Continued from page 1

“Obama announced at that time that North Korea would ‘suffer consequences,’” Mr. Gingrich said. “I know of no serious consequences. Here we are three years later, with a replay of the same pattern.”

Mr. Gingrich said the Obama administration’s effort to develop a dramatic breakthrough in nuclear disarmament “is an odd contrast with the grim realities of Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.”

The Georgian, a longtime student of history, compared Mr. Obama’s approach to the post-World War I Kellogg-Briand Pact and other efforts to avoid another arms race and outlaw war. The words are meaningless if the will to live up to a nonaggression pledge is absent, Mr. Gingrich said.

“Where it really matters, the forces of aggression are developing nuclear weapons in Iran, and the world is drifting toward an Israeli pre-emptive strike,” he said.

Mr. Gingrich said that in many ways, Pakistan, a nominal ally, is more of a risk to U.S. interests than the openly hostile North Korean regime.

“Pakistan has a substantial number of nuclear weapons, which it sees as offsetting the Indian nuclear arsenal,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Pakistan has very large elements of radical Islamists, and the nuclear weapons could someday be at risk.”

Mr. Gingrich said a realist would forecast that 10 years from now there would be more countries, not fewer, possessing nuclear weapons.

“Proliferation is more likely than nuclear disarmament,” he said, adding that if he were in the Oval Office, he would have military and civilian leaders develop “a much more realistic national security approach to the dangers of nuclear weapons in hostile hands.”