They tried Cuba in the 60s, didnt work that well.
It didn't work that well because America was in a different place and were powerful and had not just lost 30 million people and had most of its urban and rural areas destroyed with scorched earth policies by both sides of a world war.
The Soviets were also in a different place on the back foot and behind in building weapons... the opposite to now.
Russia could ship thousands of 5,000km range low flying subsonic stealthy cruise missiles in standard 80 foot shipping containers in their thousands and the US would have no idea till they were in place and ready to use.
North Korea already have nukes, and giving them missile technology could backfire.
Hahahaha... most of the new technology Iran and North Korea are displaying is based on technology they bought from the Ukraine whom the west wanted to give nuclear weapons and you talk about backfire?
Iran is almost going thrue a people revolution, maby the regime is gone in a year.
Maybe sinking a few US carriers and some EU carriers might save the regime...
The discussion you yourself brought up, is about basing US nuclear weapons on Finnish and Swedish soil.
Yes... America exposing its brand new allies to nuclear retaliation by Russia for the potential loss of the few hundred US personnel that would be on the bases... a trade they would be happy to make every day of the week... who gives a **** about Finland or Sweden?
From neutral to target practise... that is real progress... and it will only cost you billions to build walls and buy F-35s and US LCS ships... and maybe a Zumwalt destroyer each...