The key instrument to resolve nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea is diplomacy. The risk of the use of military intervention would be disastrous war. The negotiation gives the only peaceful way of curbing their programs. The world needs to be active and insist on verifiable restrictions on nuclear exercises. Not acting diplomatically opens up more threats.
There are unique problems of diplomacy with every nation. Iran does not bargain very well but takes chances and hides things. North Korea develops the weapons in the open and usually refuses talks when they are given concessions. Iran wants regional power; North Korea wants to hold onto power. Diplomacy has to devise practices in the same way.
There are serious weaknesses. Fears of mistrust can kill deals (which happened when the US abandoned the JCPOA). Sanctions are usually directed against people more than against the government. Agreements have been breached between the two states. North Korea uses the talks as a ploy to gain time; Iran proceeds with increasing uranium enrichment. It is vital that there are strict enforcing mechanisms.
Nonetheless, diplomacy has essential pros despite its deficiencies. It eliminates crises in their immediate stages and decelerates the production of weapons. Agreements make way to necessary inspections. Negotiations in the face of tensions constitute a very important form of communication. Even modest deals minimize risks. It is more desirable to stop a given progress than creation of uncontrolled development of nuclear capabilities. Diplomacy deals with a standing threat.
Such diplomacy needs constant pressure and talks. The sanctions should be directly aimed at nuclear programs. The global community is obliged to stay united. There should be evident rewards to offers. There needs to be very strict verification. Anticipate cheating and become strategic. Realism and perseverance is needed in diplomacy.
Conclusion:
The nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea cannot be wiped away by diplomacy as these powers are extensive enough to be devoted to the programs. Nevertheless, the refusal to use diplomacy is much more dangerous. It continues to be the most viable course to maintain, cope with and possibly diminish these threats as time goes by. Constant, realistic diplomacy, supported by strong pressure and solidarity is the only method to avoid nuclear disaster.
