How world should tackle Iran, North Korea files

A three-week disappearance from the media by North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un led to massive speculation as to his whereabouts. During this time, many reports described all the potential scenarios without any concrete information. All were trying to predict what the succession plan would be in the event of his passing. The secrecy of the regime has ensured it is difficult to accurately predict or know what happens behind the scenes in Pyongyang. This is particularly worrying for most Western leaders, as North Korea has an active nuclear program as well as a focus on long-range missile development.

To a lesser extent, the same is applicable to another country with a supreme leader — Iran. There might be a little more information, but every sign of a health problem or disappearance by Ali Khamenei results in many experts fishing for answers. It is also interesting to note that, despite their apparently different ideologies, the two countries’ political structures are somewhat similar, with a supreme leader guiding a politburo in North Korea and a Council of Guardians in Iran. Some would argue that Iran is more of a communist country than an Islamic nation, as it likes to describe itself. More importantly, in both countries, the only true center of power is the supreme leader. 

The other similarity is these countries’ pursuit of a nuclear program and long-range missile development. Because they have similar objectives on these two points, some intelligence reports have linked North Korea and Iran with technological collaboration. Beyond this, because of the nature of the regimes and their defiant foreign policy stances, experts always link both files and investigate how an event in one country impacts the other. 

It is usually when something happens in Iran that the consequences on the North Korean file are analyzed; whether it was during the nuclear deal negotiations or the recent strike against Qassem Soleimani. With the latter, it was interesting to notice that the predominant analysis concluded that this was bad for the North Korean negotiations because it would signal to the regime that it is at risk of being targeted once it renounces its weapons arsenal or reaches a nuclear accord.

However, this does not apply as there is no North Korean equivalent to the role Soleimani played. Whereas the Iranian regime has a full covert destabilization and interference program in the Middle East led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, North Korea does not interfere with armed groups or take on subversive actions against countries in Asia. This is a big difference. There is obviously its confrontational stand with South Korea, but the rules of engagement are clear, especially with the US military presence on the Korean Peninsula and China’s growing role in this file. Also, despite a strong regional intelligence apparatus, there is no North Korean equivalent to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and its role in exporting terror and ideology.

North Korea and Iran, which represent large risks to regional and global stability, are also where international powers flex their political and diplomatic muscles. Most analysts look at the level of strength in international relations between the US on one side and China and Russia on the other. They speculate on how Beijing and Moscow act as buffers for these regimes in the face of the US. However, I believe that these two files tell us more about the dynamics of China-Russia relations and pure US domestic politics than anything else.

As Russia and China are the only major powers providing political support to Iran and North Korea, they also compete for broader influence and for markets within these countries. Indeed, China has had a growing influence in North Korea and Asia, while Russia has done the same in the Middle East. As for the US, any presidential action is always scrutinized by the opposition and used as a pressure point in election campaigning.

The leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran understand this very well and have been able to navigate and benefit from these realities to survive and strike temporary deals. They know when to put pressure on a US president, when to play Russia and China off against each other, and even when to compete directly, such as the current situation in Syria between Iran and Russia. They also know how to play on their neighbors’ disagreements, such as that between South Korea and Japan. 

A common stand would undoubtedly remove many of the risks of the opacity of these regimes.

Khaled Abou Zahr

Positive outcomes can be reached, but they can only come from dialogues involving not only the US, China and Russia, but also the regional countries that are affected and at risk due to the menacing weapons programs. There is a need to move away from the “zone of influence” concept to a regional structure, as Europe has done. A common stand would undoubtedly remove many of the risks of the opacity of these regimes and their defiant stands toward the international order. 

In the post-coronavirus world, we will need stability and support for large economic and development programs that best guarantee prosperity. A US-Chinese-Russian collaboration — not a power division — on the North Korean and Iranian files would be an excellent exercise to build global trust. Regional countries in Asia and the Gulf should spearhead these efforts, as they are the most at risk.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the CEO of Eurabia, a media and tech company. He is also the editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi. Twitter: @KhaledAbouZahr