[North Korea and the World] Strategic Implications of the US-Iran War and the Limits of North Korea-US Negotiations

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysNUYtf6reY

Video Script

Background of the Iran War and Comparison with North Korea

Iran was ultimately subjected to military attack by the United States and claims its actions were justified. What is the likelihood of North Korea coming to the negotiating table? Hello and thank you for watching Park Won-gon's North Korea and the World. Today, we will discuss how the ongoing Iran war could apply to North Korea and what implications it holds. Iran and North Korea are often compared. Both share the commonality of being disliked by the United States. Iran has been a proponent of anti-Americanism since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and North Korea is arguably the longest-standing anti-American state remaining since the Korean War. While Cuba exists, North Korea's history of anti-Americanism is longer even when compared to Cuba. I will explain why the U.S. attacked Iran at this particular juncture and how this can be explained in relation to North Korea. First,

I will explain why the U.S. attacked Iran at this particular time. It was explained after Trump's removal. The U.S. stated its aim was to permanently block Iran's possession of nuclear weapons and to eliminate imminent threats to American citizens and allies. It was defined as a necessary military action to eliminate imminent threats. Furthermore, four objectives were mentioned: First, to destroy Iran's ballistic missile and naval capabilities. Second, to permanently prevent nuclear weapon acquisition. Third, to dismantle the funding and infrastructure of Iran-aligned forces, also known as proxies, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Fourth, to call for regime change among the Iranian people. These were direct statements made by President Trump. Now, I will explain why the relationship between Iran and the U.S. is so poor that it has led to war, and why the U.S. initiated this war from its perspective.

First, the relationship between the U.S. and Iran is extremely poor. The U.S. intensely dislikes Iran. In 1979, Khomeini initiated the so-called Iranian Revolution. The Pahlavi dynasty collapsed, and during the Khomeini Revolution, there was the U.S. embassy hostage crisis, also known as the Tehran hostage crisis. At that time, 44 American embassy staff were held captive for 444 days. From the U.S. perspective, this was the longest hostage crisis and a deeply humiliating dark chapter. Therefore, since that time, the U.S. has fundamentally disliked Iran, even emotionally. Additionally, recently, the U.S. has been seeking to withdraw from the Middle East and focus on the Indo-Pacific to counter China. However, before the shale gas revolution made the U.S. energy independent, the Middle East held most of the energy resources. Any instability in that region would inevitably destabilize the U.S. and global economies, as we experienced during the oil shocks. These experiences have led the U.S. to consistently consider the Middle East a strategically vital region.

The problem is that Iran has always been an obstacle to the U.S. plans for the Middle East. Every time the U.S. attempts to reshape the Middle East order, Iran systematically challenges it. Since the revolution, Iran has consistently emphasized its anti-American and anti-Western identity, ideologically attacking the U.S., making it an eyesore. These factors are part of the background that led to the initiation of the war. North Korea is very similar. It is also the longest-standing anti-American state and continues to call for the overthrow of U.S. imperialism. Although President Trump made positive remarks about Chairman Kim Jong Un under special circumstances and suggested good relations, the overall sentiment in the U.S. towards North Korea is highly negative, no less so than towards Iran. There are serious human rights abuses, it is an authoritarian regime ruled by one person, and it is a state that challenges the U.S. Furthermore, it is a country developing nuclear weapons to threaten the U.S. This is the general perception of North Korea among the American public. In this regard, both Iran and North Korea can be seen as core anti-American states that are viewed very negatively by the U.S. to a certain extent.

Iran's Nuclear Development and U.S. Military Action

The second reason for initiating the war, although a direct cause, is believed to be Iran's nuclear development. The issue of Iran's nuclear development directly triggered the U.S. military action. It was also cited as a key reason in President Trump's speech. The U.S. and Israel have a particularly special relationship, and Israel possesses nuclear weapons. If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would fundamentally shift the strategic balance in the Middle East to Israel's significant disadvantage, leading Israel to strongly desire the elimination of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Given the special relationship between Israel and the U.S., this was considered the core driver of the recent conflict. Currently, Iran's developing nuclear capabilities, particularly its ballistic missile technology, unlike North Korea's, do not yet pose a threat capable of striking the U.S. mainland. It does not possess long-range missiles, and since it has not directly developed nuclear weapons, it lacks intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities.

Nevertheless, the U.S. perceives Iran's nuclear threat as imminent, indicating a significant alignment between the U.S. and Israel. It appears that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may have made a slip of the tongue, suggesting that Israel initiated military preparations and intended to attack, with the U.S. joining in. When reporters questioned this, President Trump denied it. The following day, Secretary Pompeo clarified that the U.S. had taken the lead, with Israel cooperating. However, it is reasonable to infer that Prime Minister Netanyahu likely persuaded President Trump. Another factor related to nuclear development is that negotiations with Iran were not progressing well. Although the previous nuclear talks did not reach an agreement, a date had been set for the next round of negotiations when military action was taken. The issue is that even if negotiations continued, the differences between the U.S. and Iran were too significant.

Another key reason for Trump initiating military action against Iran is the judgment that now is the opportune moment. It is the right time to employ military options. This also relates to North Korea, as analyzed by the BBC. The concern is that if left unchecked, Iran might eventually become like North Korea, developing ICBMs capable of striking the U.S. mainland. Therefore, it is argued that a preemptive strike early on, before it possesses such capabilities, would be more effective. This judgment suggests that now is the opportune moment for a preemptive war, and missing this window would render any action futile. This reasoning appears sound. According to the New York Times, Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and special envoy for the Middle East, along with Jason Greenblatt, the special representative for the Middle East, were leading the negotiations. The U.S. demanded complete removal of enriched uranium and zero enrichment, meaning Iran would be prohibited from enriching uranium.

In return, the U.S. offered to provide fuel for necessary civilian nuclear power, but Iran reportedly made it clear that it could not accept this. Reports suggest that they then informed Trump that diplomacy alone was no longer a viable option, after which Trump reportedly turned to military options.

Middle East Order Realignment and Integrated Air Defense Network Construction

Furthermore, Iran's national strength has significantly weakened recently compared to the past. In recent years, there have been protests over the hijab, large-scale anti-government demonstrations, with some reports indicating as many as 30,000 deaths, and chronic economic difficulties have fueled widespread public discontent. Proxy forces such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis have also weakened due to continuous Israeli strikes. Additionally, in countries like Syria, the Alawite sect, a branch of Shia Islam aligned with Iran, was a core component of the Assad government. However, Syria has collapsed, and a government leaning towards the West has emerged, replacing the pro-Iranian regime. Russia criticizes the U.S. for the current conflict but lacks the capacity to do more. Russia is preoccupied with the war in Ukraine, and crucially, so is China. Despite China's good relations with Iran, it has not provided substantial assistance. Therefore, the U.S. appears to have recognized these overall circumstances, which has contributed to the background for striking Iran.

Moreover, there have been reports that Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, a leading Sunni nation, support striking Iran. It is widely reported that figures like Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, have repeatedly urged in Washington the necessity of striking Iran. Consequently, the overall environment is judged to be opportune for the U.S. to pursue military options. Additionally, the U.S. appears to be pursuing a larger strategic objective. The Abraham Accords, signed on September 15, 2020, in Washington D.C., are essentially a Middle Eastern diplomatic agreement. Its primary aim is to normalize diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations, though not Iran itself. The U.S. mediated agreements for normalization of relations between Israel and countries such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. This represents a significant shift, as these nations had previously maintained a stance of not establishing diplomatic ties with Israel until the Palestinian issue was resolved. Through the Abraham Accords, they have normalized relations, and the ultimate goal of this normalization is to include Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni power. The Abraham Accords can also be viewed as establishing regional security cooperation to counter Iran. By normalizing relations with Israel, most Gulf and Arab nations, excluding Iran, form an anti-Iranian strategic alliance.

This would lead to a structural realignment, and the Abraham Accords might even accelerate after the conflict. One of Iran's strategic blunders is its direct attacks on Gulf states, particularly those like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar. This is considered a significant miscalculation. As a result, these Gulf states are likely to expand the Abraham Accords by improving relations with Israel. Finally, there is the concept of an integrated air defense network in the Middle East, known as MAD (Middle East Air Defense). This is being developed by the U.S. and Israel, aiming to create a networked air defense system encompassing the air defense capabilities of the U.S., Israel, and Gulf nations. The objective is to counter Iran by establishing a missile defense system for joint surveillance, reconnaissance, and interception of Iran's missiles and drones. This concept emerged in 2022 from Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz and the Biden administration. Minister Gantz described it as a U.S.-led regional air and missile defense cooperation initiative, explicitly an anti-Iranian strategic network designed for the joint detection and interception of Iranian rockets, cruise missiles, and drones.

The Biden administration also discussed this initiative in July 2022, following a tour of the Middle East. It elevated the concept of an integrated Middle Eastern air and missile defense system to a core U.S. agenda item. The participating countries in this initiative are Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan. Currently, with the exception of Jordan, all these countries have been targets of attacks by Iran. It is significant that this initiative is continuing under the Trump administration.

President Trump signed an executive order on January 27 last year to establish what is known as the 'Golden Iron Dome,' or an integrated air and missile defense system for the United States. This initiative aims to create a unified system for detecting, identifying, tracking, and intercepting various aerial threats, including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, and aircraft, by integrating U.S. assets with those of its allies. This concept is similar to the aforementioned MAD, but it is a broader framework under which MAD operates. Furthermore, under this broader framework, the U.S. is pursuing the integration of missile defense systems among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan. It is likely that this initiative will continue to expand and gain strength in the post-war era.

Dilemma of Incorporating South Korea into the Missile Defense System

This is a somewhat separate issue, but it presents a pertinent challenge for South Korea: whether or not to join this network. As experienced during the THAAD incident in 2017, the mere deployment of the defensive missile system THAAD provoked strong opposition from China. The integrated air and missile defense system that the U.S. is seeking to establish is, in effect, aimed at China. If South Korea joins a system primarily targeting China, which may also include offensive missile capabilities, China could react very strongly. Conversely, if South Korea does not participate, it faces the dilemma of being excluded from the U.S. missile defense network. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, and furthermore, it is refusing any negotiations regarding these weapons. The implications of this situation are not insignificant.

North Korea's Nuclear Strategy and U.S. Response

Iran and North Korea are often compared because they are states developing or possessing nuclear weapons. While it is considered difficult for Iran to reach an agreement due to its fundamental stance, North Korea is currently refusing negotiations altogether. There are considerations about the possibility of using military options against North Korea. However, North Korea is not in the stage of developing nuclear weapons; it has completed its nuclear arsenal and possesses the capability to strike South Korea and Japan, making military options highly difficult. Nevertheless, fundamentally, when considering the situations of both countries, the U.S. is likely to adopt a less flexible policy towards North Korea. The U.S. took military action against Iran even during negotiations. The question is how much support President Trump's nuclear strategy will receive domestically, which relies solely on diplomatic efforts for a country that rejects negotiations and possesses the capability to attack the U.S. This is

Implications of the Iran War on the North Korean Regime

If it fails to gain support, even without resorting to military action, Trump may resort to demonstrations of force. A situation is unfolding where Iran and North Korea are inevitably compared. To summarize, I will discuss the impact on North Korea based on the current situation. From North Korea's perspective, its view of the Iran war is likely to be complex and uncomfortable. At a broader level, the Kim Jong Un regime will be more fixated on possessing nuclear weapons. This is because Iran faced U.S. military action due to its failure to properly develop nuclear weapons, leading to the downfall of its supreme leader, Khamenei. Therefore, North Korea is highly likely to argue that its possession of nuclear weapons is absolutely necessary and justified. It will likely promote propaganda asserting the necessity of North Korean nuclear weapons for self-defense.

Furthermore, the threshold for North Korea-U.S. negotiations may be lowered. As seen in June last year with the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike groups, there was speculation of military operations targeting Iran's key nuclear facilities, but instead, large-scale operations are underway. Moreover, key command personnel have been eliminated. The U.S. has acted more forcefully than anticipated, and Trump's uncooperativeness has been revealed. Observing this, Kim Jong Un is likely to recall 2017. At that time, President Trump threatened to 'totally destroy' North Korea, warning of facing 'fire and fury' like never seen before. Coincidentally, the operation name used this time is 'Vast Fury.' The use of similar expressions places a significant burden on Kim Jong Un. Of course, North Korea differs from Iran, and since North Korea possesses nuclear capabilities, the likelihood of the U.S. resorting to military action is considered very low.

In 2017, despite a show of force involving three aircraft carriers, a 'bloody nose' operation, a limited strike, was considered but not executed. This is believed to be because North Korea possessed nuclear weapons, effectively holding South Korea and Japan hostage. In 2017, North Korea's nuclear capabilities were not sufficient to strike South Korea or Japan. Nevertheless, concerns about North Korea's nuclear weapons and the potential for escalation into full-scale war prevented military action. Currently, the situation is clearly more difficult.

Nevertheless, from Kim Jong Un's perspective, having dealt with Trump, he understands that Trump is a highly uncooperative figure, which may induce fear. Furthermore, North Korea is aware that the U.S. cannot continue to overlook its actions while striking Iran. Last October, at the APEC summit, Kim Jong Un refused to meet with Trump despite Trump's repeated invitations. If such a situation arises, the continuous refusal itself places a significant burden on North Korea, and within the U.S., criticism may arise questioning why concessions are being made to Kim Jong Un while Iran is being targeted. Overall, it seems that 'the possibility of North Korea coming to the negotiating table has actually decreased.' When military action is taken even during negotiations, outright refusal of negotiations altogether can be a significant burden for North Korea.

One piece of evidence to the contrary is that North Korea, unusually, criticized the U.S. through its Foreign Ministry spokesperson immediately after Iran took military action. North Korea rarely issues swift statements; it typically takes time to assess the situation and analyze trends before releasing a statement. The fact that it responded quickly is noteworthy. Furthermore, the language used in the Foreign Ministry spokesperson's statement was very restrained. There was no mention of Trump, and while the U.S. was criticized, the harsh rhetoric typically employed by North Korea was absent. This suggests North Korea's apprehension regarding the power demonstrated by the U.S.

Today, we have discussed the implications of the Iran war by comparing Iran and North Korea from the outset of the conflict. Thank you.

■ Author: Park Won-gon (Director of the North Korea Research Center, East Asia Institute; Professor of North Korean Studies, Ewha Womans University)

■ Editor: Lim Jae-hyun (EAI Researcher)

Contact: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) | jhlim@eai.or.kr