Facts on the ground are as follows.
The
DPRK lacks the necessary critical size, population, resources and geopolitical opportunities to ensure its independence and security in the face of USA imperialism other than through the possession of nuclear weapons. The differential does not allow for alternate methods.
As an example, Korea is deprived of the extensive network of regional allies
Islamic Iran patiently and very competently built up over the decades. These represent a huge deterrent factor against NATO aggression, because thanks to these movements and governments alone, Iran could escalate any conflict across the entire region. What will allies of Korea be able to achieve outside national borders in case of war? Not much, with the sole exception of pin point operations by some of the 70.000 members of the Chongryon (pro-DPRK association of Korean residents in Japan) specially trained to this effect.
Likewise, the DPRK lacks the tremendous geographic boon offered to Iran in the shape of particularly narrow waters along the Strait of Hormoz, through which a considerable portion of global energy exports is transiting, and closure or simply sustained blocking of which would have an ample impact upon the global economy. Korea also lacks Iran's over 1,6 million square kilometers of largely mountainous surface area, which onto itself would lead to a nightmare scenario for any invader.
This is why for Iran, there's no need to rush towards nuclear arms. Latent break out capability, which the Islamic Republic has more than ensured, is perfectly sufficient at this point, offering as it does a serious benefit over actual nuclear armament, namely reduced political cost.
Islamic Iran and the DPRK are and have always been friendly nations with a history of close cooperation in the defence sector, each party following the path most suited to its situation and characteristics, thereby achieving deterrence against the oppressive global arrogance.
Attempting to contrast the Islamic Republic and the DPRK by invoking the respective age of their leaders is misleading and uninformed, given how in Korea too the Leadership position is for life. Kim Jong-Un may be 39 (not 35) today, but he shall be in charge of state affairs for as long as he dwells among us. What's more, leadership in Korea happens to be hereditary in practice, which isn't the case of Iran.
As for the economy, Iran could impossibly be demeaned as "lousy" in this regard. Iran's industrial output is strong and diversified for an oil-exporting nation, and so is Iran's agricultural production.
When it comes to kicking the USA out of West Asia, has Korea kicked G.I.'s out of East Asia yet? One is left wondering what the point of this gratuitous interjection could possibly be. Reality is that Islamic Iran has successfully neutralized multiple American and zionist military aggressions in the region, and that when said imperialists will be forced to leave West Asia for good, most of the credit will go to Iran's steadfast policy of Resistance.
Last but not least, considering that hazrate aqa seyyed Khamenei (h.A.) has actually paid visit to Korea, it's somewhat rich to be advising the Iranian leadership to "get out of Qom and take a trip outside Iran" in the framework of a comment full of instrumentalized praise for the DPRK.
The alliance between Iran and Korea cannot be undermined through not-well-meaning comparisons like these.
True its not possible to Gouvern Iran Like you said. Iran have its own culture and history and mentality. The reason why dprk can be ruled like Like it is ruled is becsuse people are accepting this style. The great iranian civilisation, How people and shiite islam, the way of the Prophet (sawa) and his family (as) will never accept this kind of behaviour.
@mack8 You cannot implement other culture style in another country. Its the same result like west did with other countries.
What Iran and Korea do is to cooperate with a shared goal in mind, whilst refraining from interfering in each others' domestic affairs, as it should be and as opposed to the modus operandi typical of imperialist NATO regimes.
To those who keep brandishing the example of the DPRK merely as a pretext to vent their political frustration at the Islamic Republic, they should know that a country of the global South challenging the empire could not reach this level of deterrence without implementing measures akin to Korea's Military-First politics i.e. extraordinary allocation of funds and budget to the defence sector.
This in turn would suppose equally significant cuts across other domains, generating considerable stress for the citizenry at large. Even though western propaganda vastly exaggerates the impact of this policy on the living standards of Koreans and even though much of the narrative about famines during the 1990's is probably fabricated, it's nonetheless undeniable that actually prevailing circumstances would've been impossible to sustain if it wasn't for the absence of political pluralism in Korea, as well as for the strict way in which opposition to the system is met with, as compared to Iran.
Amusingly enough, whenever I make the suggestion that Iran could take a page out of Korea's book at least in terms of offsetting pro-western agents of influence (reformists / moderates) working in the interests of and supported by existential foreign enemies, those same users who subscribe to "DPRK strong, Iran weak" sloganeering do not seem all too enthusiastic about it.
No wonder, they know that under such a system, they'd never enjoy the luxury of nagging like they do. When they use Korea as a pretext, it's not really out of concern for Iran nor a reflection of objective, sober analysis - it's simply an expression of their dislike for the religious and Islamic nature of the Iranian political order, as well as a consequence of decades of exposure to western- and zionist-orchestrated, non-stop propaganda and psy-ops against the Islamic Revolution.
