by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror
The narrow window of opportunity for the West to curb Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions has painted the U.S. into a corner of acting now or never
North Korean leader Kim Jong
Un and U.S. President Donald Trump
|
Photo credit: Reuters, AP  |
North Korea's surprising sixth nuclear test Sunday, which involved an advanced hydrogen bomb, entails
dramatic significance that exceeds the fact the rogue nation now
possesses the capability to leave untold destruction in its wake.
Sunday's test, compounded by Pyongyang's
successful launch last week of an intercontinental ballistic missile
that can reach not just its neighbors South Korea and Japan but also
large parts of the mainland United States illustrates this international
shift and means that the "nuclear club" now has a new member -- a small
and impoverished country that directly and brazenly threatens the U.S.
The question now is what will the United
States -- the threatened party -- do. Much of the blame for this highly
complex situation lies with previous American administrations, which
were averse to using force and, thinking dialogue with North Korea was
possible, favored a diplomatic solution, thus failing to curtail its
nuclear ambitions.
The current situation may still leave the
Americans a narrow window of opportunity in which they could act and
stop North Korea, as it remains unclear whether the rogue nation has, in
fact, succeeded in building a nuclear device that could be mounted on
its intercontinental ballistic missiles. Clearly, even if Pyongyang has
not crossed that line yet, the narrowing window of opportunity is
painting the U.S. into a corner: It must either act now -- right now --
or never. There is no doubt that this is an extremely difficult
decision, especially when the intelligence on North Korea's true
capabilities is thin and unclear.
According to foreign media reports, Israel
faced a similar dilemma about a decade ago, when faced with intelligence
suggesting that Syria was allegedly building a nuclear facility based
on a North Korean model. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert allegedly
ordered the Israeli Air Force to destroy the facility. What would Syrian
President Bashar Assad do today if he had nuclear capabilities? It is
obvious to all that no one would have been able to stop him from using
Syria's nuclear and chemical arsenals, and who knows how many more
innocent civilians would have been made to pay with their lives, because
there is no way to threaten a leader whose country has nuclear weapons.
This comparative scenario, between the failure
to respond that allowed North Korea to obtain powerful nuclear weapons
that can reportedly reach the United States, and denying Assad the
opportunity to develop nuclear military capabilities should guide anyone
who has his eyes on Iran. Tehran is trying to follow Pyongyang's lead,
meaning the 2015 nuclear deal it signed with the P5+1, namely China,
France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, is
about as solid as all the previous nuclear deals North Korea signed with
the U.S.
Nevertheless, there are three important
differences between these two cases: First, as South Korea dreads the
violent reaction of its northern neighbor, Seoul opposes any military
action against Pyongyang, something that cannot be said of Tehran's
neighbors; second, Iran is a much larger and more developed country than
North Korea, and therefore its rehabilitation ability is higher,
meaning that preventing it from resuming nuclear operations would
require more effort than in North Korea's case; and third, as China is
North Korea's neighbor it is impossible to militarily operate in the
region without considering Beijing's response. None of Iran's neighbors
are that powerful, so the West has more leeway with regard to curtailing
Iran.
Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=45095
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment