Israel fears an nuclear bomb in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Dictatorships have to be fought with drastic means, but not in open wars – By Rafael Seligmann

Do rogue states really exist? Is the term a fitting description for the likes of North Korea, Syria and Iran? Pyongyang is developing weapons of mass destruction, threatening South Korea and exporting its military know-how while its own people suffer. In Syria, the hereditary dictatorship of President Bashir al-Assad is waging war against its own people while in Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vow to wipe Israel off the map. It may be time to take a close look at the term “rogue state” before policy leads to unforeseen consequences.

All rogue states are dictatorships, yet not all dictatorships have aggressive foreign policies. In Spain, General Francisco Franco took power in a bloody civil war (1936-1939) with the assistance of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. When Hitler tried to bring Franco on board for his coming war with Russia, however, the Spanish dictator firmly refused. Franco sent only a “volunteer force” to fight against the USSR. After World War II and up until Franco’s death in 1975, Spain acted with restraint internationally, refraining from threatening any other state.

In Chile, General Augusto Pinochet came to power in a coup in 1973, with the knowledge and benevolence of the US. Pinochet and his military government ruled by fear. Thousands were killed; tens of thousands imprisoned. Yet in foreign policy the dictator was peaceable. Not all dictatorships, therefore, are international rogues.

Seen another way, the Nazis could point to some democratic legitimacy. In 1932, the NSDAP became the party with the most seats in parliament and Hitler the most popular politician in Germany. Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution in Iran against the Shah in 1979 enjoyed the support of a broad majority of the population. President Ahmadinejad manipulates elections and suppresses the opposition, but his regime enjoys far more democratic legitimacy than, say, Saudi Arabia, which has neither elections nor a representative parliament. What the Saudis have is oil, and Riyadh is a traditional US ally.

The term rogue state was established as a political instrument by US President George W. Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was referring to countries that sponsor terrorism. He applied the term to Afghanistan under the Taliban and soon extended it to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which he accused of developing weapons of mass destruction. The role of Kabul and Baghdad as patrons of terrorism and threats to global stability served to justify military interventions by the US and its allies.

Since then, the operation in Afghanistan has become a military and political fiasco. Its continuation is down to the current president, Barack Obama, who needed to prove his patriotism to the American people. In Iraq, too, no one thanks the Americans for their intervention anymore.

Now, international media and political leaders are calling for a military intervention in Syria, to put an end to the bloodshed there. In Israel pressure is rising for a strike on Iran to cripple the country’s capacity to build nuclear weapons. Only the US government has dissuaded Jerusalem from attacking – for now.

As the US presidential election campaign nears its climax, the probability of an Israeli attack is growing. That would be a great error – just as Western intervention in Syria would be. In both instances, the effects would be unpredictable.

Yet the alternative is in no way to do nothing and stand idly by as Syria slaughters its own people and Tehran approaches its goal of a nuclear arsenal to destroy the Jewish State. In Iran, even “moderates” like former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani share the “logic” that Iran would greatly suffer in a nuclear war while Israel would be destroyed. That would mean “victory” for Tehran.

What should be done? Let’s begin with the Prussian military strategist Clausewitz and US President John F. Kennedy. Clausewitz insisted on the primacy of politics. He regarded war as the continuation of politics by other means. When military considerations gain the upper hand, as they did in Vietnam, political disaster results.

Half a century ago, President Kennedy ordered a naval blockade to prevent Soviet missiles from being deployed in Cuba. Formally that was a hostile act, but it was not the same as an open war. No one was killed. America’s steadfastness forced the Soviets to back down.

Today the Iranians must be shown clearly, if need be by means of a blockade, that the world is not going to tolerate their playing for time. The alternative would be nuclear Armageddon. The dictatorship in Damascus must also be forced by drastic means, though without open war, to stop murdering its people.

There are no rogue states, just as there are no rogue peoples: only criminal dictatorships. Josef Stalin once said, “Hitlers come and go, but the German nation remains.” The dictator knew what he was talking about.