North Korea poses a far greater danger than Iraq. And yet the Bush administration prepares for war within weeks against Iraq, while relying on threats and name-calling and a possible air strike in dealing with North Korea. Iraq’s nukes are probably several years in the future. North Korea is believed to have a couple already, perhaps having secretly diverted nuclear material for weapons, and can produce them routinely within months. And North Korea, fearing U.S. “pre-emptive attack,” is considering a pre-emptive attack of its own against the United States.

True, the crisis is largely North Korea’s doing. It violated a 1994 agreement by getting nuclear technology from Pakistan and starting up its nuclear plants. But the United States stalled on its promise to provide energy assistance and move toward economic cooperation and eventual diplomatic recognition, deluded by the wishful thinking that North Korea’s economy and government would soon collapse. The question is what to do now.

Name-calling (Mr. Bush denounced the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, as a “pygmy” and said he loathed him) and escalating threats haven’t worked. United Nations sanctions would fare no better. A try at third-party intervention failed when China declined to bring pressure on Pyongyang.

The Bush administration now is preparing for a possible airstrike against the known nuclear weapons plants, boasting that it could fight both Iraq and North Korea at the same time. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has put long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment within range of North Korea, as a deterrent and for a “military option.” Secretary of State Colin Powell raised the ante recently when he said, “we have no intention of attacking North Korea as a nation” – obvious code for a threat to bomb the nuclear plants.

Any such attack would bring an immediate counterattack by North Korea, probably first against Japan or American military installations and warships in the area. And the Korean peninsula is ready to explode, with troops massed on both sides of the border, including 1 million North Korean soldiers confronting 38,000 U.S. troops.

With bluster having failed and a U.S. military strike problematic, something still must be done soon to head off North Korea’s determination to produce nuclear weapons. Direct face-to-face negotiations are the obvious route toward any possible peaceful solution. But the Bush administration says it will talk only if North Korea first abandons its nuclear plans. And North Korea says it will talk only if the United States first pledges no military action.

In the face of this deadlock, a network of private Korea specialists is urgently devising a possible strategy, but without any blessing from the administration. As the strategy is envisaged, back channels would prepare for direct talks by framing reciprocal promises: As long as the prospective talks continued, North Korea would suspend its development of nuclear weapons and the United States would not attack. Once the direct talks began, some trade-offs would have to start. Washington wants complete abandonment of the North Korean nuclear-weapons effort.

North Korea wants a permanent guarantee against U.S. attack, respect for its sovereignty (that is, no more talk of toppling its regime) and assistance in economic development. This last would include resumed generous and expensive energy and food assistance and help in getting aid from the World Bank.

Such a course would require a policy reversal by the Bush administration and a backing down by the strident North Korean regime. It would require on-site inspection in North Korea. Both sides would thus swallow their pride and make sacrifices. But the alternative looks far worse: a full-scale nuclear North Korea, sparking an East Asian nuclear arms race, or else a long and bloody war enveloping the North Korean peninsula and Japan and no one knows what else.