Experts: North Korea could surrender nukes for right price and security assurances

When Joe Biden told Congress that North Korea's nuclear program posed a serious threat to American and global security, Pyongyang responded with fury. A senior official from the North Korean foreign ministry warned the United States could find itself in grave danger. But according to two veteran experts in East Asian diplomacy, this escalation may not signal an impasse—it may simply be the opening move in a negotiation that has yet to truly begin.

Joseph DeTrani, who spent years as the CIA's top analyst on East Asia and now leads the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, believes North Korea would surrender its entire nuclear arsenal under the right conditions. Those conditions, he argues, are straightforward: security guarantees that protect the regime from overthrow, and a pathway toward normalized relations with the United States. "I do believe North Korea is committed to complete, verifiable denuclearisation, assuming they get the security assurances they want," DeTrani said at an online conference. He framed the regime's nuclear weapons not as an instrument of aggression but as insurance—a deterrent against the kind of regime change that has befallen other adversaries of the West.

What North Korea wants, DeTrani explained, is a "normal" relationship with America, though on terms the regime itself defines. This is not a small ask. It requires the United States to articulate precisely what denuclearization would entail, step by step, and to listen seriously when North Korea describes what security assurances and economic assistance it would need in return. The conversation, in other words, has not yet happened in any substantive way.

DeTrani pointed to the 2018 agreement signed between Kim Jong Un and then-President Trump in Singapore as a possible foundation. That document, he said, was remarkably concise but also remarkably clear: both sides committed to transforming their relationship and normalizing ties. It remains, he suggested, a viable template for future talks. Christopher R. Hill, a veteran diplomat who has negotiated with North Korea before, echoed this view. He cautioned against taking Pyongyang's recent angry statements as final positions. "It's going to be up to the North Koreans to figure out that there is something in this for them and they ought to come to the table," Hill said.

The core tension, however, remains unresolved. North Korea views its nuclear weapons as essential to its survival and will not relinquish them without ironclad assurances and tangible benefits. The United States has historically insisted on concrete steps toward disarmament before agreeing to ease the sanctions that have crippled the North Korean economy. Neither side has yet found a way to bridge this gap. Markus Garlauskas, a former U.S. national intelligence officer for North Korea now at the Atlantic Council, suggested the disagreement runs deeper than mere tactics. "The differences between the Kim regime and the United States are much more fundamental," he said.

What emerges from these expert assessments is a picture of a negotiation frozen not by impossibility but by the absence of serious engagement. Trump met with Kim multiple times during his presidency, yet no agreement was reached. Biden's administration has not yet made a formal offer. The experts suggest that if the U.S. were to present a concrete proposal—one that addressed North Korea's security concerns while laying out clear disarmament benchmarks—the regime might respond. Whether that response would be yes or no remains unknown. What is clear is that the current impasse is not inevitable. It is, rather, a choice both sides are making.