I pretty much take it for granted Iran is going to gain a nuclear deterent.

And I think when they get it, they will step up terrorism in Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, and wherever else they think it will enhance their regional power.

The Iraqis would probably need to invade Iran to restart the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranians have much more influence in Iraq now than they had under Saddam. They can use their soft power; they have close religious ties with the Shiite majority there, who in turn wield considerable influence thanks to the rules of democracy.

The North Koreans have also flagrantly violated international law. Even the Chinese agree on that. The Iranians are still in the NPT and really have a credibility problem with the IAEA more than anything really blatant like an attempted test or two. Under the NPT they ought to be allowed to enrich uranium for civilian use, provided they can demonstrate that there is no military intent (other countries do this). The IAEA just doesn’t believe them at the moment. Once they declare military intent then the ground changes a lot. Then you can go after them without worrying about what will replace the NPT.

Iran also sounds a lot like Iraq to a lot of people in democracies and they remember that Iraq was attacked because of their supposed WMD programme. There’s a political cost that you need to weigh up. And don’t forget, the Iranians have something that oils the cogs of the world economy.

Still, I think that if the US does nothing about Iran and things continue as they are, then Israel will be forced to act alone at some point. The question for US policy makers is which is worse, the US acts or Israel acts alone?

Both regimes have painted themselves into a corner with their ideological dogmatism; Iran with the doctrine of the Mahdi and NK with Juche. Neither can compromise with committing ideological suicide. That means one thing on a political level but a completely different thing on the religious level which runs significantly deeper.

Iran is a thornier problem because their Shiite Twelver theology is much more mature and has adherents around the world. NK’s is a homemade syncretist combination of Confucian ancestor worship, Stalinism, and pragmatic adaptation to current events. Every attempt at engagement is a dead end. The ideologies themselves must be attacked with superior polemics and appeal to the masses. That is an information war, not a nuclear one. And as of right now, both regimes have the squishy, relativist morally decadent West vastly outgunned. The West (especially Europe) has largely lost its belief in moral certitude and the afterlife, and therefore sees nothing worth dying for. Both the DPRK and Iran have made pacts with death, and would rather die fighting than compromise dogma.

Until Western democracies renew their own religious and cultural heritage, they will continue to timidly wring their hands over rogue regimes like these that have a commitment to their ideologies, even if the ideologies themselves are doomed to fail.

1. The future of the US is going to be tied to that of Iraq far into the foreseeable future. Most likely, US troops are going to be stationed there indefinitely somewhat like they have been in South Korea. But — even if US troops are somehow pulled out of Iraq, which I give a low probability, the US will still be largely concerned with Iraq’s stability and growth.

Meaning, we won’t just sit back and watch that nation collapse or be overrun (like we were with South Vietnam).

2. Compared to the possibility of NK using military action, it is much easier to picture an Iran with nukes deciding it can resume its war with Iraq. Especially if no or few US troops are on the ground but perhaps even with US troops there.

At minimum, it is LIKELY that an Iran with a proven nuclear deterrent will be as aggressive in trying to destabilize Iraq and cause a revolution like Iran had in 1979 — as it has been in the past in trying to destabilize Israel — or — even more aggressive than North Korea was in trying to do the same in South Korea in the past.

Iran with nukes will mean the US will have to watch as the level of violence in Iraq returns to something like what we saw before The Surge had success. At minimum, we’ll witness more frequent Palestine-type “intifadas”.

The situations with Iran and NK are different, and I don’t assume the approach to both nations should be the same. I just can’t picture well what kind of thinking is crafting the two very different approaches to these two.

For myself, on what armchair novice policy I’d tend to recommend, it seems the differences between Iran and NK would make it a better idea to ratchet up the pressure on Tehran – like OFK and a couple of other commentors mentioned here.

Iran doesn’t have the level of deterrent NK does. Iran isn’t close to NK in being able to offer the same level of destruction as a military response.

Iran isn’t also perceived as offering as much trouble if it were forced to collapse as the North. China and SK are terrified of massive refugee streams pouring over their borders. That level of concern isn’t felt with Iran.

So limited military strikes or a harder line against Iran seems much more possible.

And it is at least arguable that —- the fact Iran doesn’t have nukes yet should give us all the more reason to push them harder before they get them.

Once Iran gets nukes, it will be harder to have a hardline policy with them. Not impossible or even inadvisable, just harder. That is one reason why Tehran wants that deterrent.

I also think the sponsoring of Hamas and Hezbolla should take a major place in forming Iranian policy. Until we are ready to largely abandon Israel as a key ally (which ain’t gonna happen anytime soon – whatever people are saying about Obama’s Middle East policy), the nature of Iranian-sponsored terrorism in the region is a key concern for the US.

But let’s just look at another difference between NK and Iran:

I haven’t considered this much — but it seems to me that nukes in Iran are a much higher cause of concern for the US than in NK. Both are bad but worse with Iran:

Why?

How many of us who pay attention to NK are worried that the North will decide to use nukes as an offensive weapon against Japan or South Korea? And/or, how many of us think North Korea with nukes now believes it can go back to a military option against SK — that it can return to the 1960s and early 70s with its military provocations at the DMZ and similar acts?

Judging by comments over the years — virtually none of us.

NK wants nukes as a deterrent, but it is still so weak economically and socially, it understands it has limits to what provocations it can get away with. It can’t afford to provoke too strong a response from the US and others.

Iran is not in that position. And its hatred of Israel makes a big difference. We have to consider the threats from Iran to Israel are more than idle rhetoric – however much rhetoric might be in play.

I don’t know as much about that region as East Asia, but who among us can picture Iran deciding once it gets nukes, it can easily step up military pressure on Israel and in the region?

I can’t picture a possible situation where NK sets things in motion that eventually lead to a nuclear exchange. It isn’t impossible just so improbable we can set it aside.

I can picture a situation in which Iran makes moves that eventually lead to a nuclear exchange between it and Israel (and maybe the US though much more unlikely).

I haven’t stated this well — but the point is: The fact Iran’s future nukes are significantly more likely than those of NK to have the chance of being used or leading Iran to use its conventional military against Israel and/or other neighbors – again makes it seem that a harder line against Tehran makes more sense before they get the nukes than a harder line against NK.

I guess I can frame this best by saying:

Iran wants nukes because it has long aspired to be the #1 power nation in the region — and it feels it needs to be able to use military provocations or outright attacks in order to exercise the strength of such a top power.

NK just wants to survive and thinks nukes can help it do so.

And considering this with everything else, it at least seems to me that a harder line against Tehran would be the way to go.

Ironically, I think we may soon see Obama act far more unilaterally than Bush did … and get away with it, Scot free. And if that’s best for the interests of our country, even those of us who didn’t vote for Obama should be happy about that.

No one has mentioned the soccer, which is probably because in the grand scheme of things it is unimportant. But what happens if North Korea qualify for the World Cup? People in North Korea are likely to be very pleased if they do. They really looked up for it on Saturday (when they were playing Iran in Pyongyang).

What happens if they don’t qualify for the World Cup? Could be bad news for the regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

By the way, one of the most likely scenarios for North Korea to qualify for the World Cup is through beating New Zealand in Pyongyang.