Iran, N. Korea deterred U.S.; Clinton ruled out pre-emptive strikes

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration determined that deterrence would not work against Iran and North Korea and ruled out any attack to destroy the missile and suspected nuclear arsenals by those two countries.

Officials said the administration considered preemptive strikes against Pyongyang in the early 1990s when they determined that North Korea had both nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. But President Bill Clinton sided with advisers who urged that this option be scrapped.

Pyongyang and Teheran, officials said, do not appear deterred by U.S. military might and might launch missile or nuclear attacks if they feel threatened. They said this assessment is the basis for the consideration the Clinton administration has given a national missile defense system.

Iran and North Korea, the officials said, have resisted arms control efforts, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Missile Technology Control Regime. They said even a country like Iran, which signed the NPT, cannot be regarded as honoring any treaty that would hamper its missile or nonconventional weapons programs.

"There are reasons to believe, in the case of a country like North Korea or Iran, that the traditional notions of deterrence might not work," John Holum, presidential adviser on arms control, told Middle East Newsline. " North Korea might believe that if they had a nuclear and missile capability that could wipe out a U.S. city that in an emergency we would be less likely to come to the aid of our ally. So it's a reverse deterrence -- an effort to deter us from living up to our security commitments that we're concerned about."

Addressing reporters from Asia last week, Holum appeared to rule out a preemptive strike to destroy either Iranian or North Korean weapons facilities. "I don't like that option very much, and I don't think it would be acceptable internationally, although it's something that some would advocate," he said. "It seems to me under those circumstances that defending is a reasonable option, so long as you can have some confidence that it will work, that it's affordable, and that it won't upset the arms control and strategic structure that you want to preserve internationally. That's the kind of analysis that we are in the process of going through here."