Dealing with North Korea; Why not with Iran?












Who would you prefer to see your daugther dating?


Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com posted today my commentary, "Why Can't the US Apply Its New North Korea Policy to Iran?" which was published in the Sinagpore Business Times:
May 25, 2006
Why Can't the US Apply Its New North Korea Policy to Iran?
by Leon Hadar
The conventional historical narrative of U.S. President George W. Bush's foreign policy has traced the ascendancy of the neoconservative ideologues in his administration to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and the ensuing war in Iraq. The common assumption among analysts is that if it were not for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the current White House's approach toward the world would have followed the more traditional internationalist stance adopted by former presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush.
Moreover, most observers assume that the foreign policy hardliners in the Bush administration have focused most of their attention on the Middle East. In fact, that the neoconservatives were emerging as players in devising and implementing President Bush's foreign policy was becoming quite obvious before 9/11 and had nothing to do with Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East.
It was in shaping Washington's policies in East Asia – first on the North Korean issue and later with regard to China – that the neocons demonstrated their willingness to challenge the policies of Mr. Bush's predecessors. Indeed, within days of taking office, the foreign policy hawks in the Bush administration succeeded in making it clear that they were in charge when they humiliated then Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had stated that the new administration would continue the Clinton-era policy of engagement with North Korea by providing incentives to Pyongyang in exchange for verifiable steps to end all military nuclear activity.Read more

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pundits who screw-up: No big deal...

Image
Matt Barganier desconstructs Andrew Sullivan's mea sorta culpa on Iraq in Time magazine (Sullivan seen above in a thoughtful pose on Bill Maher's "Real Time"). There have been many of those in recent weeks (including by WFB and Fukuyama ). In an commentary published last year, Oops! I helped start a War which was about one of the earlier apologizing-war-aplogists, I pointed out to the contrast between the way the losers who operate in the market (including financial analysts) are punished and the reality in which the losers in the political game (including foreign policy analysts) rarely get punished: Imagine: for a few years you were investing the money you had saved for your daughter's college education in one of those moderately conservative plans that provided some increase in the value of the investment without exposing it to major risks. But then your financial planner – let's call him Ken P. – got in touch with you and came up with a really great ide...
Read more

When will Israel attack Iran?

Image
I'm not an "Intelligence analyst" and I don't play one on television. But I urge you to study the following items: 1. Seymour Hersh new piece in The New Yorker, "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" 2. Tony Karon's "Israel's Domestic Political Games Raises the Danger of a U.S.-Iran War." 3. Aluf Benn's "Olmert's Drums of War" in Haaretz . 4. Bush:I would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran. 5. Michael Oren's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on November 16 which is only accessible to subscribers. So here are a few interesting quotes: Much like 1967, Israel faces a Middle Eastern leader who has repeatedly sworn to wipe it off the map, and to that end is assiduously trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Like Nasser, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can cripple Israel economically by keeping it in a state of alert, driving away foreign investment and tourism. In the absence of interna...
Read more