u/Alena_Tensor

U.S. policy toward Iran and North Korea has clearly taken very different stances. Iran has faced heavy sanctions, military pressure, and repeated efforts to restrict its nuclear program. North Korea, despite having developed nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, has generally been handled through deterrence, sanctions, diplomacy, and containment rather than direct military action.
What explains the difference in U.S. policy toward the two countries? Is it mainly geography, alliance commitments, military risk, the fact that North Korea already has nuclear weapons, domestic politics, or something else?

Why is a fault which once it slips, will likely cause thousands of injuries and millions in damages, named after a saint?

So as we all know, treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and for good reason, because they bind the U.S. government to terms, financial and otherwise that may be vast in scope and effect and span presidents terms of office. So, given the bits of this MOU that have been released at this point, how can it be possible to declare it “done” upon signing if it has not been ratified? Who knows what the implications and consequences will be of this agreement and for how long will we be bound? Is this even Constitutional?

So as we all know, treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and for good reason, because they bind the U.S. government to terms, financial and otherwise that may be vast in scope and effect and span presidents terms of office. So, given the bits of this MOU that have been released at this point, how can it be possible to declare it “done” upon signing if it has not been ratified? Who knows what the implications and consequences will be of this agreement and for how long will we be bound? Is this even Constitutional?