Since the start of the twenty-first century, the world has been disturbed by both wars in the present and rumours of wars in the near future. The two principal wars, caused by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States and its allies, have been linked to the so-called 'war on terror', a war that is now clearly just a war on Islamic 'terror'.
One of the future wars is also loosely linked to the war on terror. Scarcely a month goes by without rumours that Israel and/or the USA is about to launch a military attack on Iran. These reports have been with us for years, but the assault has not yet taken place. Nevertheless there is little doubt the plans for war exist and the command has only to be given to send missiles and aircraft on their way. Iran has attacked no other country, but the United States and Israel claim the right to launch a pre-emptive attack upon it. Iran's supposed crimes are trying to develop nuclear weapons and aiding Islamic terrorism. There is some truth in the latter accusation, but the former one has still to be proved.
Under the Westphalian system of international relations which existed from 1648 to 2001 pre-emptive wars were regarded as illegal, but since 9/11 the United States has declared it will only recognise international law when it finds this convenient. The Westphalian system rested on a belief in the equal sovereignty of nations. The USA has made it clear it does not recognise the sovereignty of any other nation. Other nations must bend to its will or suffer the consequences. The rule of law is replaced by the rule of the strongest. This is hardly a recipe for international peace.
In the case of Iran, the United States can be sure of support for aggressive action not just from Israel but also from certain Muslim nations in the region. The rulers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Arab states, all staunch Sunni Muslims, are keen to back an American/Israeli military assault on the Shia Muslims of Iran. Clearly the concept of Muslim solidarity is almost as laughable today as the notion of international law, with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference as irrelevant in world affairs as the United Nations.
With so many countries working for conflict with Iran, that rumour of war may eventually become a reality. One can only hope that such an assault on isolated, militarily weak Iran will be the swift and successful operation its advocates claim, but the law of unintended consequences may come into play here just as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second future war of which rumours have circulated for years may come to reality even sooner than the conflict with Iran and its consequences may be much more dangerous.
The notion of a pre-emptive strike by the USA on North Korea has been around almost as long as the much-discussed plan for an assault on Iran. The communist rulers of North Korea are held to be an even greater threat to the security of the world community than the ayatollahs of Iran. North Korea is considered to have some kind of nuclear weapon and the country's behaviour has been much more provocative than that of Iran. The sinking of the South Korean frigate earlier this year and the recent bombardment of a South Korean island show North Korea is an aggressive power whose conduct must provoke a reaction stronger than words from the United States at some point. America may unleash war on Iran at some point, but North Korea is unwilling to wait passively for a US pre-emptive strike. It is already prepared to risk war with America and its allies.
In contrast to the situation with Iran, America's allies are not thirsting to start a war with North Korea. Probably no nation on earth is better prepared for war than this communist dictatorship. Claims have been made that the North Korean people are starving and their economy is in ruins. Whether or not that is true, one can be sure that the country's military forces are well fed, well armed, and highly motivated. Any American military attack in response to a new North Korean provocation is bound to lead in turn to massive North Korean retaliation. Of course most of the victims of such retaliation will not be Americans. They will be South Koreans, and possibly Japanese.
Thus the governments of South Korea and Japan, despite their strident verbal condemnations of North Korea, are not enthusiastic about taking any significant military action against that country. They look to China to restrain its North Korean neighbour, and for the moment the United States seems prepared to go along with this policy. But is it a realistic policy? Such an approach is akin to expecting the USA to restrain Israel because it has close relations with that country. Far from being under its superpower sponsor's thumb, Israel has recently chosen to ignore American pleas to stop Jewish settlement on Palestinian land and so has ruined hopes of new Middle East peace negotiations. Despite this defiance, the United States will not punish Israel, and in similar fashion China will take no action against North Korea if it ignores Chinese advice.
Iran studiously avoids military clashes with its enemies in the Gulf; North Korea seems to go out of its way to provoke them. And any military clash in the Korean peninsula has the potential to lead to rapid escalation and open war between the opposing sides. North Korea is confident that no matter how much it suffers in such a conflict, it can inflict massive damage on South Korea, and possibly on Japan as well. In addition, should an errant American cruise missile fail to hit its North Korean target and land in China instead, then the situation in the region would become even more explosive.
Assuming neither North Korea nor the United States resort to the use of nuclear weapons, a conventional war would resume in Korea and it would in some ways resemble the conflict of 1950-53 which ended in an uneasy truce. The USA would again have almost complete command of the sea and the air, but on land America would find it difficult once again to achieve a decisive victory over North Korea. American forces in South Korea currently number around 30,000 personnel. If a large scale conventional war broke out, such forces would need to increase to at least 300,000 personnel. If it is assumed that the re-introduction of the draft in the USA is politically unacceptable, then the Americans could only find such a force by removing their last troops from Iraq, stripping their garrison in Germany, and effectively closing down their war in Afghanistan. South Korea would provide the bulk of the allied forces to assist America in the war against North Korea, but no doubt countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia, and Turkey, which provided contingents during the 1950-53 Korean war, might be expected to send forces once more. Despite its 'peace' constitution, Japan could hardly avoid giving military aid to the United States, given that it already hosts American naval, marine, and air force bases.
Even if the United States and its allies assembled sufficient manpower and firepower to inflict serious damage on the North Korean war machine, the USA would eventually face the same dilemma it did in 1950. Should it invade North Korea with the intention of liberating the country from communist rule? In 1950 the Chinese made it clear that although they would accept the defeat of the North Korean invasion of South Korea, they would take action if the Americans attempted to occupy the north. General Macarthur ignored the Chinese warning, entered North Korea, and was then driven out by an army of Chinese 'volunteers'.
How would today's China react to an invasion of North Korea by the United States and its allies? Perhaps not with direct military intervention, but probably by providing sufficient supplies to sustain North Korean resistance. And how would the USA react to that? In 1950 General Macarthur reacted to Chinese military intervention by demanding American atomic bomb attacks on China. He did not get them and President Truman finally decided to sack the general. In 1950 China did not have any nuclear weapons. It does now and they have a global reach. Whatever aid China gave to North Korea, it seems unlikely the United States would risk provoking World War III by taking any military action against China.
Although the assault on Iran which American conservatives and Israeli hardliners have worked for over the last few years would undoubtedly produce a major international crisis, such a crisis would be as nothing compared to the outbreak of a major war in the Korean peninsula. If this rumour of war became a reality, the whole world might be in danger from the ever-escalating consequences of such a conflict. Renewed diplomacy is the only way to avoid this outcome. The United States must agree to a meeting of the six power conference on Korea as soon as possible, making no pre-conditions and avoiding any further military escalation. North Korea may be a rogue state, but if it is driven into a corner, it may, like a mad dog, strike out in all directions with terrible consequences for the region and the world.
