Netanyahu's 'red line': Does drawing a line actually work?

Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu literally drew a 'red line' on a simple diagram of Iran's nuclear program. How have red lines worked out in the past?

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu draws a red line on a graphic of a bomb as he addresses the 67th United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. headquarters in New York.

In a dramatic gesture, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew a "red line" on a diagram of Iran's nuclear program and called on the world to do the same to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons — a step the Iranians insist they don't intend to take.

Red lines, Netanyahu declared, "don't lead to war." Instead, he argued Thursday before the U.N. General Assembly that "red lines prevent war" by making clear the limits of international tolerance.

Eytan Gilboa, an expert on U.S.-Israel relations at Bar Ilan University, said red lines are considered less severe a warning than an ultimatum, which includes a threat of consequences.

History shows that the effectiveness of such warnings often depends on a country's resolve to follow through and accept the consequences.

Line in the sand

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein sent soldiers and tanks into neighboring Kuwait and annexed the tiny, oil-rich nation as Iraq's 19th province. Six days later, President George H. W. Bush told Americans that "a line in the sand has been drawn" and ordered U.S. troops to Kuwait's neighbor Saudi Arabia.

Armed with a U.N. Security Council resolution and congressional authorization to use force, U.S. and allied jets launched air attacks on Baghdad and other Iraqi targets. The ground assault began Feb. 24 and within days the Iraqis had been driven out of Kuwait. Iraq accepted a cease-fire on March 3 and Kuwaiti sovereignty was restored.

Cuban missile crisis

One of history's most dangerous red-line moments came in October 1962 when U.S. President John F. Kennedy revealed to the world that the Soviet Union had been installing missile sites in Cuba, and demanded that Premier Nikita Khrushchev remove them. For 13 tense days, the world seemed headed for nuclear war. Kennedy declared a quarantine on all offensive military equipment headed for Cuba — effectively a "red line" around the Caribbean island nation — and threatened to turn back any ships carrying armaments. For their part, the Soviets tested a 300-kiloton hydrogen bomb as a reminder of Moscow's military might.

Ultimately behind-the-scenes negotiations produced a deal to avert nuclear holocaust. Khrushchev agreed to withdraw nuclear weapons from Cuba and Kennedy privately promised to decommission largely obsolete U.S. missiles in Turkey.

Berlin airlift

In 1945 the victorious allies divided the Nazi German capital into Russian, American, British and French zones, with each occupying power getting full access to the entire city. The Soviets considered West Berlin, located 110 miles into the Communist-controlled east, as a thorn that should be eliminated. Access to the city was Moscow's red line.

Three years into the occupation, the Soviets began restricting Western rail, road and canal entry to West Berlin. With 1.5 million Soviet soldiers around the city, Moscow effectively presented the West with the choice of acquiescing to Soviet demands and leaving or seeing its part of the city starve.

In response, the U.S. and its allies began flying in thousands of tons of food, fuel and other supplies. By the spring of 1949, the airlift was bringing in more supplies than had been delivered by rail. The blockade was lifted in May 1949. West Berlin served as a Western outpost until the collapse of Communism and the reunification of Germany some 40 years later.

54-40 or fight

In the 1840s, the phrase "54-40 or fight" became the battle cry for American expansionists in the Democratic Party who wanted the United States to push the border of the Oregon Territory north to Alaska. The numbers referred to the latitude of Russian-controlled Alaska. Britain also claimed much of the territory, now the Canadian province of British Columbia, and called the Americans' bluff, threatening war if that's what the hawks wanted.

The United States, already embroiled in a conflict with Mexico, was in no position to challenge the world's foremost military power. The issue dragged on until 1871 when the U.S., exhausted by four years of civil war, signed a treaty recognizing the border with Canada — well south of the "54-40 or fight" demand.

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.