Pyongyong acted after criticizing Washington for conducting a drill that simulated a North Korean nuclear strike on the U.S. homeland.

June 2025
By Kelsey Davenport

North Korea conducted missile drills simulating a nuclear counterstrike against U.S. and South Korean forces after criticizing the United States for conducting a drill that simulated a North Korean nuclear strike on the U.S. homeland.

South Korean television footage May 8 of a North Korean joint striking drill involving long-range artillery and missile systems conducted at an undisclosed location in North Korea. (Photo by Kim Jae-Hwan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The U.S. exercise simulated the interception of an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). It was conducted at Fort Greely, Alaska, during a visit by Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll April 23-24. Fort Greely houses interceptor missiles as part of the U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse (GMD) missile defense system.

Driscoll was briefed on GMD procedures during a “simulated ICBM attack against the United States,” according to a U.S. Army statement. The statement did not specify if the ICBMs in the simulated attack came from North Korea, but the interceptors at Fort Greely likely would be used in the event of North Korea firing nuclear-armed ICBMs at the United States.

A May 3 commentary in North Korea’s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said that the U.S. “interceptor drill simulating the so-called ICBM attack of an enemy state … is, in essence, a military action of an offensive nature that made a nuclear war with [North Korea] a fait accompli.”

The commentary argued that the United States does not need to conduct a drill simulating the interception of a North Korean ICBM if Washington “does not seek a nuclear war” with Pyongyang.

The “best option for deterring the danger of the outbreak of a nuclear war” is to build up the “strongest offensive and defensive power capable of overwhelmingly suppressing any form of military threat posed by the U.S. arms buildup directly aiming at” North Korea, the commentary said.

North Korea used the drill as justification for its May 8 exercises simulating a nuclear counterstrike on U.S. and South Korean forces. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversaw the exercises, which included short-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering tactical nuclear warheads.

According to a May 9 KCNA statement, U.S. and South Korea military exercises require “that the armed forces of [North Korea] maintain a rapid reaction capability and a thoroughgoing war posture.”

The drills were designed to verify the command and mobilization of North Korea’s nuclear missiles.

According to the commentary, Kim said that it is “very important to steadily perfect the normal combat readiness of the nuclear force.” He also called for “further raising the combat reliability of the tactical nuclear weapon systems.”

South Korea’s June 3 presidential election may offer an opportunity for de-escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula. The two candidates, Lee Jae-myung from the Democratic Party and Kim Moon-soo from the People Power Party, both call for a strong South Korean alliance with the United States.

Kim Min-soo called for enhancing South Korea’s role in U.S. extended deterrence and raised the prospect of South Korea developing its own nuclear deterrent.

Lee, however, called for greater cooperation with North Korea and strengthening inter-Korean relations to reduce tensions. He expressed support for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula using a phased approach that reduces military tensions and enhances stability. He also said he would restore an inter-Korean military agreement reached in 2018 that both countries subsequently suspended.

Although North Korea is primarily focused on the threat posed by the United States, it has raised concerns about Japanese military activities, particularly the country’s investment in missile capabilities.

In a May 10 KCNA commentary, North Korea called attention to a missile drill that Japan is preparing for late June and to Japan’s plans to expand its missile force.

Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force’s 1st Artillery Brigade is planning its first long-range missile drill from within Japanese territorial waters. The test will involve firing surface-to-ship training missiles at a target off the coast of the country’s northernmost island.

The drill is for training purposes and reflects the “severe security environment” of the region, Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said in April.

KCNA said that Japan’s possession of missiles that are capable of attacking enemy bases in foreign countries demonstrates that the country is not focused on “exclusive defence.”

The missile developments are “proof that Japan’s reckless moves for overseas aggression have become more courageous,” the KCNA commentary said.

U.S. President Donald Trump voiced optimism about a possible Iran nuclear deal, but there still appear to be significant differences over the scope of the agreement. 

June 2025
By Kelsey Davenport

President Donald Trump said the United States and Iran are close to reaching a nuclear agreement after the two sides met for a fourth round of talks in Oman, but there still appear to be significant differences over the scope of the agreement.

Although U.S. President Donald Trump says he is hopeful about a nuclear deal with Iran, he signed a presidential memorandum in February reimposing maximum pressure on the Persian Gulf state. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

During a May 15 business roundtable in Doha, Trump said that Iran has “sort of agreed to the terms” of a deal and will not make “nuclear dust.”  Trump did not specify what “nuclear dust” is, but he may have been referring to Iran’s capabilities to enrich uranium.

Iranian officials have stated consistently that Tehran is willing to limit its enrichment program in an agreement with the United States but will not give up the capability entirely.

The United States has sent mixed messages about its position on Iran’s uranium enrichment program. After the first round of negotiations in April, Trump’s lead negotiator, U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, suggested that the United States could agree to a deal that allows Iran to continue enrichment, but later said a deal would prohibit enrichment. (See ACT, May 2025.)

Trump also has been inconsistent on the issue of enrichment. He told Meet the Press May 4 that “total dismantlement” of the nuclear program is “all I would accept.” He suggested that Iran does not need nuclear energy because of its oil reserves. But on May 7, when asked specifically about allowing Iran to retain a limited enrichment program, Trump said “we haven’t made that decision yet.”

Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a May 14 interview with NBC that Iran is ready to sign a deal with the United States and reiterated that Iran is willing to limit uranium enrichment to low levels. He previously suggested in a May 7 post on X that any deal should include a “recognition of Iran’s right to industrial enrichment.” That recognition, plus the removal of U.S. and international sanctions, “can guarantee a deal,” Shamkhani said.

Iran is enriching uranium up to 60 percent uranium-235. Iran has no civil justification for enriching up to this level and could quickly enrich that material to weapons-grade levels, or 90 percent U-235.

Shamkhani said that Iran is willing to dispose of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and accept more intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Under the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the multilateral group known as the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), Iran agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent U-235, a level suitable for power reactors; cap the stockpile of enriched material to about 200 kilograms; and restrict uranium enrichment capacity.

Trump reposted NBC’s report on Shamkhani’s interview on Truth Social.

The comments by Trump and Shamkhani followed a fourth round of negotiations between Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Araghchi described the May 11 talks in Oman as “more serious and candid” and told Iranian media that the sides now better understand each other’s positions.

He said Iran’s uranium enrichment program “must continue” under a deal, but the “scope and level may change.” Iran will not compromise on enrichment, he said. Before the talks he complained that the “constant change” in U.S. positions was a problem.

A senior U.S. official said the fourth round of talks was encouraging and the two sides agreed to continue working on “technical elements” of a deal.

Tehran may be considering regional options for addressing the question of enrichment. During the negotiations, Iran put forward a proposal to operate a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, according to several Iranian news outlets. It is unclear how such a joint venture would work, but Iran may view a multilateral endeavor as less of a proliferation risk because additional states would be involved with the uranium enrichment program.

The United States denied that there were any discussions of a joint venture on uranium enrichment in Oman, and it is unclear if Saudi Arabia or the UAE would support such a plan.

The UAE operates four nuclear power reactors, and Saudi Arabia has announced plans to build two reactor units. Both countries expressed support for a nuclear deal with Iran.

During Trump’s May 13 visit to Riyadh, he said that a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal will “make your region and the world a safer place.”

Trump emphasized that there is not much time for negotiations and that Iran will continue to face economic pressure if there is no deal.

As part of the Trump administration’s ongoing pressure campaign, the U.S. State Department announced new sanctions on Iranian entities connected to the Organization of Defense Innovation and Research, which has ties to the organized nuclear weapons program in Iran that ended in 2003.

According to the May 12 department release, the sanctioned persons are involved in activities that “materially contribute to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

The release also noted that Iran “continues to substantially expand its nuclear program and carry out dual-use research and development activities applicable to nuclear weapons.”

IAEA Report on Iran Is Cause for Concern and Focus on Pragmatic Diplomacy

In a comprehensive assessment of Iran’s safeguards implementation, the International Atomic Energy Agency presents clear evidence that Iran violated its safeguards obligations but finds no evidence of a current, illicit nuclear program. The IAEA’s findings underscore the urgent need for a nuclear deal that brings Iran back into compliance with its legally binding safeguards obligations and limits its future proliferation risk. 

Subscribe to