The Future:  Syria, Iran, Korea and bin Laden
Updated 12/15/2005  

North Korea continues its march toward multiple nuclear weapons...

1.  Is Syria next?  What about Iran? After the war with Iraq ended in April, the U.S. began make vague threats toward Syria.   Colin Powell's visit in early May resulted in some promises from Syria, especially about harboring terrorists.  Powell wants the world to know that President Assad "knows what the U.S. wants."  Border skirmishes with Syria continued into the summer of 2003. Iran was upsetting the U.S. in the spring and summer of 2003 for putting down student protests, supporting Hamas terrorists, and for allegedly starting to develop nuclear weapons. Post-war discussion of Iran is found in a New York Times op-ed on Iran and religion.   A mid-March Times editorial doubts the veracity of Iran denials ("Iran's Nuclear Ambitions").  In February the Washington Post's David Ignatius interviewed the Syrian leader Assad and described him as "cautions" (2/11/03).

Return to Top

2.  What was the news on North Korean nuclear weapons?

	In mid-July 2003, North Korea said it had enough fuel to immediately build up to six nuclear weapons.  Though there had been no talks with the U.S. since April, China helped to broker talks for July or August. North Korea is among those who have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, along with India, Pakistan, and Israel.  The U.S. has not signed the nuclear test ban treaty but has not tested in many years. Back in October, a few months after the Bush administration had disengaged from North Korea and had announced the new policy of pre-emptive war, the U.S. reported on October 16 of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
In December, after the U.S. stopped oil shipments this fall, North Korea announced on December 12 that they would reactivate its nuclear facilities.  The Washington Post editorial of December 13, "North Korea Knocks," reminds us that North Korea is now planning to reactive its closed nuclear reaction and resume construction on two others, which "bring North Korea to the edge of activities that the U.S. has previously regarded as ground for military intervention."  They could "produce dozens of nuclear weapons in a matter of months."  On December 17, Bush announced that the U.S. would deploy by 2004 anti-missile defenses in California and Korea. ("Star Wars: The Second Generation"?) Quick criticism came from Russia, Steven Chapman, and The New York Times in "The Rush to Build Missile Defense": "Developing a workable missile defense system that could thwart a nuclear attack from a reckless country like North Korea is clearly in American's national interest.  But rushing to construct a system based on the present unreliable technology seems premature."  Then, on December 27, we learned that they could produce enough weapon-grade plutonium to make more bombs within six months.  We know that in the past few years North Korea has tested missiles which flew over Japan.   Georgie Anne Geyer thought the U.S. "axis of evil-pre-emptive policy" only exaggerated the tension with North Korea.  "War with North Korea would be catastrophic.  It's time to stop playing the pre-emptive game and think soberly"  (1/3/02, Chicago Tribune).    As we entered 2003, the battle or words and diplomacy heats up. After weeks of refusing to negotiate with North Korea, we learned on January 8 that the administration was finally willing to "talk to" but not "negotiate with" North Korea. A Tribune editorial in mid-February said that "discussions are not appeasement."  In February 6, North Korea warned the U.S. of possible "total war". and said that "pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S." A few days later CIA chief Tenet confirmed that ballistic missiles can reach California (Chicago Tribune, 2/12). After weeks of refusing to talk to North Korea, on January 14 Bush hinted at an aid package, if the situation was right. (Chicago Tribune). On February 17, North Korea proclaimed that the Korean War (1950-53) was not over. Earlier in that week, the CIA reported that a North Korean nuclear missile can hit the west coast of the U.S.
	Donald Rumsfeld thinks that President Kim Jong Il's regime has several nuclear weapons. In Bob Woodward's new book Bush at War, Bush says, "I loathe King Jong Il.  I've got a visceral reaction to this guy because he is starving his people."  As Bill Keller writes, "Mr. Bush came in [to office] with an attitude rather than a policy" (NYTimes, 1/11/03).

There was evidence of nuclear weapons development "for more than two years" (WPost, 2/1/03) but, it turns out that the administration had  learned about North Korea's secret 12 days earlier during the Congressional debate over Iraq.  The  New York Times reports that "some of the administration's critics suggested that the real reason [for delay] was that the administration did not want to complicate the debate over Iraq in Congress and the UN."  The Washington Post's Mary McGrory and Sen. Bob Graham concur in "Unequal Opportunity for Tyrants" (10/20/02).  Powell and Rice deny the charges.

The Post's Richard Cohen concluded "Their Little Secret" (10/22/02) thusly: "It would be one thing if this were an isolated example of the Bush administration either exaggerating threats--the imminence of an Iraqi bomb, for instance--or forgetting to mention one that already exists, such as the North Korea program.  but this administration keeps one set of books for itself and another for the public and Congress.  It's Enron on the Potomac."  The initial administration's nonchalance response to the reactivated nuclear reactor was "'regrettable.' That's the kind of word you use when the soup isn't very good before dinner," replies one Asian expert (WPost, 12/28/02). 

Some on Capital Hill complained that "politics influenced its conduct of foreign policy." With 40,000 American troops stationed in South Korea, the situation is potentially serious to the U.S. On October 18 we learned that it was our new ally Pakistan that gave the nuclear technology to North Korea a few years ago, though the U.S. does not plan to invoke sanctions against recent ally, anti-Taliban Pakistan  

In February Kristof saw a hawk faction contemplate a  first strike.  If North Korea responded, 21 million people would be living in the "kill box" near Seoul, South Korea and the war could kill one million ("Secret, Scary, Plans", 2/28).  Kristof's Feb. 4 "A Sea of Fire, or Worse?", imagines the coming months which could lead to war with North Korea while his Jan. 21 "Tunneling Toward Disaster" describes the North Korean leadership. For Kristof's views on Iraq, see "Should We Go To War" FAQ Section, #9). 

Colleague Paul Krugman, trying to put himself in the shoes of Kim Jong Il in "Games nations Play" (1/3/02), wondered if what Teddy Roosevelt said was, "Talk trash but carry a small stick...So here is how it probably looks from Pyongyang.  The Bush Administration says you're evil.  It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil.  It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes..."  So, "the best self- preservation for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous." 

Worries Bill Keller (NYTimes, 1/11/03), "North Korea is so strapped it will sell just about anything to just about anyone.  That is reason to be afraid." These missiles directly threaten tens of thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea and threaten all of Japan. New York Times William Safire ("Three-Ring Circus", 1/2/03) suggests that President Bush "order a drawdown of U.S. troops in South Korea" and then "lay it on the line to China's new leader [a North Korea ally]." 

Fellow hawk Charles Krauthammer at the Post writes in "Korea Follies" that he was surprised how quickly the Bush position on North Korea collapsed.  "In less than a month, we have gone from 'tailored containment' to shoeless appeasement" (1/17).

Other compelling reaction to the North Korea developments come from a Leon Fuerth editorial (Times, 1/1/03), in "Outfoxed By North Korea", Samuel Berger/Robert Galluci's Post editorial, "Two Crisis, No Back Burner.", and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Presidential candidate, in "Crisis of Our Own Creation" (Post, 1/8/03).  Also see "The War" FAQ Section.

Return to Top

3.  Is or was North Korea a greater threat than Iraq?
North Korea has nuclear weapons and is openly developing more whereas Iraq is 2-5 years away from developing nuclear weapons; North Korea kicked out its UN weapons inspectors in late December 2002 but Iraq is cooperating with its inspectors. North Korea has missiles to reach Japan, South Korea and U.S. troops there; Iraq has no long range missiles.  Maureen Dowd (NYTimes, 2/2/03) commented, "The Bush administration has made fuzzy evidence against Saddam Hussein sound scarier than it is and scary evidence against Kim Jong Il sound fuzzier than it is." 

Others worry that the lesson North Korea will gain from Iraq is if you let weapons  inspectors in and they don't find much, you'll be attacked anyway (NYTimes, 2/4). 

Top Iraqi leader Tariq Aziz sees the lack of tough policy toward North Korea as evidence that U.S. motivation against Iraq is "oil and Israel."  The official Baathe party newspaper, Al Thaura, wrote, (NYTimes, 12/31/02) that is was "unfair that Washington was preparing to go to war with Iraq, which was cooperating with UN arms inspectors, but seeking a peaceful solution in North Korea, which had just expelled them." 

Further editorialized the New York Times, (Dec. 15) in "North Korea Can't Wait":  "Washington seems to think that it can afford the luxury of deferring the North Korea problem until it has finished disarming Iraq.  At best, the Iraq crisis will not be resolved for many more months.  Dealing with the North Korea weapons threat cannot wait that long.  The danger is too grave and immediate."  

Nicholas Kristof, of the New York Times, wrote often of North Korea in the fall of 2002.  By late October, he felt that North Korea was "The Greatest Threat" (10/29/02): "North Koreas is the most totalitarian county in the world, and possibly the most dangerous adversary we face.  But that's precisely the reason we need to engage it."  The administration seemed to ignore the threat for weeks, if not months.  In mid-December, Kristof kept North Koreas on the front burner with "Hold Your Nose and Negotiate"  He saw three choices:  negotiate, ruled out by Bush; ignore North Korea and focus on Iraq, what Washington in now trying, or launch a military strike.  "These are three terrible choices, but a president's job is to pick the last awful.  And hands down, that's the first one negotiate' (12/20/02). 

David Sanger analyzes three enemies and three different strategies (Times, 12/15/02). The December 26 Times editorial added to the debate, "Given the erratic leadership, its record of exporting missiles and other military technology to American foes and its rebuilding nuclear weapons program, North Korea is at least as threatening to global security as Iraq, and probably more so." 

Part of the administration's response comes from Rice who believes that Iraq and North Korea "are two different places.  We have a substantial deterrent to aggression by North Korea..." (WPost, 12/28/02). 

Return to Top

Leon Furth, NSA to Gore, wrote in "Outfoxed by North Korea" (Times, 1/1/03), "So on the way to war with Iraq, the U.S. has been caught out by North Korea--which apparently saw its opportunity in our distraction and seized it...the President's nomination of North Korea as a member of the 'Axis of Evil' in his last State of the Union message now looks like a bluff that is being called....In view of the alternatives, it would be wise for the administration to reverse course and engage with North Korea."  Another former official from the Clinton years is Joseph Nye, respected dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.  Nye feels that "what North Korea shows is that deterrence is working.  The only problems is that we are the ones being deterred"  (Wash Post, 1/6/03). Kim Jong Il has proved "a nuke a day keeps the Yanks away" (The Guardian, 1/22). Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Daschle want more forceful or direct talks.

The January 5 Post editorial, "A Confluence of Crisis", describes the broad challenges in foreign policy for the Bush administration. Another recent Post editorial comments on our North Korea/Iraq priorities. David Kay, former chief of UNSCOM, writes in the Post, "The unpleasant fact is that if inspections fail to disarm Iraq, this ensures that future conflicts involving proliferation--North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and, soon, Libya come to mind as possibilities--will be more violent, with more casualties, and harder to terminate." Steve Chapman (Tribune, 1/2/03) commented in "North Korea is not the same as Iraq--or is it?"  that the administration doesn't see "how our experience with a nuclear North Korea weakens the case for attacking Iraq."  North Korea probably sees its nukes as defensive and responded to the U.S. axis of evil and new pre-emptive policy.  We seem to feel that a nuclear North Korea isn't especially threatening.  The same is true, argues Chapman, or Iraq:  "The most plausible reason Saddam Hussein wants the bomb is that his enemies--the U.S., Israel, and Iran--have them ore are trying to get them.  A nuclear arsenal would discourage outsiders from trying to bring about 'regime change' in Baghdad." President Bush has been making the case that "North Korea is No Iraq."  In February the Times' "A Ticking Clock on North Korea" called their nuclear program "the most urgent threat facing America today" (2/6). Also see the Post's Jim Hoagland in "One Proliferator at a Time."

For Iran's nuclear program, see "Allies" FAQ section

Return to Top

4 .  What do the latest terrorist attacks mean? Is bin Laden planning future attacks?
In early March Al Qaeda leader Muhammed was arrested in Pakistan.  He was the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and has knowledge of future attacks.  Muhammed is not being held in the U.S.

In  March, Pakistan arrest Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, labeled "the kingpin of alQaeda" and suspected planner of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in Africa.  He was born in Kuwait and studied engineering in the U.S. in the 1980s.  The lead Tribune editorial labeled the arrest "A victory in the war on terror." Most experts agreed the tape was probably bin Laden.  Powell and others in the administration suggested it helped prove the Iraq-alQaeda link. 

The horrible October 12 bombing on Bali in Indonesia struck against western tourists.  Also in October U.S. troops were shot at and killed in Kuwait, a French tanker blown up near Yemen on October 6, deadly bombs killed 6 and wounded over 140 in the Philippines, and an Israel hotel bombing followed in Kenya.  In early November a U.S. missile killed six suspected al-Qaeda in Yemen. 

In a February audio tape, bin Laden calls Hussein "an infidel" and called on Muslim to overthrow pro-U.S. regimes in the Arab world.  Powell told a Senate Committee that the tape shows "how he is in partnership with Iraq." (Also see "Hussein" FAQs for details on Hussein/al Qaeda.)

Osama bin Laden's assistant and organizer, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released an audio tape in October and on November 13 The New York Times reported a new audio tape  A few days later the voice was determined to be bin Laden's and the NYTimes released a transcript of the "you will be bombed" tape. Both al-Zawahiri and bin Laden warned against attacking Iraq. 

Said bin Laden, on this November tape, "It is time we get even.  You will be killed just as you kill, and will be bombed just as you bomb." He calls Rumsfeld "the butcher of Vietnam" and Bush "the pharaoh of the time...killing Iraqis" and Palestinians using American weapons. "We had warned Australia about its participation in Afghanistan...It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali." A New York Times editorial (Nov. 14) warns of "War on Two Fronts."   President Bush denies his preoccupation with Iraq.  

The Washington Post's David Ignatius imagines what "the war" looks like from the perspective of an al Qaeda operative in "What the Enemy Sees".  Meanwhile, The New York Times Maureen Dowd (11/20/02) wryly ponders why Bush has "forgotten" bin Laden.  "When President Bush realized he couldn't catch Osama quickly, he was downgraded faster than a telecom stock.  Osama went from Wanted Dead or Alive to Forgotten but Not Gone.  Mr. Bush promoted Saddam to Arab Evildoer No. 1, and had not even mentioned Osama's name for the last four months." 

Noam Chomsky examines the shock of 9/11 in an historical approach in "Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes." Writing in September, 2002, he fears that an attack on Iraq will "invite a new wave of terrorist attacks."

Return to Top

5.  If Iraq is not the next battlefield, will it be Syria?  Iran? the Philippines?  Indonesia? Somalia? Yemen? 
After the war wound down in April 2003, Syria was labeled as "next" by the media and vague threats were made by the U.S.  Then in May the focus seemed to shift to Iran, accused of harboring Al-Qaeda and of developing nuclear weapons, both charges denied.  The U.S. has not had formal diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979 when U.S. ally the Shah was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.  An early June Chicago Tribune commentary suggests that in a war with Iran "U.S. could face costly lessons."

 Vice-President Cheney's spring 2002 trip didn't enlighten us much, though the U.S. troop (or "adviser") totals in The Philippines have steadily risen since September 2001 from under 100 to about 1000. 2000 U.S. special operation new troops were approved for combat in late February. The mission there had been scheduled to end July 31, 2002 but with the publicized hostage shoot-out in June against the Abu Sayyaf guerillas,  the mission has been extended. The Washington Post has an interesting on-line special with graphics called "The Philippines and the War on Terrorism." Rumsfeld assistant Wolfowitz mentions "the familiar foursome" of Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, and the Philippines.  In mid-May of 2003 President Bush promised more military aid to the Philippines. 

6.  What is a loose nuke?
Ever since the nuclear power Soviet Union broke apart in the early '90s, concern over "loose nukes" has abounded.  What former Soviet scientist sell weapons or knowledge to the highest bidder?  Respected Senators Nunn and Lugar have recommended that the U.S. drastically increase the $1 billion a year to secure potentially dangerous Russian fissile materials (Chicago Tribune, 10/27/02).  The safeguarding of nuclear material is also discussed in "The Great Nuclear Danger" (NYTimes, 9/27/02).