Preventing terrorism and nuclear proliferation are on the top of President Bushs agenda for the next four years, and while we appear to be battling the forces of terror continuously the scale of our fight against nuclear proliferation is dwindling. Unfortunately for the world, the United States commitment to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons has always been half-hearted and lacking in any real means of enforcement. The Clinton administration labored for years to make Pakistan forgo its nuclear program only to be shut down on all fronts. We try to impose sanctions, but other countries break them. We scold these nuclear-ambitious countries with a father-knows-best attitude and while we have had successes with Libya, the fact remains that the current administration now faces significant challenges with North Korea and Iran.

North Korea released this last week and official statement claiming that it has in its possession a handful of nuclear weapons. Intelligence analysts in the United States and in South Korea estimate that the number of warheads is less than five, and despite recent advances in SCUD Missile technology, they believe that the Norths weapons are most likely of the conventional type that would be dropped from a plane. Still, with roughly 850,000 armed troops situated less than fifty miles from Seoul, the potential of a nuclear strike adds a new angle to the situation. All of this has transpired while the United States and China have been trying to persuade North Korea to enter into a round of six-party talks intended to change Pyongyangs position on the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Conceived in 2002, the six-party talks have been given the Bush stamp of approval as the way to prevent disaster on the Korean peninsula, and at the same time the talks have been discredited by North Korea. The North pulled out of the talks because it claimed that the U.S. holds hostile, regime-changing intentions with the North and that if Washington were to offer bilateral meetings that it would be a signal that the U.S. is willing to commit to a meaningful process. Despite this, the White House still believes that since North Koreas neighbors view this as a regional problem that the best way to solve it is with regional action.

Both North Korea and Iran have been hostile to either the U.S. or to U.S. interests. Iran especially when in 1979, the Islamic Revolutionaries overthrew the monarch that we installed and held hostage the Americans in our embassy in Tehran. Iran poses an interesting problem for the United States since it is situated between both Iraq and Afghanistan. The religious-state opposite of Israel, it would pose serious security concerns for both the Jewish state and for the U.S. military currently deployed in the region if the White Houses claims that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons are indeed correct. Iran becomes more complicated when one considers that the technology it is using to develop its nuclear facilities is being sold to them by Russia. And while Russian President Vladimir Putin adamantly proclaims that Iran is only seeking nuclear power for its growing population base, it is hard to tell with two countries that have always been very secretive.

Having established this background, heres what I think:

North Koreas and Irans desires to acquire nuclear weapons are products of the completely oxymoronic policy that the U.S. holds towards these countries and the spread of nuclear weapons. Most of the time the U.S. chooses to communicate with these countries through a second source, which from our governments perspective is showing that we do not approve of what these countries stand for, but for North Korea and Iran it means that we believe they are insignificant.; a fact that processing nuclear weapons would change they believe. With North Korea, the country that South Korea is still officially at war with, the United States has always insisted upon the complete abandonment of nuclear operations but has offered little in return. Again, we tend to scold the North and other countries about their weapons programs but then we go and make completely unacceptable comments about our desire to develop surface penetrating nuclear bombs. What does it say that the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons has refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBC) that makes it illegal to test nuclear weapons? Even Russia has signed this one. While we argue that the CTBC would make our nuclear weapons unreliable if we needed to use them, proponents of the treaty stress that that is exactly the point: if we are unsure of our weapons then we probably will not use them. Either way, the United States has the problem of telling others how to do things and then acting in another way. I feel that since most of the world looks to us as the predominant player in the international system that we would help ourselves out a lot by setting the example and curbing our own nuclear plans.

Iran presents other problems. While the country denies our allegations that they seek nuclear weapons and North Korea proclaims ownership the North does not have any known links to terrorist organizations, unlike Iran. Iran is suspected (with a lot of credible information from many top CIA officers) of supporting educationally and financially the terrorist group Hezbollah which operated out of Syria and Lebanon and was the apparent group responsible for bombing the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983. Some have even accused Hezbollah as being a front for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. A nation that has always been opposed to U.S. sponsored actions, the possibility of Iran gaining nuclear weapons is frightening, especially with its known ties to terrorist groups and its proximity to Iraq, but before I go into that, let me say this: If you think that Iran would give a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda or its allies in Iraq then stop, because that wont happen. Iran is a Persian Shia Theocratic state and the al Qaeda group is comprised of Sunni Arabs (like the ones doing most of the fighting in Iraq), and the two groups despise each other. However Irans investment in anti-Zionist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas could pose problems for Israels security.

If we do decide to take military action against either of these countries we will undoubtedly face sharp resistance in the international community (remember the last time we went to war with a country because they processed WMD?) and will have significant difficulties mounting assaults on either country. North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world right now and Iran is a country where U.S. presence definitely will be unwelcome, but either case is moot because all but a handful of our active duty divisions are in Iraq or in transit. Iran may seem more feasible since we have armed forces on either side of it with Iraq being the obvious entry point over Afghanistan due to terrain. But unfortunately for the Bush team, our favored Iraqi politician, Iyad Allawi, finished third behind political parties headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and Jalal Talabani, both of whom have received the blessing of Ayatollah Alisistani, who is supported by Iran. The danger of the free elections in Iraq bringing about a government that is friendly towards Tehran has possibly come into existence and I dont think that a pro-Iranian government, which has been called upon by Alisistani to draft a constitution based upon Islamic Law, would openly agree to let us use them as a stepping stone to attack their friendly neighbor.

The United States has allowed two dangerous countries to come close to, and succeed, in acquire nuclear weapons. Both countries feel aggression towards them by the U.S. and both apparently have chosen the path of acquisition to ward off a U.S. attack. After all, it has been shown that North Korea was far closer to making a nuclear bomb than Iraq was and which county did we invade? This sets a dangerous example for other rogue countries: if you have nukes, then you are safe. Instead of threatening the might of our military as the first diplomatic action in preventing proliferation, the United States needs to set the way by example. Entering into treaties that significantly reduce our own nuclear forces to survivable levels and signing the CTBT would be a good start. Even with half of our Trident Submarine force fully equipment we would still have over 500 active nuclear weapons. If we can become more transparent in our actions and lead the world in that direction, then it will be the international community, not just the U.S., which demands the abandonment of nuclear programs by states desiring them. If the world can act together, instead of in isolation, then the types of sanctions and actions necessary to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons become feasible options. Aaron Dyer is a mechanical engineering sophomore who loves to dream. He enjoys reading about current foreign events and intelligence collection.
hello there & you too