What to do with Iran

I recently had an interesting conversation with a friend regarding the nuclear situation in Iran. He made the claim that the U.S. was taking too much of a hard-line towards Iran, and asked why America didn't take the same actions that seem to have been successful in getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. I understood his point; Bush's claims that a nuclear armed Iran would inevitably lead to a third World War probably are not helping the diplomatic cause, nor are actions such as labeling a portion of Iran's military a terrorist organization. But while I agree that there needs to be a change in U.S. policy towards Iran, I question looking to the North Korean situation as the exemplar for effective policy against proliferation.

North Korea certainly had a goal in mind when it broke the IAEA seals on its nuclear facility in 2002, but I don't think that the goal was necessarily a nuclear bomb. The seal breaking was an attention grab; North Korea wanted to bring the United States back to the negotiating table after a break in relations. When this didn't work, the DPRK decided to pull out of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. All the time, it demanded was a chance to negotiate with the U.S. The technique of using its nuclear program to gain concessions from the U.S. and the rest of the international community is not new. North Korea used the same technique throughout the nineties. In 1994, DPRK pledged to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for help building reactors for energy. In 1999, a pledge to end long range missile testing led to an easing of economic sanctions from the U.S. In September, North Korea agreed to disclose and dismantle all its nuclear programs during negotiations. During those negotiations, an senior American diplomat said, "To the extent that we can move quickly to denuclearization, we can move quickly to normalization." It's quite possible that this was an exchange; North Korea is disassembling its program in exchange for a promise to normalize. The point here is that North Korea used its nuclear program to gain concessions, so it was, in the end, willing to give up its program altogether.

Iran, unlike DPRK, seeks to ultimately have a functioning nuclear program. It's not a bargaining chip with them. All signs indicate Tehran would not end its program in exchange for concessions. A recent article in the Iranian press said that the nation will achieve and maintain nuclear power, and could not be swayed from doing so. Iran has not asked for concessions, and officials have repeatedly claimed that they will continue to seek nuclear technology. This is the fundamental difference between Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. These two different problems will require two different solutions.