Guest columnist
Nation's foreign-policy focus should be Iran, North Korea

By Lee H. Hamilton
Knight Ridder / Tribune News Service

Lee H. Hamilton

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

WASHINGTON — The presidential debates provided a clearer look at where the candidates stand on several foreign-policy issues, but in a world teetering on the brink of chaos, a major challenge was not debated: the next foreign-policy surprise.

On the 9/11 commission, we became interested in how often terrorism was brought up in the 2000 election. A careful review determined that terrorism came up once in the entire campaign, and was not mentioned in the debates — despite the USS Cole bombing on Oct. 12, 2000, and the East African Embassy bombings in 1998.

Yet after 9/11, terrorism vaulted to the top of George W. Bush's agenda, and foreign policy issues debated in 2000 — Slobodan Milosevic, missile defense, humanitarian intervention — shifted to the background.

Unforeseen crises often consume a president's foreign policy. Upon taking office, George H.W. Bush did not expect an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; Bill Clinton did not anticipate the amount of time he would spend on the Balkans.

This does not mean that candidates, and voters, could not have seen trouble on the horizon. Like terrorism in 2000, the 1988 situation in the Persian Gulf and the 1992 situation in the Balkans pointed to gathering peril.

In 1988, the Iran-Iraq war was drawing to a close and the region was unstable; in 1992, Yugoslavia had begun its disintegration. But in each case, key decisions lay far in the future, and candidates focused on more pressing concerns.

It seems necessary, then, to step back and consider what issues, floating under the radar screen, might pose problems for the president after his inauguration in January.

At the top of the list are North Korea and Iran. These hostile countries were addressed in the first debate, but the severity of the threat has not been fully acknowledged. North Korea likely has nuclear weapons; Iran is making progress with its nuclear program. We must decide soon what to do about this.

In the next four years, the president will face one of these situations: a military confrontation with one or both countries, the acceptance of one or two new nuclear-armed nations, or a peaceful resolution of differences with one or both nations that leads to their nuclear disarmament.

It may be difficult to conceive, but an armed confrontation with North Korea or Iran could push terrorism off the front burner of American foreign policy. Averting the possibility of such confrontations and halting nuclear proliferation will not be easy.

Pakistan also could pose enormous problems. Right now, we maintain a firm alliance with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. But there have been numerous attempts to assassinate Musharraf, and Pakistan is home to several strong radical Islamist movements.

It is not inconceivable that Pakistan — and its nuclear arsenal — could fall into the hands of an Islamic fundamentalist government harboring Osama bin Laden. This would immediately raise dire concerns — about nuclear proliferation, terrorism and the possibility of a war between Pakistan and India.

A crisis could also develop over Taiwan. China has stated its concern that the island is moving toward independence. If the Taiwanese do declare independence, or the Chinese take action to preempt such a move, the United States might have to make a choice: defend Taiwan militarily, or see the island fall to Chinese invasion. Given our current deployment in Iraq, and China's role in the global economy, a confrontation with the Chinese would be immensely challenging.

The American people are right to demand a focus on Iraq and terrorism. But even these issues are laced with unpredictability. Consider a few scenarios:

• What if Iraq becomes a full-blown civil war?

• What if Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities or goes to war with Syria?

• What if a terrorist detonates a nuclear device in Moscow?

There is, of course, no end to these "what ifs." That is why, when we ask political candidates for plans, we should recognize that the best-laid plans must adjust to circumstances. In a world of swelling turmoil, a jolt on any number of issues could cause the global scene to explode.

The president of the United States will not get through the next four years without huge and unforeseen choices — on war and peace, or terrorism, genocides, spiking energy costs, epidemics, financial crises, or environmental catastrophes.

Candidates and voters always must keep a difficult truth in mind: Those running for the presidency must prepare for the challenges clearly ahead, but also for those that lie around the corner.

Lee H. Hamilton is the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the former chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Readers may write him at WWIC, Ronald Reagan Building, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C., 20004-3027.