Success in North Korea is Test Run for Iran
The standard meme about the Bush administration from its critics has been consistent ever since 2001 — the administration is charged with arrogance implemented through a swaggering unilateralism. Critics highlight the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Kyoto treaties as key exhibits to support their indictment. The Iraq war was criticized on many different fronts, but none more strongly than the claim of unilateralism. More recently, critics — particularly those among the more virulently paranoid wings of the blogosphere – have fixated on Iran as the next looming disaster in Bush administration foreign policy. The specific scenarios have varied, but the common theme is that the Bush administration will supposedly seek some pretext to attack Iran before it leaves office.
Such criticisms are somewhat understandable, particularly in light of the early tendency of the administration to swagger and the continuing assertions by so-called “neocons” like William Kristol, John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz openly advocating an assault against Iran’s growing nuclear infrastructure. Images of President Bush in a flight suit backed up by a “Mission Accomplished” banner built a powerful narrative that is tough to shake with more mundane and often behind-the-scenes realities. The criticisms nonetheless completely miss a key fact — that the Bush administration has begun building a clear record of multilateralism. Exhibit A for the defense is North Korea.
American political analysis often has the memory of a gypsy moth. Few bother to remember, for example, that “regime change” in Iraq was adopted as U.S. policy by the Clinton administration in 1998 with not a infamously aggressive “neocon” anywhere in sight at the time. And even fewer may recall that North Korea has been the definitive “rogue state” for decades before that. Unlike with Iraq and Iran, North Korea’s support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons has been consistent and the data incontrovertible. In 1983, North Korean agents attempted to assassinate the South Korean president, killing 19 lesser officials with timed bombs. Only four years later, in a bid to disrupt the Seoul Olympics, North Korea sponsored the bombing of a commercial airline flight, killing 115. North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was the subject of confrontation with the Clinton administration in 1994, culminating in a deal awarding North Korea oil and the promise of a light-water nuclear reactor in exchange for its termination of its weapons program. Kim Jong Il’s regime continued, however, to aggressively develop and test long-range missile programs and eventually returned to nuclear weapons development, actually conducting a small nuclear explosion in October, 2006. Economic sanctions placed on North Korea were undermined by extensive smuggling and outright flaunting, especially across North Korea’s long border with China. Contrary to the standard memes, North Korea was not a problem invented or exacerbated by the Bush administration.
Contrary to predictions derived from the assumption of a militaristic and unilateral Bush administration, however, the United States did not respond to North Korea’s blatant provocations with “shock and awe”, but rather by exploiting shock and dismay in the region. Long North Korea’s sponsor and minder, China was embarrassed by Kim’s provocative nuclear test. Deftly exploiting the resulting diplomatic opening, the United States bought China on board in support of a sanctions package that would actually have bite. With nearly all of its power production dependent upon oil imported through China and with Kim himself inconvenienced by a loss of treasured luxury items, North Korea was brought to heel with remarkable rapidity. As of today, North Korea is in the process of dismantling its nuclear program under international supervision.
This success in North Korea has been largely ignored by Bush administration critics. It flies against their standardized narratives of an out-of-control cowboy president who wants to bomb everything in sight. And Iran, they argue, is a different case anyway, where Bush is more likely to order an attack in an attempt to declare martial law or fulfill some other apocalyptic scenario. Little evidence is presented in support of such scenarios, of course, because an assumption of infinite malevolence has risen to the status of religious dogma among many segments of the left. But the techniques used in North Korea are much more typical of the administration’s approach to Iran than fuming caricatures from the BDS brigades. Since 2004, the administration has allowed the European Union to take the lead in confronting Iran over its nuclear program. The administration has sometimes played “bad cop” by ostensibly keeping the military option on the table, but there is little reason to believe that anyone in the Department of Defense has an interest in pushing for it to actually be used. And senior administration policymakers including the President himself have repeatedly declared that the diplomatic route remains the administration’s strategy. The demonic “warmonger” image promoted by critics from the left is simply not accurate.
Questions from conservatives (neo- and paleo- alike) have arisen, however, challenging the notion that the North Korean model can be successfully applied to Iran. The argument is that Iran is not subject to the same kinds of pressure that were deployed against North Korea by China. Furthermore, some believe that Iran is led by a theocratic regime that may even be willing to embrace suicide in order to bring about the nuclear destruction of Israel.
These conservative criticisms seem poorly targeted, however. Iran is, in fact, even more vulnerable to external pressure than North Korea was. Where North Korea was isolated and vulnerable only to China’s threat to withhold patronage, Iran seeks integration with the world economy. Its rhetoric of religious extremism has not been matched by actions of retrenchment or self-isolation akin to Kim’s radical attempts at autarky. Furthermore, unlike North Korea, Iran specifically and consistently disavows publicly any intention to pursue weaponization of its nuclear technology. These differences make it more likely to be open to diplomatic engagements and vulnerable to economic pressures.
It is true, of course, that Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad has thus far been obstreperously recalcitrant on the nuclear issue, proclaiming Iran’s “right” to fully master the nuclear fuel cycle. These outbursts need to be kept in their proper context, however. Ahmadinejad exists in a politically tenuous position in Iranian politics, and his proclamations may well be merely posturing designed to enhance his stature by positioning him as the brave hero standing up to the West. Moreover, mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle is not dispositive evidence of an intention to build nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad has, in fact, specifically denied any intention of weaponization and such a claim would be easy to verify since Iran would likely be unable to weaponize without at least some testing program that would be easily detectable. Given the rising price of oil and Iran’s desire to build capital for economic diversification and development, it may well be true that Iran seeks only the ability to develop a civilian nuclear power program as is its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The matter at issue is clarifying Iran’s intentions rather than confronting its ambitions. Conservatives who press for military confrontation and the rejection of diplomacy are guilty of the “fallacy of the hammer“, viewing every problem as having the same military solution.
And thus far, it appears that the Bush administration is trying to build on its success in North Korea, proving its critics on the left guilty of pure paranoia and its conservative critics guilty of hasty judgment and a lack of imagination.
Excuse me, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. It was the Bush administration that RENEGED on the 1994 Agreed Framework discussion with North Korea in the first place, and has only now decided to make the necessary concessions to obtain this "success".
And this has very little to do with Iran. Unlike North Korea, Iran’s nuclear program operates under full IAEA safeguards and is perfectly legal, with no evidence whatsoever of any weapons program.
Good post Jason. Behavioral point for all. We change our behavior based on positive reinforcement. If one "side" is upset about the "other side’s" approach to a problem, they should respond POSITIVELY when the "other side" changes and gets somewhat more in line with what they’d like to see. Both Democrats and Republicans instead are notorious for the "yes but…" response (or the "its too late" response).
Call me naive but its seem parties are more interested in partisan politics than accomplishment.
My research indicates otherwise, but it is beside the point. Those assessing current Bush administration behavior would be best advised to focus on current Bush administration behavior rather than fixating on unproven allegations and presumptions about past behavior and indulging in the usual BDS narratives.
This is an assertion reflecting incomplete information. It is true that parts of Iran’s program operate under IAEA inspections, but the whole controversy arose in 2004 because of the discovery that Iran had been concealing some portions of its nuclear program from the IAEA. Thus, Iran is under a legitimate obligation to provide reassurances that such suspicious behavior will not be repeated in the future, especially given its president’s bellicose rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map. It is true, however, that Iran has not made only provable moves towards weaponization of nuclear technology. In fact, if you had bothered to read the whole post before commenting, you might have noticed that I already said that.
It is good that this article has noted the fact that no evidence of weaponisation has been found in Iran, despite the whole country and its nuclear industry being under a microscope for years. But, it is a pity that the oft-quoted, yet mistranslated, threat to "wipe Israel off the map" is carried here too. Ahmadinejad did NOT make this threat. You can see what he said on the internet, including here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, the one country it would definitely NOT nuke would be Israel. Iran’s point of contention with Israel is the dispossession of Palestinians, and any nuclear attack on Israel would inevitably obliterate the Palestinians too! How can one side of Jerusalem be vaporized for the "liberation" of the other! Plus, Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest place! Could the Islamic Republic destroy it in the name of wrenching it from Zionist occupiers?
Iran does not have a history of attacking other states. It has not invaded any of its neighbours for at least 200 years, unlike the USA and Israel which have attacked ALL their neighbours!This statement, falsely translated, and repeated out of context, has become an instrument in the propaganda war against Iran. So, Jason, please check its veracity, before you use it again. A lie, no matter how many times repeated, is still a lie.
Jason, do you remember the story where an IAEA official accidentally came upon someone in the Iranian administration that had the blueprints to build a nuclear warhead? Couldn’t find the story on a google search but it was about 8 months ago.
In addition, is it possible for the intelligence community to see in time Iran converting its excess fissile materal into a warhead? If they miss this, would Iran not have a stronger bargaining chip when it sits at the table to normalize relations with the United States?
I am aware of the claims that Ahmadinejad was misquoted or mistranslated. Unfortunately, his frequent repetition of anti-Israel comments makes it impossible for me to adopt a completely benign interpretation of his intentions. The belligerence of his statements requires the U.S. to at least act as if it is possible that Iran has aggressive or genocidal intentions. I believe the U.S. should seek to clarify Iran’s intentions and be open to less negative interpretations of Iran’s behavior, but Iran also has a duty to do more to be reassuring than it has been so far.
And do I believe Iran or other enemies of Israel would kill some Palestinians in order to fulfill a genocidal program against the Jews? Yes, I believe it is at least possible. While the Palestinians are useful as rhetorical devices, there is little evidence that Israel’s enemies actually care about them as people. Indeed, Palestinian Arabs that live within Israel have more rights and more safety than Palestinian Arabs that live in any of the Muslim states in the region. And many of those states have long records of seeming to prefer that the Palestinians be kept destitute, miserable, and even vulnerable to killing in order to maintain their rhetorical usefulness as evidence of how allegedly bad the Jews are.
Also, this is an exaggeration:
Iran has, in fact, concealed some portions of its nuclear program (the original source of concern was the 2004 discovery that it had been doing so) and has continued to episodically place limits on IAEA inspections of some facilities ever since then. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to kick out IAEA inspectors entirely. As I have said before, it is true that the U.S. has an obligation to note carefully the lack of evidence to support the worst of beliefs about Iranian intentions, but there is also a duty on the part of Iran to note carefully the mixed signals that it keeps sending by its behavior.
You are misremembering the story. What was determined is that A.Q. Khan apparently had spread such a design into his distribution network. It is unknown who, if anyone, had downloaded it.
It also does not matter if Iran had a copy. They would still need to test the design in a specific configuration before they could be sure to have an effective weapon. Nothing says “ah crap” like shooting off one of your secret, untested nuclear warheads only to have it turn out to be a dud attached to a missile incapable of carrying it or releasing it with precision. This would be particularly necessary if they sought to build a significantly large number of weapons. One or two warheads isn’t likely to shift the balance of power much at all — they would need to weaponize dozens AND have a matched and tested delivery system before a threat would be imminent. There are several points in that process that would require testing that would be detectable, both by IAEA inspectors and by U.S. global monitoring systems.
It is extremely unlikely, even impossible, that Iran could weaponize into a usable system without being detected. And if they did so in spite of their repeated disclaimer of weapon intentions, it would do far more to damage their ability to negotiate with the United States than to enhance it, as the North Korean case shows. Also, remember that when India and Pakistan weaponized their nuclear capability, the result was a huge (though temporary) decrease in their relations with the United States. I also would say that Iran would all but certainly lose its relationship with Russia under such a scenario. It is also certain that nuclear weaponization by Iran would lead many other Gulf States to either move closer to the United States or seek deterrent capabilities of their own. Thus, Iran has few incentives to weaponize, objectively speaking.
The only benefit that Iran might achieve from nuclear weaponization is the potential for an enhanced threatening position against Israel and, by extension, an increased stature in the region as well as a potential for deterring the U.S. against a “regime change” policy. The possibility that Iranian policymakers might be overestimating the value of such benefits can best be addressed diplomatically. Attempting to address such possibilities militarily has the perverse effect of exacerbating them while doing nothing to actually solve the problem.
Nothing says “ah crap” like shooting off one of your secret, untested nuclear warheads only to have it turn out to be a dud
As North Korea can attest.
admin: Off-topic BDS hijacking/spamming deleted. Do it again and you’re banned.
Key background information about IAEA issues with and inspections in Iran can be found here.
The key passage documenting what I said is this:
The IAEA’s own report on the findings that led to the beginning of the confrontation in 2003 can be found here.
The key passage is this:
More background information can be found here.
The most important point is that the entire controversy originated in 2003 (not 2004, like I had recalled previously) when the IAEA discovered that Iran had concealed some elements of its nuclear program from inspections. The IAEA then demanded that Iran sign on for an additional inspections protocol that Iran has yet to fully implement. Thus, Iran has played a part in producing the crisis and continues to exacerbate it by sending belligerent and mixed signals. No amount of BDS bloviating or regurgitated conspiracy theories from the 1980s can alter the fact that there is fault to be found on both sides of the US-Iran confrontation over nuclear technology.
Jason, Please do not lump Iran with the rest of the "region" when it comes to support of Palestinians. The now dead Jordanian King Hussein was a keen murderer of Palestinians. To most Arab rulers, a good Palestinian is a deal Palestinian. Unlike Iran, which has paid a huge price for supporting them, although - like most Arabs - they sided with Saddam during his invasion of Iran.
So, how likely is that Iran would obliterate the Palestinians (not just "kill some" as you say), in order to liberate them from Zionist occupation in some nuclear attack?! What for? What then?!
It must also not be forgotten that under Iranian Constitution, the President is not the Commander in Chief and cannot declare wars.
If there is an "existential threat" to Israel, it is not a nuclear attack. It is the demographics. The Israelis know this and that is why they came round to the idea of some kind of "two-state solution". But, that is another subject.
With regards to the Additional Protocol, although Iran did sign it, and even before its ratification by the Parliament implemented its provisions, when it became clear that the West had acted in bad faith and wanted what they first called a "suspension" of enrichment (which Iran observed for nearly 2 years only to be pressured more) to become a permanent, the Parliament understandably refused to ratify it. Iran is under no obligation to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol, although it is willing to do so, if Iran’s case is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA.
If Iran hid some of its procurement activities it was because the dominant powers would not have allowed what Iran was allowed to procure openly. Then, the furtiveness of these efforts are used as a pretext to question Iran’s motives.
We must view Iran’s activities not in a vaccum but in the context of US hostility towards it.
Iran’s position is that it will not submit to any conditions that do not apply to other NTP signatories. It refuses to be singled out.
The Security Council resolutions demand of Iran to go beyond its NPT obligations and rights to secure the "confidence" of the dominant powers. Such intangible notions as "confidence" of hostile powers is not part of Iran’s obligations under NPT, especially those who have refused to disarm and continue to develop new nuclear weapons in breach of their treaty obligations, and whose demands of Iran are never-ending.
This has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad. It is a matter of national sovereignty. Any governtment who signs away these sovereign rights will not last long.
I know most Americans (and nearly all their rulers) have very little interest in history, but to see what happened under parallel conditions in the past to governments that forfeited Iran’s sovereignty to foreign imperialist demands, seach the net for the "Tobacco Movement" and also the US demand for legal immunity of American citizens in Iran, which triggered the Khomeni-led riots in 1961, which eventually led to the Revolution in 1979.
Those days are gone. It is time to accept that Iran exists as a sovereign state, ready and able to defend its rights. As your compatriots say "deal with it".
Jason, further to my comment above, I should explain that when I said "deal with it", I did not mean you personally, as your commentary indicates that you seem to accept this fact. I meant the US Government and its European disciples.
Jason,"I am aware of the claims that Ahmadinejad was misquoted or mistranslated. Unfortunately, his frequent repetition of anti-Israel comments makes it impossible for me to adopt a completely benign interpretation of his intentions." Only in the journalistic culture of he-said-she-said inanity, devoid of easily independently researchable facts could you bandy around preposterous falsehoods such as "wipe off the map". Please see Lost in translation by Jonathan Steele, June 14, 2006http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155There is a reason people hang on to the "aggressive" notion about Iran. It conveniently excuses all current and future plans of aggressions, economic or otherwise, against Iran.As Bahram has indicated, the U.S. either keeps doubling down on failed policies until broke, or disabuses herself of the innuendoes it levels against Iran, and starts dealing with it rationally.For more, see http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/
Jason wrote: American political analysis often has the memory of a gypsy moth. Few bother to remember, for example, that “regime change” in Iraq was adopted as U.S. policy by the Clinton administration in 1998 with not a infamously aggressive “neocon” anywhere in sight at the time. Actually, plenty neocons were very much in sight. Please see http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf
Whoops, one more innuendo. "And do I believe Iran or other enemies of Israel would kill some Palestinians in order to fulfill a genocidal program against the Jews? Yes, I believe it is at least possible."Jason, it would take up no more words to correctly describe Iran’s attitudes as anti-zionist not "against jews"According to the BBC:“Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel." Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm