After Iran, is North Korea next?

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is based on faith in Iran changing in 10 to 15 years and becoming less threatening. His approach should now be tested with North Korea.

AP Photo
Young Iranian men cheer in Tehran July 14 with a picture of Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, reading "Zarif is Mosaddegh of our time," comparing Zarif to Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's legendary prime minister during the 1950s who nationalized the country's oil industry.

President Obama took a leap of faith in concluding a nuclear deal with Iran. The deal’s restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program will end in 10 to 15 years. By then, Mr. Obama presumes, Iran will be a different country, one not interested in developing nuclear weapons. While Iran has differences with the United States, he said, it is possible for the country to change.

Mark your 2025 calendars to check if Obama will have been right about Iran changing for the better. 

With a population mostly under 35 years old and very pro-American, Iran does indeed seem ripe “to move toward a more constructive relationship with the world community,” as Obama put it. Half of Iran’s university graduates are women, and its semicompetitive election system has helped erode the power of the ruling mullahs since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

An early test will be elections due in February for parliament and the Assembly of Experts (the body that will select the next supreme leader). If reformist leaders win, Obama’s trust in the Iranian people as eventually nonthreatening may be on track.

In the meantime, this sort of bold diplomacy that looks to the best in one’s opponents should not be lost. It is especially needed in the effort to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. Can it now work with North Korea, a country that has already tested several nuclear devices as well as the rockets to carry them?

After the Iran nuclear deal was announced July 14, South Korea asked North Korea to follow the path of Iran in denuclearization. 

Yet trusting North Korea to change may not be nearly as easy. Its regime is self-isolating and not very vulnerable to economic sanctions. It faces no threat of attack as Iran did from Israel or the US. It is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran is, and thus sees no obligation to uphold global standards.

In addition, North Korea withdrew from a 1994 pact with the US to end its nuclear program after it violated technical aspects of the agreement. The Obama administration now refuses to talk to North Korea until it takes steps toward denuclearization. And South Korea has put on hold its investments in industries in the North, no longer hoping such an approach can encourage trust and openness.

Given the nature of North Korea’s closed society, it is difficult to know what changes might be afoot that could bring internal reform and reduce the nuclear threat. The regime of Kim Jong-un, which has made a few economic changes such as allowing farmers to keep more of their produce, appears to be facing dissent among the elite.

Obama took a risk to engage Iran and won a deal. He also did the same in restoring ties with Cuba, under the hope of reform within that cold-war adversary of the US. It may be time to reengage with North Korea, despite its claim after the Iran deal that it is not interested.

On the day before he announced the Iran nuclear deal, Obama commuted the sentences of 46 nonviolent drug offenders, saying, “America is a nation of second chances. And I believe these folks deserve their second chance.” In diplomacy as in law enforcement, sometimes even a nation deserves a second chance, if one can perceive its better side.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.