The North Koreans have a ship at sea right this very minute. A ship which has been characterised as a "repeat offender" in the horrid crime of "proliferation." The USS John McCain is shadowing the freighter Kang Nam as it plies Chinese waters. What next? Will the Obama crew order the John McCain to stop and search the possible proliferator? What will the Hermit Kingdom of the North do in response?
Wow! A genuine foreign policy challenge.
The UN Security Council Resolution finally passed a while back after weeks of wrangling between the US and both Russia and China does not authorise a forced stop and search but allows only a voluntary sort of exercise.
The 12 June Resolution does provide for the option of "poisoning the host." That means the US can share intelligence with a friendly nation (or at least a country amenable to UN resolutions) so as to convince the host port to either refuse entry or demand inspection rights as a condition for entry.
Host poisoning has worked. When a North Korean aircraft suspected by the US of carrying a cargo of missile guidance gyroscopes requested passage rights over India after refueling in Burma, the Indian government denied the request. Iran had to wait a bit longer for these critical missile parts.
Depending on the number and size of range-extending auxiliary fuel bunkers on the Kang Nam, it is conceivable the ship can make the trip without requesting port entry for refueling or resupply. Alternatively, the Kang Nam can make port in Burma. No one has accused the military junta running that country as being overly concerned with the "international community." Of course, if China is more serious about reining in the Hermits, Beijing can put effective pressure on their Burmese clients.
Absent the host poisoning gambit, the US has few options. One is to stop and inspect the ship, presumably turning it back under escort if it is found to be hauling contraband. Pyongyang has stated it would consider this action an act of war.
Calling the bluff could be risky. The North Korean regime is not terribly predictable nor is it overly stable at the moment considering the crisis implicit in succession. The possibility of a North Korean version of "death before dishonor" should not be discounted even though it seems sheer lunacy.
If the Kang Nam goes about its (perhaps) criminal way loaded to the gunnels with goodies for, shall we say, the mullahs of Iran, then the sanctions (you know the 12 June resolution described by our fearless UN ambassador, Susan Rice, as "really biting") will be so much dead wording. The idea of UN Security Council resolutions as being worth less than the paper they are printed on is neither new nor alarming. But, it would be a severe setback to the Obama form of diplomacy.
In the setback department we also find the other Joe Biden level challenge. Iran.
The Grand Ayatollah has nailed his flag to the our-election-was-free-and-fair mast. His man, Ahmedinejad won. Accept that. Get over it. At the same time Khamenei took a slap at the outstretched hand of Obama friendship.
As far as the GA is concerned, the US is behind the current unrest in the streets of Iran. Similarly, we are behind a supposed effort to topple the mullahocracy. Sure, that's an absurd notion, but it's Khamenei's story and, by Allah, he is going to stick to it.
This demonstration of a less than warm acceptance of the Obama outreach program does not bode well for successful diplomacy. But, no one with knowledge of the history of US-Iranian relations over the past sixty or so years expected any other tone of response.
The Obama outstretched hand of friendship will be left hanging in the breeze to an even greater extent if the GA and his gang of turban-topped, Koran-thumping thugs go ahead with a program of harsh repression. This potential was clear when the Benign Man of Allah said that bloodshed would be on the heads of the "leaders" of demonstrations and other forms of protest.
Of course, even the Supreme Translator Of The Will Of Allah, Khamenei, knows that he has to kill carefully. The idea (or is it ideal?) of martyrdom is at the center of both Shia and the specifically Iranian understanding of Shia. Martyrs to the opposition will mean more, not less, opposition. To avoid this should be the first criterion for the mullahs--if they wish to stay in unimpeded, unhindered full power.
The alternative is to do what the Shah failed to do thirty years ago. Kill Iranians in such wholesale numbers that the opposition is eradicated. Completely.
While this approach would lead to "consequences," the GA and his mullah coterie as well as the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards might take that option. There is little to lose. And potentially, much, even very much, to gain. Can we say, "Theocracy and a nuclear capability?"
What the US does with respect to the small freighter Kang Nam and what effect our policy does or does not have on Iran are joined head, shoulder and hip.
Please, Joe, phone home with your extensive foreign policy experience. Your President needs you. After all his SecState is currently in unserviceable condition. Who else does he have?
While you are at it, Joe, you and others of your age might recall a chant from the Sixties. "The whole world is watching!"
And, it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment