Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Friday, April 21, 2017

We Didn't Learn From North Korea, Will We Change Our Tactics When It Comes To Iran?

We failed to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. As a result, our options
to stop them from developing a delivery system capable of reaching our shores are severely
The hard lesson from our failure to stop North Korea before they became a nuclear
 power is that we MUST stop Iran from ever developing or acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
A nuclear Iran would be far more dangerous to American interests than a nuclear North
 Korea. Iran already has missiles capable of reaching numerous American allies. They
 are in the process of upgrading them and making them capable of delivering a nuclear
payload to our shores. Its fundamentalist religious leaders would be willing to sacrifice
millions of Iranians to destroy the "Big Satan" (United States) or the "Little Satan" (Israel).
The late "moderate" leader Hashemi Rafsanjani once told an American journalist that if
 Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, they "would kill as many as five million Jews,"
and that if Israel retaliated, they would kill fifteen million Iranians, which would be "a
small sacrifice from among the billion Muslims in the world." He concluded that "it is
not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Recall that the Iranian mullahs
were willing to sacrifice thousands of "child-soldiers" in their futile war with Iraq.
There is nothing more dangerous than a "suicide regime" armed with nuclear weapons.
The deal signed by Iran in 2015 postpones Iran's quest for a nuclear arsenal, but
it doesn't prevent it, despite Iran's unequivocal statement in the preamble to the
 agreement that "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek,
develop or acquire nuclear weapons." (Emphasis added). Recall that North Korea
 provided similar assurances to the Clinton Administration back in 1994, only to
break them several years later -- with no real consequences. The Iranian mullahs
apparently regard their reaffirmation as merely hortatory and not legally binding.
The body of the agreement itself -- the portion Iran believes is legally binding --
does not preclude Iran from developing nuclear weapons after a certain time,
variously estimated as between 10 to 15 years from the signing of the agreement.
Nor does it prevent Iran from perfecting its delivery systems, including nuclear
 tipped inter-continental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States.

If we are not to make the same mistake with Iran that we made with North Korea,
we must do something now – before Iran secures a weapon – to deter the mullahs
 from becoming a nuclear power, over which we would have little or no leverage.
Congress should now enact legislation declaring that Iran's reaffirmation that it will
never "develop or acquire nuclear weapons" is an integral part of the agreement and
represents the policy of the United States. It is too late to change the words of the
deal, but it is not too late for Congress to insist that Iran comply fully with all of its
 provisions, even those in the preamble.
In order to ensure that the entirety of the agreement is carried out, including that
 reaffirmation, Congress should adopt the proposal made by Thomas L. Friedman
on 22 July 2015 and by myself on 5 September 2013. To quote Friedman:
"Congress should pass a resolution authorizing this and future presidents to use force to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state ... Iran must know now that the U.S. president is authorized to destroy – without warning or negotiation – any attempt by Tehran to build a bomb."
I put it similarly: Congress should authorize the President "to take military action against
 Iran's nuclear weapon's program if it were to cross the red lines...."
The benefits of enacting such legislation are clear: the law would underline the centrality
 to the deal of Iran's reaffirmation never to acquire nuclear weapons, and would provide
both a deterrent against Iran violating its reaffirmation and an enforcement authorization
 in the event it does.
A law based on these two elements -- adopting Iran's reaffirmation as the official
American policy and authorizing a preventive military strike if Iran tried to obtain nuclear
 weapons -- may be an alternative we can live with. But without such an alternative,
the deal as currently interpreted by Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear
weapons. In all probability, it would merely postpone that catastrophe for about a
decade while legitimating its occurrence. This is not an outcome we can live with,
 as evidenced by the crisis we are now confronting with North Korea. So let us learn
 from our mistake and not repeat it with Iran.
Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.

  • Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.