? A front-page story in The Wall Street Journal was headlined: “China Auditions for Lead Global Role.” Readers were informed that Mr. Xi is sending a message that “China and its allies are no longer obliged to conform to a U.S.-led global order.”

During the Trump administration, Islamic State territories were liberated by an American-led coalition: Operation Inherent Resolve. A spokesman for OIR made clear in 2018 that “this does not mark the end of the campaign.” “We know this enemy is as adaptive and savvy as it is cruel and evil. We will continue to support our partners and keep pressure on ISIS.” And it has: A U.S. economy-of-force deployment in Syria, less than a thousand elite troops, enables America’s Kurdish and Arab allies to suppress the Islamic State. Abandon those allies, and the Islamic State revives. Now, let’s connect the dots. Iran’s rulers are allied with Vladimir Putin. They’re giving him drones that he’s using to kill Ukrainians. He’s giving them cyber weapons and dangling the possibility of fighter aircraft sales. Both Moscow and Tehran have propped up Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, helping him slaughter as many as a million of his citizens in the process. Moscow and Tehran are also allied with ? or, more precisely, are junior partners of ? China’s supreme leader, Xi Jinping. He’s a man with a plan to replace the post-World War II Pax Americana with a Pax Sinica ? a new world order with rules made in Beijing according to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles. If Mr. Xi can bring that about, the impact on American interests, values, freedom and prosperity will be enormous. Recently, Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin warned the U.S. to “stop undermining global strategic stability in order to maintain its own unilateral military superiority.” That’s their way of telling Americans to accept diminished status.

A policy of “peace through strength” means doing what is necessary to instill fear in our enemies, to convince them that we have both the capability and the will to cause them serious harm. If that deters them, armed conflicts are avoided. If not, “peace through strength” also means we have the power to defeat them decisively. If that’s not our policy, if our enemies think we are eager to placate and appease, incapable of using force effectively or reluctant to do so, they’ll conclude we are weak. And for tyrants, weakness is blood in the water. What brings these thoughts to mind: Recently Tehran-backed militias attacked a U.S. military outpost in Syria, killing one American contractor and wounding another, as well as wounding five U.S. service members. This was not an isolated incident. U.S. troops in the region have come under attack from Tehran-backed groups 78 times since the beginning of 2021. If you’re a proponent of peace through strength, the conclusion you draw is that deterrence has failed and that reestablishing deterrence must now be a top priority. Those who don’t see the situation this way are calling for a retreat from Syria ? the response Iran’s theocrats intended to elicit. To do so would repeat the strategic error President Biden made in 2021 when he surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban and, by extension, to al Qaeda, its ally. President Barack Obama made the same mistake when he withdrew from Iraq in 2011, giving rise to the Islamic State, which went on to conquer 40% of Iraq and 33% of Syria, and launch terrorist attacks in the U.S., France and elsewhere.