Here's an excerpt from Brad's post on Trump's first 100 days.
Whether tested on purpose by Assad or not, a clear message was sent not to f*ck with the big dog anymore. At the very least it'll lead to increased hesitation and caution when plotting to kneecap American interests in the future.
I wanted to post a reply here because I think the comment is relative to what is happening with the North Koreans.
We've seen this posturing by North Korea before. The North Koreans broadcast their nuclear strength for the dual purpose of showing off military at home for the benefit of impressing their own citizens and also to use these demonstrations as leverage to obtain concessions (aid such as food and so forth) from China. Generally the US responds with a bluff, cooler heads prevail, China gives the North Koreans what they want, and Dear Leader pulls back for several months.
Trump's response to the chemical attack in Syria puts a new dynamic in play. Its clear that the US will attack a nation without getting UN approval, without getting Congressional approval. International Law is something the US holds other nations accountable, but at the same time is irrelevant with respect factoring in what actions the US will take.
Many question with good reason, if not the sanity of the North Korean President, at least his rationality. Keep in mind "saving face" is of paramount importance to Eastern culture. The US has given the North Korean leader an ultimatum; dismantle your nuclear program or we will act.
I see three outcomes:
1. Kim assumes this is the usual bluff. As before, he holds his ground and waits counting on the same old game to play out as before.
2. Kim acquiesces and agrees to dismantle his nuclear program.
3. Kim strikes first.
Case #1 is less likely in light of Trump's recent attack on Syria. If Kim's rationality is questionable, to a lesser degree, so is Trump's. There is no reason to assume the US won't launch an attack against North Korea.
Case #2 is equally unlikely. In a culture where saving face means everything, Kim cannot back down. It would be a sign of weakness and an embarrassment. Plus he would have little to gain other than his life which may or not be as important to him as it would to you or I. We just don't know.
Case #3. Kim is assured North Korea will be attacked, and will strike - most probably South Korea first. Whether he does so with conventional weapons or nukes is an open question.
My assertion is that Trump has called Kim's bluff by launching an illegal attack against Syria and has forced Kim's hand. The US is unlikely to suffer consequences directly should Kim attack, but the same cannot be said for the countries surrounding North Korea.
Those are my thoughts this morning.