US inconsistency on arms deals: Is a deal a deal?

It is sometimes difficult but always important to be consistent, especially in relationships.

That is as true in international relationships as it is in personal relationships. After all, recognising the importance of consistency is just another way of recognising reliability. Without reliability, even the most high-energy relationship will not survive.

America, as the world’s superpower, is involved in fractious relationships with, amongst others, Iran and North Korea.

Those relationships are defined by concerns about the nuclear capability of two states that are not at all regarded as reliable — though today’s White House can hardly be described as a benchmark in reliability though it is consistent but maybe not in a an admirable way.

Yet America is taking two utterly different approaches to each country. It is trying to reach an agreement over curtailing nuclear arms with North Korea, while it is threatening to renege on a nuclear deal made by Barack Obama with Iran.

Why would North Korea agree to a deal if it sees America can, and will, move the goalposts as and when it suits?