Why the West must stop with the Iran-North Korea comparisons

Last week, before the UN General Assembly, Bibi Netanyahu warned that the Islamic Republic of Iran was not far off becoming the world’s next North Korea. This was nothing new, comparing Iran with North Korea has been done by analysts for years now. 

But why? Just because both states don’t conform with Western interests and are pursuing a nuclear programme? Surely that is not sufficient as a reason to make the two countries worthy of comparison to such a degree. Politics is more nuanced than that, isn’t it?

If you think about it, in many ways, the two states could not be more different. Not only are their respective cultures and histories totally disparate, they are at odds in terms of their respective political foundations: the Iranian political system is based upon a strictly religious mode of governance – Khomeini’s doctrine of velayet-e faqih – whereas North Korean society is exposed more to the respective personality cults of the Kim leaders than any deity. Indeed, to a large degree, religion has been sidetracked by the ruling family in the DPRK.

The fundamental differences go on: Iran’s regime was born of popular and revolutionary fervour, while the Kim dynasty was installed by an external force, the Soviets. While one is far off the map in terms of natural resources, the other is one of the most fossil fuel and mineral rich countries in the world.

Certainly, each government has a similar foreign policy when it comes to the United States of America. Neither state accepts the United States’ post-Cold War once invulnerable sense of global hegemony, something that is becoming more tenuous by the day. Beyond that specific aspect of foreign policy, though, they are again wildly different. Pyongyang has, since the 1953 Korean War armistice, pursued a predominantly isolationist mode of foreign relations. Tehran, especially in the eyes of Capitol Hill, is almost the exact opposite of this. Repeatedly, decision-makers in Washington have accused the Islamic Republic, that “terrorist-oriented, expansionist” regime, of subversive activities throughout the world.

This is just the very tip of the iceberg – to consider this curious paradigm further yields myriad more inconsistencies. The natural thing to ask next is why? Perhaps all it boils down to is the effectiveness of Bush Jr.’s “Axis of Evil” paradigm. By bundling Iran in with Iraq and North Korea, Washington can forget about the Islamic Republic’s less offensive policies (let alone instances of Tehran’s full cooperation), branding it an enemy regardless. The “Axis of Evil” metaphor is still salient today. It is a means by which the United States can pursue realist political goals behind a shroud of ideology, and this must not be dismissed by analysts. 

It is time that politicians stop making lazy comparisons between states – be they allies or enemies. Such comparisons engender a reductive, simplistic and damaging picture of international relations. One state’s understanding of another is paramount to global politics and to put it to one side just for sake of ease is an act of negligence. The individual politics of individual countries must be understood in isolation, not blurred with others in order suggest much resemblance when there is little.

Let's get talking about this false paradigm - leave comments below.