One thing I sometimes tell my history students is that generally when a country/kingdom has a conflict with another power, the citizens rally around their leader (at least over the short term). That’s why sometimes in history leaders have started trouble. If they are feeling the heat from their people, a little war here or there takes the pressure off.
This is why, I tell my students, whenever a President uses the military there are members of the opposition political party who accuse the him of only taking action for political reasons. George Bush (the first one) sent troops into Panama because our economy was bad, Bill Clinton fired missiles at suspected terrorist sites because the House was voting on impeachment, etc., etc., etc.
There was one set of dots I never connected; however, a columnist in the Washington Post did it for me. Conservative writer Michael Gerson recently argued that the leaders in Iran and North Korea use this same principle to help them maintain control over their people. They demonize the United States, calling us their enemy and a threat to their security. By standing up to us, they portray themselves as strong; as protectors of their people.
This is interesting because if true it makes negotiations and compromises difficult. Good relations with us are not in the best interests of the leaders of these countries. We’re props in their internal dramas. They want to provoke strong reactions from us (short of a decisive US military strike), so that when they stand up to us, they look strong in the eyes of their people. Signs of compromise or accommodation from us will be met with scorn in this scenario because ridiculing us makes the leader look strong. Asking for something substantial on their part, like dismantling nuclear programs must be met with obstinacy or the leaders look weak.
Saddam Hussein played this game with George W. Bush, and it didn’t work out so well for the Iraqi leader. And as the world watched the overthrow of Hussein, the leader of Libya decided co-operation might be better for his long term future than this international game of chicken.
If the leaders of Iran and North Korea truly are more interested in looking strong in front of their people than they are in being popular in the international community then it makes President Obama’s diplomacy difficult. By rejecting the Bush Doctrine (which was that the US reserved the right to pre-emptively strike potential threats to American security), our current President might be emboldening the regimes he is trying to get to compromise with him. Ignoring these countries won’t be an option either. They need to be defying us if they want to look strong, thus they will adopt increasingly aggressive postures. The President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly have their work cut out for them.
Wouldn’t it be nice if I was wrong?
What if I’m not?