Strategic Cooperation, the Invasion of Iraq and the Behaviour of the `Axis of Evil', 1990—2004

The study, using an autoregressive model and a time series of events data, tests whether Iran, Syria and North Korea have altered their behaviour towards the USA in response to the US occupation of Iraq. In particular, the study posits a modified theory of `strategic conflict avoidance', suggesting that perceived failings in US policy towards Iraq that manifest in low popularity ratings have, in fact, constrained the US president from initiating future aggressive actions. Potential targets of US aggression, rather than becoming more cooperative towards an unpopular US president, as suggested by strategic conflict avoidance theory, now become more hostile as they take advantage of public unease with an adventurous foreign policy. The analysis provides mixed support for the hypothesis, finding that North Korea has altered its strategic conflict avoidance behaviour in response to the Iraq occupation. Syria has become more hostile towards the USA, whereas, surprisingly, Iran is relatively uninfluenced by US domestic politics. The article suggests that coercive strategies might provide an opening in current US negotiations with North Korea, but also worryingly concludes, on the basis of the evidence, that the chances of a negotiated settlement with Iran are small.