- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
HANSON: The sum of dual fears
North Korea’s example could intensify Iran’s nuclear menace
Question of the Day
Those who argue for a pre-emptive strike against Iran cannot explain exactly how American planes and missiles would take out all the subterranean nuclear facilities without missing a stashed nuke or two or whether they might as well expand their target lists to Iranian military assets in general. None can predict the fallout on world oil prices, global terrorism and the politically fragile Persian Gulf, other than that it would be uniformly bad.
In contrast, those who favor containment of a nuclear Iran do not quite know how the theocracy could be deterred or how either Israel or the regional Sunni Arab regimes would react to such a powerful and unpredictable neighbor.
The crisis with North Korea offers us a glimpse of what, and what not, to expect should Iran get the bomb. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would gain the attention currently being paid to Kim Jong-un similarly not otherwise earned by his nation’s economy or cultural influence.
We should assume that the Iranian theocracy, like the seven-decade-old Kim dynasty in North Korea, periodically would sound lunatic: threatening its neighbors and promising a firestorm in the region if not eventually in the United States and Europe as well.
An oil-rich, conventionally armed Iran already has used that playbook. When it becomes nuclear, those stale warnings of ending Israel or attacking U.S. facilities in the Persian Gulf will not be laughed off entirely, just as Mr. Kim’s insane diatribes are not so easily dismissed.
North Korea has taught the world that feigned madness in nuclear poker earns either foreign aid or worldwide attention given that even a 99 percent surety of a bluff still can scare Western publics. North Korea is the proverbial nutty failed neighbor who constantly picks on the successful suburbanites next door, on the premise that the neighbors will heed his wild nonsensical threats because he has nothing and they have everything to lose.
Iran could copy Mr. Kim’s model endlessly one week threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map, the next backing down and complaining that problems in translation distorted the actual, less-bellicose communique. The point would not necessarily be to actually nuke Israel (which would translate into the end of Persian culture for a century), but to create such an atmosphere of worry and gloom over the Jewish state as to weaken the economy, encourage emigration and erode its geostrategic reputation.
North Korea is a past master of such nuclear shakedown tactics. At times, Pyongyang has reduced two Asian powerhouses Japan and South Korea to near paralysis. Can the nations that gave the world Toyota and Samsung really count on the American defense umbrella? Should they go nuclear themselves? Can North Korean leadership be bought off continually with foreign aid, or is it really as crazy serious as it sounds?
Iran also would be different from other nuclear rogue states. The West often fears a nuclear Pakistan, given that large parts of its tribal lands are ungovernable and overrun with Islamic radicals. Its government is friendly to the West only to the degree that American aid continues.
Yet the far larger and more powerful India deters nuclear Pakistan. For all the wild talk from the Pakistani government and tribal terrorists, there is general fear in Pakistan that India has superior conventional and nuclear forces. India is also unpredictable and not the sort of nation that can be periodically threatened and shaken down for concessions.
Nor does Iran have a tough master like nuclear China. Even Beijing finally pulls on the leash when its unpredictable North Korean client has threatened to bully neighbors and create too unprofitable a fuss.
Of course, China enjoys the angst that its subordinate causes its rivals. It also sees North Korea as a valuable impediment to a huge, unified and westernized Korea on its borders. That said, however, China does not want a nuclear war in its backyard. That fact ultimately means that North Korea is muzzled once its barking becomes too obnoxious.
A nuclear Iran would neither worry about a billion-person, nuclear, existential enemy nearby like India, nor a billion-person patron like China that would establish red lines to its periodic madness. Instead, Tehran would be free to do and say what it pleased. Its nuclear status would become a force multiplier to its enormous oil wealth and self-acclaimed world leadership of Shiite Muslims.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Get Breaking Alerts
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple
- Sen. Rand Paul pushes 'Economic Freedom Zones' for Detroit
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles