The burden of proof is on Iran

There were many in the world, and definitely in Israel, who would liked to have seen US President Barack Obama these days wearing a leather jacket announcing the launch of a military strike on Syria in retaliation to its criminal use of chemical weapons – the commander-in-chief deploying state-of-the art modern missiles and aircraft to hit the infrastructure of Syria’s army, and hopefully proclaiming three days later that the mission had been accomplished. Obama took the whole world by surprise when he conditioned the decision for a military strike on congressional approval, and even more so when he agreed to seriously negotiate a Russian-orchestrated political compromise to place the chemical weapons under international inspection.

To many observers, Obama seemed confused and inconsistent. In reality, he taught the world an important lesson as to the nature of today’s international system, and how national and international goals can be achieved. The world, very much due to the technological and information revolutions, is a transformed political system. Its citizens are better informed and more interconnected than ever. Government finds it harder to rule over their constituencies, be it in more or less democratic countries. With the weakening of government and the empowerment of the citizen, the nature of international relations has been profoundly altered. People rebel and protest against their leaders when they don’t provide a fair and decent living – be it in “occupy Wall Street” or “liberate Tahrir.” People will not march to the command of their governments, not to take unfair unemployment nor to go to useless wars.

Not only the balance between a strong government and the weak governed has changed, but also the relations between strong countries and weak ones. America’s bastion of power was hit on September 11 by stoneage mentality terrorists from ancient caves in Afghanistan. It took revenge against two countries, deploying the mightiest army in the world against barely existing armies, and failed in both places to achieve its goal of defeating terror and anarchy. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan did not surrender or raise exaggerated expectations for an American economic savior. The United States discovered the limitations of power. The same can be said of Russia in Chechnya or of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon.

We need to ask ourselves – what are the causes of the limitation of power, and what are its consequences for diplomacy? In today’s world, for the first time, it is often the weak and poor countries that pose a threat to international peace, due to the rise of fundamentalism and terrorism and the proliferation of conventional and non conventional weapons. The motivation to use lethal weapons is today more important than the capacity to use them. North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world and its population suffers from severe economic hardship and hunger; and yet its dictatorial regime can galvanize its people for military adventures, with nuclear and ballistic capacities.