“Despite the mocking that George W. Bush received for his statement about the Axis of Evil, two thirds of the axis continues the march towards nuclear weapons.”
Fifteen years ago President George W. Bush labeled Iraq, North Korea, and Iran as the ‘Axis of Evil’. This comment was roundly mocked. It was largely forgotten after the war in Iraq and the persistent insurgency. Because two of the countries are still dominating current events, and Opslens analysts describe North Korea as the location of a future war, it is worth revisiting the key phrase and how it exhibited wisdom and foresight.
In the 2002 State of the Union Address, just a few months after 9/11, President George W. Bush described North Korea as “a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.” In regards to Iran, he said they “aggressively pursue these weapons and export terror.” Liberals blasted this concept as a ridiculous comparison to the Axis powers in World War II, and described it as an attempt by a war cowboy to argue for the Iraq war.
Critics pointed out this phrase didn’t accurately reflect the hatred that Iran and Iraq shared for each other after their long war in the 80s. But the original axis powers didn’t like each other either, and would have likely fought each other after winning the initial war.
The 2002 speech came before the development of social media and memes, but I remember scornful email chains that started labelling various countries as the ‘axis of naughty’, the ‘axis of countries that end with -stan’, and the ‘axis of places that aren’t so bad but also won’t host the Olympics any time soon’.
The first attempt to fight this axis ended up being the most controversial. Despite a stunning collapse of Hussein’s regime, the conflict gave way to a long insurgency. Many years of horrible news, the collapse of the Iraqi government after American withdrawal, and the returning fight combined to make the conflict seem like a tragic mistake. The discussion of the axis faded away, but 15 years later it is time to revisit it.
North Korea now has a new dictator that is more insecure than his father, and even more willing to hold on to power using violent means. For example, Kim Jong-un recently killed a relative in a brazen, public attack in a Malaysian airport. His people continue to starve, and puts many in work camps. Most dangerously, he continues to test nuclear ballistic missiles even in the face of ratcheting tension and pressure from America and China.
The North Korean actions are so provocative that America felt the need to deploy missile defenses, missile submarines, and a carrier to the region. The US is left with little military options because the South Korean capital, Seoul, is only 30 miles from the border and millions of people are within conventional artillery range. Any attack might bring a costly reprisal that North Korea has had years to prepare for.
Iran is also boosting its credibility as part of the axis. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that Iran is technically abiding by the provisions of the recent treaty. But the Obama era treaty is lacking because it left Iran in a strong position. They received numerous benefits, including lifting of sanctions, and cash infusions immediately upon implementation of the treaty.
The US lost a good deal of leverage at the same time because Iran has a very short “break out period.” Which refers to the amount of time it takes from resuming nuclear testing to having nuclear capability. Sanctions take time to work and are difficult to reimpose. These factors leave the US with few options to stop them during that ‘break out’ period. On top of that, Iran is already expanding its power in the region through proxy wars with both Iraq and Syria.
Despite the mocking that George W. Bush received for his statement about the Axis of Evil, two thirds of the axis continues the march towards nuclear weapons. They continue to be a source of concern and hotspots for potential conflict. Because Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and the North Korean ruler is rather unstable, there is a far greater risk that they will use nuclear weapons.
They cannot be restrained by conventional deterrents that worked in the Cold War. Upon reflection, President Bush should receive more credit for trying to nip the dangers in the bud before they became harder to solve. Most politicians want quick and easy solutions, and are unwilling to take political heat for making tough choices that preemptively address problems.
President Bush also tried to address entitlement and immigration reform as well. These, along with the remaining Axis of Evil, are problems the country is still grappling with today. The benefit of hindsight forces us to move away from the idea that he was a foolish, warmongering cowboy that involved America in needless wars. Instead it has become apparent he was a brave leader trying to address intractable problems head on.
