MatthewCraffey.com

U.S. Policy towards North Korea and Iran

In an age of globalization and interdependence the threat of nuclear proliferation is seen as the top priority to many nations. The fear of a weapon of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands is always looming in today’s world. Ironically, Iran and North Korea have been attempting to develop nuclear weapons, adding to the possibility mentioned above. President Bush, in 2001, declared that “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.” In this paper we are going to discuss and assess America’s policies regarding Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.

Iran
By: Matthew Craffey

From 1953 to 1979, the United States and Iran enjoyed a strong political and economic alliance. The United States helped install Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a dictator who was friendly to the U.S., to replace the democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq. Through U.S. and British bribery of Iranian officials, and through CIA assistance to retired Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi, the anti-Mosaddeq coalition successfully carried out regime change in Iran. While the United States support of democracy is well known, this incident was a high-profile example that supporting democracy sometimes takes a back seat to economic interests, in this case, oil (1953 Iranian coup d'état, Wikipedia).

While it was the British who eventually convinced the United States that regime change was in the best interests of both countries (Truman refused to go along with the coup idea, but Eisenhower was ultimately swayed), it was the United States who received the eventual “blowback.” On April 1, 1979, Iran was officially no longer a monarchy and ally of the United States. Through human rights abuses by the Shaw, a lack of leadership and support by President Jimmy Carter, a popular uprising lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini, and an Iranian populace still resentful from U.S. interference in its affairs, Iran officially became the Islamic Republic of Iran through a national referendum 29 years ago. (Iranian Revolution, Wikipedia).

The U.S. maintained its embassy in Iran after the change in leadership, but only 6 months later on November 4, 1979, 52 U.S. Embassy officials were taken hostage. The ensuing Iranian Crisis lasted 444 days, likely cost President Carter his 1980 re-election bid, and has set the course for U.S.-Iranian relations ever since (Iran Hostage Crisis, Wikipedia). Since the hostage crisis, the U.S. has had no formal relations with Iran. The two countries communicate through Switzerland, when they have to at all. The U.S. believes that direct talks and relations with Iran will only serve to legitimize and give credibility to the tyrannical regime. The rhetoric between the two countries has been caustic as well. Iran has referred to the U.S. as “The Great Satan”, and the U.S. views Iran as a member of the “Axis of Evil.” Only recently have high level Iranian and U.S. officials, sat at a negotiating table together, and that’s to discuss the security situation in Iraq. Any other topics of discussion are off the table according to the Bush administration, such as Iran’s nuclear program, as it believes those are matters best suited for the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA, the U.N.’s nuclear watch-dog agency.

The intentions of Iran’s nuclear program, and its support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militia groups in Iraq, have become the biggest stumbling blocks to improved relations between the two countries. The U.S. and EU have successfully lobbied the U.N. Security Council for heavy economic sanctions against Iran, in the hopes that sanctions will change the Iranian’s behavior. The results appear mixed. President Bush’s heavy rhetoric against Iran, may have helped remove the more moderate President Mohammad Khatami from power, and unite hard-line conservatives in Iran to elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, there are signs that Ahmadinejad’s anti-west rhetoric, defiance of the U.N. and subsequent sanctions, are costing him politically, both with the Iranian people and within the Iranian Parliament.

Iran claims it is not funding Shiite militias in Iraq, though the U.S. military have compiled a healthy list of Iranian weapons, and member’s of Iran’s military inside Iraq, to make a fairly convincing claim to the contrary. When accused of aiding and arming Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups who have committed terrorist acts against Israel and Lebanon, Iran points out that these organizations also provide aide to many, including poor Palestinians who are desperately in need. For sure, as U.S. influence in the region has diminished through the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Iran has swept in to fill the vacuum by providing financial, political, and military support to groups and countries that need it. Again, it’s a delicate balance, and many in Iran are none too happy with their money being spent outside of Iran. It’s hard to say how long Iran can keep this up, or if this might cost Ahmadinejad his re-election in 2009.

The biggest issue of contention though, is Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. views a nuke in the hands of Iran one of the biggest threats to stability in the middle-east, particularly Israel. The U.S. takes Ahmadinejad’s threat of “wiping Israel off the map” very seriously, and so does most of the west. Iran claims their nuclear program is a matter of national pride and that it’s only for “peaceful energy purposes”, not for building a weapon. But the U.S. questions why a country that is so rich in oil would need a nuclear energy program? If Iran has a nuclear energy program, the U.S. argues a weapon could not be far behind, unless the IAEA has full access to Iran’s nuclear capabilities to monitor its activities. Again, two very different perspectives emerge. Iran claims it has fully complied with the IAEA. The U.S. claims it has not. It’s difficult to know who is telling the truth.

Noori Jafarian, a Thousand Oaks resident who was born in Esfahan, Iran, and also lived in Tehran most of her life, has a mixed view of U.S.-Iranian relations. She came to the United States in 1993, and still has family in Iran, including her son, who keeps a fascinating photo blog of life in Iran at www.lifegoesonintehran.com. While Noori dislikes the Ahmadinejad government, and believes the 1979 Revolution was bad for Iran, she believes the U.S. treatment of Iran since, especially when compared to how it treats other similar or worse regimes, has been unhelpful to changing the government of Iran for the better, and has also been hypocritical. “U.S. is friends with many a great dictator for as long as those dictators benefit its own interests. Ironically, the countries who are considered “allies” of the United States host a more anti-American population (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Iranian people are the most pro-American people in the Middle East. A poll conducted recently by an established news organization found that 75% of Iranians were pro-American and that a majority were in favor of re-establishing a relationship with the U.S. Ask any American who has visited Iran in recent years and you will find that they often have very fond memories of how they were received by hospitable Iranians. I think the two countries are more alike than different.”

Noori doesn’t believe U.S. economic sanctions have been good, as they have shifted the Iranian people’s focus from trying to change their government, to trying to put food on the table. When asked what she would recommend the U.S. do to improve relations she said “The US should first and foremost gain the trust of most Iranians by acknowledging a few mistakes in its foreign policy over the course of history. It should also start a dialogue without any pre-conditions, as suggested by Senator Barak Obama.” When asked if she agreed with the Iranian government’s funding and support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq she says “No. They should instead help the Iranian people and help solve domestic issues, specially the Iranian economy.” Lastly, she says she doesn’t know if Iran is building a nuclear weapon, but fears just as much that Israel will convince the U.S. in getting into an unprovoked war with Iran. She thinks diplomacy and dialogue will be the key to solving this dispute.

The United States has simply wasted too many years stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the rightful existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If Reagan could meet with Gorbachev, if Nixon could meet with Mao Zedong, our next president should meet with the president of Iran. While I don’t believe we should accept or forget the awful human rights record of the Iranian government towards its people, or its possible nefarious intentions for the region, U.S. foreign policy should always be consistent. If we have relations with countries such as China, and Saudi Arabia, and yet not with Iran, it only makes it look like the U.S. can afford to not work through our difference with Iran, or that Iran isn’t important enough to U.S. interests. The best way to encourage change, is to remove any ability by the Iranian government to paint the U.S. as an evil, imperialist bully. Our best asset in changing the government of Iran, is the people of Iran. They among the best educated populace in the world, and by far the most moderate in populace in the region. In the past, they’ve adopted many aspects of western culture, from our music and movies, to the clothes we wear. Persians view themselves as separate from the extremist Arab elements that have permeated many other areas in the Middle-East. The United States must always remember this, and be incredibly careful in not appearing to view Iran as some back-wards, primitive, society, that’s not worth having relations with. Being respectful, and playing to the Iran’s best hopes and dreams is our best way of influencing change.

More specifically, we need to use soft power to influence Iran. Making the U.S. way of life more appealing to Iranians through economic support and trade (and subsequent exportation of our culture), and through recognition of their government and culture would go a long way towards changing our image there. I would also suggest that the U.S. President, and Secretary of State, meet with their Iranian counterparts to discuss a series of things there might be some agreement on, as well as a few tougher issues that might take some years of negotiation before they are resolved. At least it would begin laying the foundation for a resolution in the future. I would make the meetings every six months, or more often as needed to hold each other accountable in their progress and responsibilities related to normalizing relations between the two countries. If needed, the Swiss should be brought in to mediate and verify what was discussed in the negotiations. Part of this process must be removing economic sanctions. This process should be gradual, but enough so that the Iranians notice a real improvement in their economy and lives. The flipside should be that the Iranians must once again allow a U.S. embassy to be present in Iran, and also to allow American businesses to operate in Iran. The current ban on western movies, clothes, and music must be lifted. A return of western products and values to Iran would likely do more to change life for the better in Iran than military action ever could. Future negotiations should touch on human rights issues and allowing human rights monitors into the country, as well as bench-marks for respecting civil liberties, in return for more trade and for more power at the U.N.

As for claims regarding Hamas and Hezbollah’s public service, the United States can offer to fund a joint task force with the Iranians, aimed at alleviating poverty in the region. This would be the best way to call Iran out on its claimed commitment to the poor. If it won’t go along with the idea, then it shows the world once and for all, helping the poor is not the objective of Hamas and Hezbollah, and at that point, the moral credibility is on the United States for offering this assistance. If Iran does support this idea, Hamas and Hezbollah can begin becoming politically and economically irrelevant to the region, and the U.S. and Iran can begin working together on something that could be beneficial to millions of people who need help.

Lastly, Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. should offer to assist the Iranians in building a nuclear energy plant, providing the fuel, and also having full access to make sure they are not building a nuclear weapon. In return, the U.S. can sign a security agreement stating that the U.S./European Missile Defense Shield coverage will be extended to Iran, making the defensive need for a nuclear weapon no longer necessary. If each country continues to meet its obligations, I believe a normalization of relations can and should occur.

North Korea
By Paul Dilger

The relationship between North Korea and the United States was developed during the Cold War. Since then, the United States has had a presence in South Korea and its eye on the North. Lately the main focus has been around the United States suspicion of the North Korean nuclear programs. This has been a critical point in regards to the United States foreign policy towards North Korea. To fully understand America’s current policy we must take a look at the events that lead up to today.

During the Cold War, the United States had nuclear weapons aimed at North Korea. It was believed that the United States could use Nuclear Deterrence to hinder any possible out break of war. In 1985 North Korea signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear country. The United States concern of possible nuclear weapons started when a nuclear reactor at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center was completed in 1986. Another larger reactor was being built at the same. The smaller plant produced enough material to manufacture one new bomb per year; if completed, the larger plant could have created enough for ten each years (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

On April 10, 1993, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in doing so refused to allow U.N. inspectors access to its nuclear sites. After 89 days North Korea suspended its withdrawal, voiding their exit of the NPT. In 1994 the United States and North Korea signed the “Agreed Framework.” North Korea agreed to stop its plutonium production program in exchange for the U.S. and South Korea to provide oil, fuel, economic cooperation, and the construction of two new light-water nuclear power plants. North Korea failed to report how much plutonium they possessed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This was a requirement of the Agreed Framework. Back and fourth disputes over the Agreed Framework caused the United States to withdraw from giving North Korea two light-water power plants. This caused North Korea to begin using the old reactors once again in 2002.

George W. Bush announced his opposition to the Agreed Framework during his candidacy. After he was inaugurated in 2001 Bush stated that he would start talks again with North Korea. After September 11th, 2001, Bush declared North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil,” arming to threaten the peace of the world. In 2003, North Korea unfroze its plutonium plants and officially withdrew from the NPT.

The “six party talks” was multilateral meetings between six of the most prominent countries related to North Korean nuclear programs. The first was held in 2003 in Beijing. The six party talks are what molded America’s foreign policy towards North Korea today.

Current American Policy

The United States aim is still the full dismantlement of all North Korea's nuclear capabilities. In 2006 North Korea declared that they had successfully tested their first nuclear bomb. The United States went to the U.N. to push for stricter economic sanctions on North Korea. These were put in place and followed by most countries (China and Russia did accept the sanctions). The six party talks resumed in 2007 and laid out a framework that both parties have agreed on. These include:

North Korea will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil for shutting down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, which produces enough plutonium for one atom bomb each year.
Another 950,000 tons of oil has been promised once the reactor has been "disabled".
The United States said they will discuss taking North Korea off of the state sponsored terrorism list
North Korea will let IAEA inspectors in to clarify the removal of the nuclear reactor in Yongbyon

The basic underlying tone for the current United States foreign policy towards North Korea is one that exemplifies action-reward conditions. If North Korea takes action on denuclearizing there territory the Unites States rewards them with economic incentives. With any foreign policy their must be domestic and international factors that support the governments actions. Some of these factors that are used to justify U.S. non-proliferation policy towards these countries include:

A nuclear North Korea would destabilize the region. South Korea does not have nuclear weapons and Japan considers North Korea an imminent threat. Joan Moon, a leader in the American-Korean community, believes that “another conflict is going to happen, dealing with North Korea, if their nuclear program does not be stopped” (Moon).
Looming memories of the Korean War in the U.S. causes uneasiness in dealing with North Korea.
North Korea is a communist country. A nuclear alliance with their trading partners China and Russia is a daunting thought.
The worry that North Korea would sell nuclear material to terrorist organizations.
North Korean leadership is known to be unstable. Nuclear weapons in the hands of an erratic man do not sit well with the international community.

America’s stance on North Korea’s nuclear programs is helping serve our goal of limiting nuclear proliferation. The United States has battled throughout the years too disarm nuclear reactors and get rid of weapon grade plutonium. The U.S. has issued economic sanctions and threats of war. Without full scale warfare, the U.S. has done all it can to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons.

Policy Recommendations

The United States action-reward approach is the only way to keep North Korea involved in denuclearizing their country. North Korea has been using threats of nuclear warfare for political purposes for many years. The United States has used economic sanctions and threats of it own to counter. Though normalized relations seem to be on both countries priorities neither foreign policy is perfect. The United States could take some more action in denuclearizing North Korea. Some of the actions United States should take are:

Create multilateral programs that help the North Korean economy and social development. These programs should be readily able to be put in place if denuclearization does occur.
The United States needs to have a three party talk with Russia and China. All three countries (U.S., Russia, and China) are economically dependent on each other. The three nations must come up with a consensus revolving around North Korea’s nuclear programs.
The United States must continue going through multilateral unions when dealing with North Korea. This will carry more weight and global backing.
Once the steps have been made towards denuclearization, the U.S. needs to start slowly removing troops from South Korea. Strong countries in that region could fill the void and become the peace keepers.

These policy recommendations tend to lean towards the action-reward policy that we currently are applying. Creating multilateral programs that will benefit North Korea’s economy and social structures are a great incentive for denuclearizing. This could possibly lead to another trading partner in the future. An agreement with China and Russia would help the effectiveness of economic sanctions, if North Korea does not comply with denuclearizing. The process of removing American troops from South Korea will be a very slow procedure but is needed. American peace keeping in the region has cost billions dollars and countless amounts of our troops. Not only would the withdraw start better relations with North Korea but possibly show the international community that we are moving away from our controlling tendencies. The troop removal will also bolster public opinion in America. Something our government desperately needs.

Works Cited

1953 Iranian coup d'état. (N.D.) Retrieved April 12, 2008 from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Iranian Revolution. (N.D.) Retrieved April 12, 2008 from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

Iran Hostage Crisis. (N.D.) Retrieved April 12, 2008 from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

Moon, Joan P.O. Box 124484 Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322,
KASCONatEmory@gmail.com.

Noori Jafarian, 28509 Canwood Street Agoura Hills, CA 91301, (818) 889-6531,
noorijafarian@yahoo.com

Weapons of Mass Destruction." Global Security. 28 Apr. 2205. 11 Apr. 2008
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-plutonium.htm.

Back to list.