President Donald Trump has vowed a "very severe" response to North Korea's escalating development of missiles and nuclear weapons. But behind closed doors, the Trump administration is pursuing a strategy that's not all that different from President Barack Obama's approach.

Administration officials are saying privately that a preventive military attack is "not on the table," said Bruce Klingner, a veteran intelligence agent who works as a senior research fellow for northeast Asia at the influential Heritage Foundation. Instead, he said, they’re pursuing a five-part strategy similar to what the Obama administration employed — one that includes increasing pressure on both North Korea and the other countries that facilitate Kim Jong Un’s weapons program.


Other elements include increasing military readiness and capabilities, building up U.S. missile-defense capabilities and expressing openness to diplomatic discussions with Pyongyang — but refusing to negotiate with North Korea until it accepts the premise it must give up its nuclear program.

Pieces of that strategy played out in recent days — with no sign yet of ending North Korea's defiance. On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-supported sanctions package that threatens to cut off about a third of North Korea’s exports, although questions remain about how strictly nations will enforce the penalties. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson opened the door Monday to negotiating a rollback of sanctions if Kim stops his missile testing — but North Korea responded with an aggressive statement that threatened military action against the U.S.

Despite the saber rattling and mixed messages about what it will take to bring North Korea to the table, Klingner said that, privately, the administration has a more “coherent strategy” than it might seem.

Morning Defense newsletter Sign up for Morning Defense, a daily briefing on Washington's national security apparatus. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

"The Trump administration to date has not yet distinguished its policy toward North Korea from that of Obama," he added. "The president and others have been talking tough about sanctions, as Obama did, but have not yet followed through on any significant increase."

Other experts agree that, despite Trump’s declarations that he’s abandoning Obama’s “strategic patience” with North Korea, the basic strategy of ramping up pressure on the regime to end its missile program is a carryover from the past eight years.

“I would certainly agree that the bellicose rhetoric has increased under the Trump administration, but the policy of trying to ratchet up pressure on North Korea using sanctions and offering talks only after North Korea meets some onerous preconditions is similar to the Obama administration,” said Kelsey Davenport, director of nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.

But at least the rhetoric from Trump’s team and other Republicans has toughened in recent months. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said last week that the president told him he would be willing to start a war with North Korea — regardless of the huge casualties likely to result in the region — if that’s what it takes to keep Kim from developing missiles and nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S.

“If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here,” Graham said, adding that Trump “has told me that to my face.”

Trump’s appointees have similarly stressed that military options are not off the table. While U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stressed that a peaceful resolution would be preferable, she said after last weekend’s sanctions vote that America is “prepared to do whatever it takes to defend ourselves and our allies.”

Unlike Obama, Trump has also taken repeated public swipes at China and its unwillingness or inability to help defuse the North Korea crisis. These criticisms often take the form of tweets, with Trump saying last month that he is “very disappointed in China,” which could “easily solve this problem.”

Asked about the disconnect between its behind-the-scenes strategy and its public rhetoric, Klingner said the administration "just has trouble with its signaling and messaging."

The North Koreans most recently launched an intercontinental ballistic missile on July 28, and experts estimated that the weapon had the power to hit in the U.S. mainland as far as Denver or Chicago.

That fact "has everybody's attention," said Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.), vice chairman of the House Financial Services Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee, which has investigated North Korea's illicit efforts to acquire missile and other military technologies.

Pittenger said he thinks the administration saw Kim "as a goofy guy, but now with all these tests, he's very provocative." He added: "They are the single biggest threat to our security we have right now."

At the Pentagon, spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis declined to get into specifics about steps the administration is considering, saying the military plans for any situation.

"We are always looking at military options. We don't have anything to announce, though," he said.

If the Trump administration wants to do something different, think tank experts suggest that taking military action or withdrawing completely are both bad solutions. They also say there's no magic fix to the problem and, ultimately, the best path may just be more of the same.

Some experts advocate for increased sanctions on North Korea and on the Chinese banks that facilitate the regime's missile program.

The president often complains that China isn't doing enough to help stop North Korea from developing its nuclear weapons. But Klingner said Trump is also not doing enough when it comes to secondary sanctions, such as financially penalizing Chinese banks that participate in the U.S. financial system but do not follow American rules and regulations.

Klingner pointed specifically to the sanctions the U.S. imposed on the Bank of Dandong in late June for its dealings with North Korea. He urged more sanctions like this on top of those approved by the United Nations.

Pittenger also urged more sanctions against North Korea.

He said one first step would be passing an amendment to the House version of the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 2810 (115) that would prohibit the Defense Department from doing business with telecommunications firms — mainly Chinese government telecommunications organizations — that support North Korean cyberattacks.

Davenport said, however, that sanctions alone are not going to change North Korea’s behavior and urged the administration to pair sanctions with a diplomatic strategy to begin negotiations.

“Sanctions can provide leverage to get North Korea to the negotiating table. Then you test the possibility of an agreement,” he said.

