This past week, the United States gazed at Asia with cautious optimism that North Korea would respond positively to renewed attempts to spur its denuclearization. Meanwhile, Iran stated to the world that it would not follow suit. During the upcoming week, as President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet, the most important thing to stress in relation to Iran is unity among allies.

Both sides’ differences are clearly stated and stem from different interpretations of where the “red line” for military force is. For Israel, which fears the Iranian nuclear bomb on the basis of survival, the red line is at the Iranian capability to build the bomb quickly. However, for the United States, which views the bomb as a threat to national interests, the red line is at the actual construction of such a bomb. Although such differences are publicly pronounced, it is important for the United States and Israel to present a unified front against the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons to eliminate any doubt or confusion about U.S. action or force should sanctions fail. In addition, a clearly defined casus belli is needed to ensure that neither side drags the other into a war when it is unprepared or unwanted.

It is in Iran’s clear interest to avoid a war with the United States, a war which would result in disastrous consequences. However, an isolated Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program before it actually produces a nuclear weapon could be played to the international community as an example of Israeli aggression. In a region that is already rife with instability and anti-Western and anti-Israeli sentiment, such an attack could foster greater instability and increase the threats on Israel and its people. Therefore, a unified agreement on the cause for war would serve to create a clear line that Iran could cross at its own risk, which would both legitimize a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and limit the backlash in instability in the region.

Furthermore, this question must also be considered in the context of the general grand strategy which the United States seems to be pursuing or should pursue. China has risen to the status of a world power, and thus any U.S. action in Iran will impact its relationship with China during a crucial time. Therefore, the United States must take into account this important relationship. A display of unity with its ally in the Middle East will further the U.S. push to maintain stability, presence and influence in the Pacific region. In approaching China, the United States must present itself as deeply committed and united behind its regional allies, namely South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, but also willing to compromise and coordinate with the People’s Republic. Thus, a sign of unity with Israel will enhance overall American credibility in its commitment to progress on foreign policy issues such as the recognition of Taiwan, and it will also lend credibility to the United States’ promise to Japan that it will assuage fears of Chinese dominance.

In addition, the cautious optimism with which the U.S. foreign policy establishment approaches the coming talks with North Korea stems from the historical instability that comes with any talks with the unpredictable and temperamental North Korean government. Therefore, sending clear signals regarding how the United States will respond to a failure of diplomatic and economic means in pursuing a similar goal in Iran may act as a deterrent to North Korea in its decisions. Such a unified approach and clear position may act to deter North Korea from backing out of the talks and may contribute to real progress made in achieving, or at least working toward, the goal of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

Whatever position the United States and Israel reach with regards to the Iranian nuclear program, the importance of standing on unified ground and sending a clear and strong signal to the region that a failure of sanctions will result in the use of force in defense of American and allied interests is paramount. Misperceptions in international affairs stem from misunderstandings between leaders and misunderstandings between nations about intentions and decided actions. When playing the game of nuclear chicken, it is increasingly important to avoid such misperceptions and misunderstandings by stating clear positions and opening up the road to success with all possible options and courses of action.