Forty-four years after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Tehran is once again feeling the wrath of its citizenry. Then, it was the Shah and his “modern ideals” the people sought to, and successfully did, overthrow. Now, a different regime ? the Islamic Republic ? is in power and in the people’s crosshairs. We in the free world can, and should, stand with the Iranian people as they demand some sort of accountability from the regime. Since the brutal murder of Mahsa Amini in September 2022 at the hands of the morality police, protests have taken place across Iran and the world. Importantly, they’ve been led by women in courageous defiance. What started with hair-cutting, hijabs-on-fire, and chants of “women, life, freedom” has morphed into an underground movement that’s sending a very clear message to the regime: The people aren’t going to stop protesting anytime soon. Recent demonstrations have taught us that human rights have been continuously and increasingly restricted. The most basic freedoms, enjoyed by women, are outright banned. Iranian activists are doing their part in keeping the public informed of what’s taking place in Iran and how we can help. Iran’s dictatorship can kill people, murder them, and put them in jail. But it cannot end this revolution, History has repeatedly shown us that while Iran is no stranger to protests, neither is the regime’s response to them. The Iranian regime has increased the frequency and gravity of human rights abuses since the Iranian Revolution 44 years ago. Amini’s death is yet another byproduct of years living under a dictatorship that restricts basic freedoms. Let’s remember that when good people do nothing, evil triumphs.

It is understandable that the South’s 52 million citizens might question whether the United States remains a trustworthy ally in rebuffing the autocratic Kim dynasty’s multigenerational campaign to absorb its democratic nemesis. After all, high hopes that former President Donald Trump’s tantalizing offers of financial assistance in exchange for denuclearization proved as futile as previous U.S. overtures in past decades. And President Biden’s abrupt 2021 abandonment of Afghanistan to the ruthless Taliban shocked friend and foe alike. Robust deterrence can take alternative forms, though, including economic ones. Mr. Kim’s regime is underwritten by China’s Xi Jinping, his fellow communist ruler. Were the North to unload on the South or on the U.S., the pain befalling Mr. Xi from lost U.S.-China commerce would exceed its tiny sidekick’s annual gross domestic product of $16 billion before the radioactive fallout settled. Blowing up the boss’s business is never a smart move. Moreover, were the South’s Mr. Yoon to mount his own nuclear threat, not only would he put a twitch in Mr. Kim’s trigger finger, he could also place South Korea in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and possibly trigger crippling economic sanctions. If the North’s Kim follows through on his pledge to invigorate his desolate nation with new nuclear might, Mr. Biden should remind South Koreans that fashioning their own brand of nukes will not render “the land of the morning calm” more peaceful. By offering reassurances that the South’s security remains an American priority, he can allay its nuclear fears.

Nature abhors a vacuum,” goes the idiom, and so does North Korea. Seeking to escape its hermit-state past and join the modern world’s big leagues, the pint-sized Asian nation is intent on amplifying its nuclear saber rattling. The din is sharpening anxiety among its estranged kin to the south, who are pondering whether to field their own nuclear arsenal. They should not, and President Biden should take pains to reassure both parties that the long-standing U.S. alliance that has safeguarded South Korea and deterred the North remains as reliable as ever. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un opened the new year by pledging “redoubled efforts to overwhelmingly beef up the military muscle to thoroughly guarantee the sovereignty, security and fundamental interests of the Republic in response to the worrying military moves by the U.S. and other hostile forces precisely targeting the DPRK,” or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. After a year in which the regime fired more than 70 ballistic missiles, Mr. Kim’s “redoubled efforts” for 2023 include plans for a groundbreaking military satellite launch as well as the development of an advanced intercontinental missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. Unsurprisingly, South Koreans have grown increasingly fearful of its unruly neighbor. South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, a self-described conservative, is reportedly mulling a South bomb to counter the North’s nukes in the event of a reduction of the U.S. military presence that dates back to the start of the Korean War in 1950. Polls show the proportion of South Koreans favoring nuclear weapons acquisition has surpassed 70%.

Also necessary is a discussion with South Korea on the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons there amid North Korea’s threatening behavior. This would complement the enhanced joint military exercises, with strategic naval and air assets participating in these exercises. The U.S. should also change its focus in dealing with North Korea. While complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should remain a goal, a more core focus must be on the dismal human rights situation in North Korea. A recent United Nations report stated that over 40% of the people in North Korea are malnourished, indicating significant food insecurity in the North, with some reports ― and comments from Kim Jong-un ― comparing the current situation to the Arduous March in the 1990s when famine claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. In addition to food insecurity, the medical situation in the North is equally dismal. Compounding this is North Korea’s strict surveillance system and arbitrary judicial system. Indeed, the songbun system of classifying citizens, based on their direct ancestors and relatives into certain castes and sending thousands of citizens to labor camps, some for life, as political prisoners or for minor offenses, is heartbreaking. On January 23, 2023, the National Institute for Public Policy (nipp.org) published a strategy paper authored by Ambassador Robert Joseph and six colleagues that presented a new National Security for Countering North Korea, with a focus on human rights and the imperative of providing all people ― to include the 25 million people in North Korea ― with truthful reporting on global issues and Korean Peninsula developments. 북한의 핵무기 추구 (3) 조지프 R 디트라니(전 미 대북협상 특사) 북한이 위협 행위를 하는 가운데 미국의 전술핵무기를 남한에 재배치하는 문제를 한국과 논의하는 것도 필요하다. 이것은 강화된 합동군사훈련에 참여하는 미국 해군 및 공군의 전략자산과 더불어 이 훈련을 보완할 것이다. 또한 미국은 북한에 대처함에 있어서 초점을 바꿀 필요가 있다. 한반도의 완전하고 검증 가능한 비핵화가 목표로 남아 있는 가운데 북한 내부의 참담한 인권 상황에 보다 핵심적인 초점을 맞추어야 한다. 최근 유엔의 한 보고서는 북한 주민 40% 이상이 영양 결핍이라고 언급했는데 이는 북한의 심각한 식량 공급 불안정을 나타낸다. 몇몇 보고서와 김정은의 논평에 따르면, 이런 상황은 기근으로 수십만명의 북한 주민이 목숨을 잃은 1990년대 고난의 행군과 비교된다. 식량 공급 불안정에 덧붙여 북한의 의료 상황도 마찬가지로 참담하다. 이런 상황을 악화시키는 것은 북한의 엄격한 감시체제 및 전횡적이고 제멋대로인 사법체제다. 사실, 주민 개인의 직계 조상들과 친척들에 바탕을 두고 시민들을 분류하여 일종의 카스트 같은 신분제에 집어넣는 성분 제도는 수많은 사람들을 정치범이나 혹은 경범죄 위반으로 일부는 종신형을 선고받게 하고 강제노동 수용소로 보내 우리의 가슴을 아프게 한다. 2023년 1월23일 국가공공정책연구소(nipp.org)는 로버트 조지프 대사와 6명의 동료들이 집필한 전략 논문을 발표했다. 이 논문은 북한에 대처하는 새로운 미국의 국가안보 전략을 제시했다. 보고서는 인권에 초점을 맞추고 북한 주민 2500만명을 포함한 모든 사람들에게 각종 세계적인 현안들 및 한반도의 전개 상황에 관한 진실한 보고서를 제출하는 것을 긴요한 과제로 제시했다. 역주=오성환 외신전문위원 suhwo@segye.com △complement: 보완하다 △core: 핵심적인 △compound: 악화시키다

The withdrawal of U.S.-based tactical weapons from South Korea in 1991 and the North-South Nuclear Agreement of 1992 had no impact on North Korea’s determination to build nuclear weapons. Moreover, the 1994 Agreed Framework, which committed the U.S. to provide North Korea with two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful energy in exchange for dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear facility, was violated by the North when the intelligence community discovered in 2002 that North Korea had a clandestine highly-enriched uranium program for nuclear weapons. And indeed, North Korea’s assistance to Syria for the construction of a secret nuclear reactor in Al Kibar that Israel bombed in 2007 was a major act of nuclear proliferation by North Korea. The U.S. has been unable to get North Korea to return to negotiations since the failed 2019 Hanoi presidential talks. China apparently has been unwilling - or unable - to get Kim Jong-un to agree to permit his representatives to meet with U.S. counterparts. Rather, Mr. Kim apparently decided to double down on his nuclear arsenal and build more nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them. What’s needed is a new strategy for dealing with North Korea - a strategy that not only focuses on enhancing extended nuclear deterrence but also enhancing missile defense capabilities in South Korea, Japan and the U.S. A second THADD - Terminal High Altitude Area Defense - should be discussed with Seoul. The Patriot and other missile defense systems should also be discussed with Japan, which understandably is enhancing its own military capabilities. Japan has committed to spend 2% of its GDP on military defense purposes.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush ordered the withdrawal of all U.S.-based tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea. In 1992, South Korea and North Korea agreed not to test, produce, secure, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons and not to possess facilities for nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment. Currently, North Korea reportedly has between 40 and 60 plutonium or enriched uranium-based nuclear weapons, with the capability to mate these nuclear weapons to an array of short, medium and long-range ballistic missiles. In 2022, North Korea reportedly launched over 100 ballistic missiles, to include the Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of targeting the whole of the U.S. Kim Jong-un recently declared that North Korea will exponentially increase its nuclear weapons arsenal, to include tactical nuclear weapons, and enshrined a new law permitting the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons automatically if its leadership or command and control centers are threatened. The United Nations Security Council has passed nine resolutions sanctioning North Korea since the North’s first nuclear test in 2006. Currently, however, China and Russia have vetoed efforts to sanction North Korea for its recent flagrant launching of ballistic missiles, all in violation of UNSC resolutions. South Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol and President Biden have agreed that U.S. extended nuclear deterrence ? nuclear umbrella ? commitments need to be enhanced, with the active participation of the Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultative Group. It should be clear that over the past 32 years, efforts by the U.S., with active support of South Korea and Japan, have failed to halt North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

He also gave vent to grievances he has been nursing for years while gazing at the Black Sea from his Italianate palace. He denounced “the ruling circles of the so-called West” as “the enemy.” He accused “the Anglo-Saxons” of sabotaging “the Nord Stream international gas pipelines.” He recited standard leftist dogma about slavery, genocide, “Western racists,” the American “neocolonial system.” For good measure, he threw in “the plunder of India, of Africa, the wars of England and France against China.” He said the U.S. “occupies” Germany, Japan and South Korea. Most ominously, Mr. Putin declared that the territories he is annexing are now Russian lands, implying he might use nuclear weapons to defend them. He claimed that America’s use of such weapons in 1945 had “created a precedent.” I understand the desire, on both the left and the right, for “a diplomatic solution.” I understand why many people believe that Mr. Putin must want an “offramp” - because that’s what they’d want if they were in his place. But nothing he has said or done to date indicates that’s true. And if he finds that his threats are causing the West to retreat, would he be satisfied - or emboldened? If he sees that Western leaders are giving appeasement a chance, why would he not continue to advance, probing with his spear so long as he feels mush, not steel? Why would he end a war he believes he is winning? And what lessons will the despotic rulers of North Korea, Iran and China take away based on our actions or inactions? Let me remind you, they are not like us.

He may think he can still get more. Or he may not want even to appear to be on the same page with satanic Americans. He’s not like us and he wouldn’t want anyone to think he is. Turn next to Vladimir Putin. As I’ve long argued, he fancies himself a latter-day czar. His goal is to restore the Russian empire, which, in the bellicose Kremlin speech, he called “great historical Russia.” He had been making progress toward this goal. In 2008, he cut two provinces from Georgia. In 2014, he seized Crimea from Ukraine and began an insurgency in Donbas. Belarus and Armenia have become Russian satellites. Back in February, many analysts doubted he’d invade Ukraine because saber rattling alone would almost certainly have resulted in restrictions on Ukraine’s sovereignty ― a clear win for him. When he did send tanks over the border, many analysts expected only a “limited incursion” that the U.S. and its allies could earnestly deplore and then rapidly forget. He believed ― as did most Western military analysts ? that his troops would easily overrun the Ukrainian army and subdue the Ukrainian people who, he insists, are nothing more than disobedient little brothers who deserve to be punished for refusing to return to the Fatherland. Instead, Ukrainians have fought, with astonishing courage and skill, to defend their land and independence. Mr. Putin announced that he is annexing Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson ― Ukrainian territories where his forces are losing ground.

We’re inclined to believe that those who rule nations, however despotic they may be, are not so different from us. Surely they weigh costs and benefits, are open to compromise, and prefer peace to war. Does the evidence support this belief? I don’t think so. Recall President Donald Trump’s approach to Kim Jung-un. He told the North Korean dictator that, if he’d only adopt more moderate policies, he could have “prosperity like he has never seen” and become “the hero of his people.” Mr. Trump communicated, too, that if Mr. Kim declined this offer, he might find American missiles raining down on his head. Wouldn’t you have been tempted by that carrot and frightened by that stick? Sure. But Mr. Kim is not like you. Similarly, President Barack Obama offered Iran’s theocrats respect, power and lucre. He asked only that they pledge to delay ― not end ― their nuclear weapons program. He didn’t understand that, for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, “Death to Israel!” and “Death to America!” are not just slogans. They are the goals of the revolution to which he has dedicated his life. He will do whatever is necessary to achieve these goals ― including, at this moment, murdering, torturing and imprisoning Iranian women who have had quite enough of his soul-crushing interpretation of Islamic law. President Biden has denounced Mr. Khamenei’s brutality. But he continue to offer him billions of dollars to agree to a watered-down version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that won’t seriously impede the regime’s nuclear ambitions. It will, however, finance terrorism abroad and atrocities at home. So, why doesn’t Mr. Khamenei take the deal?

For decades, doctors and nutritionists prescribed low-fat diets to people trying to lower their risk of heart disease. Saturated fats in meats and dairy products were thought to clog our arteries. Grains ― especially “whole” ones ― were thought to help everything from high cholesterol to digestion. A growing body of research suggests this advice was wrong. For most people, it’s carbohydrates, not fats, that are the true cause of heart disease. Limiting intake of carbohydrates, rather than fats, is a surer way to decrease the risk of heart disease. An analysis of more than a dozen studies published in the British Journal of Nutrition found that patients on low-carb diets had healthier body weights and cardiovascular systems than those on conventional low-fat diets. I’m a cardiologist in Virginia and my own patients have seen the benefits of a low-carb, high-fat diet firsthand. The mistaken belief that fats cause heart disease stems from weak, outdated research. Back in 1961, the American Heart Association published its first report recommending that people limit consumption of animal fats and dietary cholesterol. The report cited several studies that showed a correlation between high-fat diets and heart problems. But that hypothesis had never been put to the test in a clinical trial. Despite the flimsy evidence against saturated fats, mainstream nutritionists still advise people to eat lots of carbohydrates and steer clear of fats. This advice is dooming hundreds of thousands of people to early death and disability. For decades, our public health leaders have dispensed deadly dietary advice. That needs to change. Many doctors, myself included, have seen with our own eyes how low-carb diets help patients lose weight, reverse their diabetes and improve their cholesterol.