HOW HALEY CAN PUT N.K. ON THE ROPES

AN America-led resolution toughening sanctions on North Korea was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council Monday. Now policymakers just have to make sure not to learn the wrong lessons by rushing back to the negotiating table. The sanctions will likely pain even the numbest of Kim Jong-un’s henchmen, but the resolution also includes a pro-forma call for a “peaceful and diplomatic” solution to the Korean crisis “through dialogue” with Pyongyang. Almost all council members expressed their hope that such diplomacy will soon replace the ever-increasing pressure on Pyongyang.

After all, no one wants war. And, hey, we have an alternative model. Remember? President Obama increased sanctions on Iran, forced it to come to the negotiation table and cut a deal to temporarily suspend Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Let’s hope this won’t be the North Korea blueprint.

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley tried to convince China and Russia to agree to extra-tough measures, including banning all Pyongyang’s oil imports. Then, like all good negotiators, she compromised.

The result: a ban on 90 percent of all Pyongyang’s exports; a 30 percent reduction in the regime’s ability to import energy products (used for its nuclear and missiles programs); UN states will be authorized to board ships suspected of smuggling arms and banned goods; and new blacklisting of government officials and companies.

“Previous efforts to bring North Korea to the negotiating table have failed,” Haley warned the council, adding: “Today, we are attempting to take the future of the North Korean nuclear program out of the hands of its outlaw regime.”

Haley will have to stand her with the world and, to a degree, respond to internal political pressure.

Not so the Kims. Their governing philosophy, known as “juche,” stresses self-reliance and revels in global isolation. They’d starve their people to death — literally — before disarming. So how could we trust them to abide by a deal?

They haven’t in the past, and they almost surely won’t in the future. So what’s needed isn’t a return to the negotiating table but a series of measures that will build on, not undermine, Haley’s success at the United Nations.

A menu: Beef up missile defenses around South Korea and Japan. Increase subversive ac- ground: Even America’s close allies warned (or begged) Pyongyang to change course and get back to negotiations.

China and Russia went even further, urging a “freeze for freeze”: Kim would promise to suspend his nuclear and missile programs and in return, America would stop deploying anti-missile batteries to the region and end joint naval exercises with our Asian allies.

Haley had one word in response to this suggestion we turn our backs on our Asian allies for a deal with the North: “insulting.”

Some in Washington seemed to hope for renewed talks as well. As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said at Foggy Bottom in August, “We continue to be interested in finding a way to get to a dialogue, but that’s up to” Kim.

Should we be interested in a North Korean version of the Iran nuclear deal?

Iran, too, is an evil regime that was caught cheating time and again, oppresses its people and wreaks havoc on the Mideast. But at least the mullahs seek relations

[The Ki ms would] starve their people to ’ death— literally— before disarming.

tivities to undermine the regime’s authority inside the country. Add pressure on China (which is furious with Kim but wary of a regime collapse) and Russia (which is itching to get into the Korea game to widen its influence and undermine America).

And, yes, we need to have military plans in place for taking out as many North Korean threats as possible if war in the peninsula is inevitable.

Moscow’s UN ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia, told the Security Council Monday about Moscow’s and Beijing’s “four no’s”: No war, no regime change, no reunification of the peninsula and no changes to the 1953 armistice line on the 38th parallel.

We could flip some of these “no’s” to “yeses” and adopt them as desired future goals.

After all, leaving this regime intact is immoral and, worse, it could very soon become extremely hazardous to the health of every American.