Among the George W Bush administration’s not-finest hours,the detonation by North Korea of its first atomic device in October 2006 standsout. It occurred after a failure of will by the administration to convince therogue regime that it could defy America’s commitment to nuclearnonproliferation only at a very steep price. In fact, there was none. The resultwas North Korea’s test in 2009 of an atomic weapon as powerful as the bomb thatdevastated Hiroshima in 1945.
North Korea is not Iran. It does not directly threaten aneighbor with annihilation, or project the likelihood of destabilisation of itsregion as a nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable Iran would do in the Middle East.But there is a similarity. North Korea’s rush to the bomb was motivated, aboveall, by a despotic regime’s desire to provide itself with a weapon of lastresort that could insure its permanence. Like North Korea, the paramount goalof Iran’s nuclear drive is making its theocracy an enormously dangerous targetfor those who might challenge the mullahs’ rule as a menace to peace.
With hindsight, it is not unfair to say that when North Korea’satomic push came to America’s non-shove, Pyongyang showed more determinationthan the Bush administration. Or to ask now if Iran’s will to persevere may begreater than the Obama administration’s intent to block Tehran “ not just fromgetting a bomb, but as helpmate to the murderous dictatorship in Syria, and insupplying missiles to the forces of Hamas and Hezbollah. US determination isthe crucial concept. It is not unmistakably present in military or diplomaticterms.
Sen. Carl Levin, who is chairman of the Armed ServicesCommittee, has brought the question of America’s resolve to the forefront.Referring to the link joining the Middle East’s most recent outbreaks ofviolence, he said that President Obama “has got to point out that behind all ofthis is Iran.” The administration must “keep pulling the world together againstIran. That’s the source of the problem,” said Levin.
It doesn’t take terribly deep reading to believe that theDemocratic senator, in contrast to the administration’s hesitancy, wassignaling the futility of trying to separate the nuclear issue from the rest ofIran’s aggressive behavior. An overall approach, involving direct US pressureon Syria, would provide maximum leverage at a point where the Iranians couldhave the enriched uranium needed to produce a nuclear weapon in three or fourmonths.
George Perkovich, director of the nuclear policy program ofthe Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, addressed the issuedifferently. Referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, hesaid: “The ayatollah is not going to believe any swearing off regime change,and the problem with such a pledge from the American side is it wouldn’t betrue in the general sense.”
“We want Iran to evolve from a theocracy to a tolerant democracy.But we could swear off coercive, often covert, actions to bring about regimechange, in return for a satisfactory nuclear deal.”
I cannot imagine the US Congress, which has been far moreaggressive than Obama on Iran, acquiescing to a nuclear deal (perhaps a badone) hinging on a promise from the Americans to sit on their hands in the faceof the mullahs’ increasingly overt military involvement in Syria and Gaza.
That’s giving away a piece of the United States’ militarycredibility “ and in the process bolstering Iran’s doubt about America’sdetermination to use force to stop its drive toward nuclear weapons.
In Europe, a high official from a country with a presence inIran, said the Iranians would do well to note that “never before has there beensuch massive American military capacity in their region” “ but also that hebelieved the regime “wants to see” Obama as weak.
Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at JohnsHopkins University, in a conversation at the recent Halifax Security Forum, madea similar judgment. He said he thinks the Iranian position going forward willreflect a lack of fear of the United States “ which fit his own estimate of a“one in four” possibility of an American strike. North Korea re-enters thediscussion at this point. Noting Obama’s repeated assertion during hisre-election campaign that a containment policy is inadequate to control theIranian nuclear threat, Gideon Rose, editor of Foreign Affairs, has questionedwhether the president will “live up to that pledge” or “do what George W Bushdid on North Korea, which is sort of conveniently forget that we actually wereopposed to North Korea going nuclear.”
His expectation is the administration will try to “keep thecan being kicked down the road for as long as possible.” Which is hardly equalto a clear demonstration of American willfulness about Iran. Its absence handsover to others what should be an outcome controlled by America with the supportof its allies.
Failing a show of US resolve, the Israelis, just like theIranians, must confront their own instincts about Obama’s intentions “ thistime perhaps, with some finality, as soon as a new Israeli government is formedearly next year.
John Vinocur is senior correspondent at the InternationalHerald Tribune, reporting on matters ranging from politics and economics tosports and culture in Europe, Asia and the United States
