In his article Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability, Kenneth Waltz discusses the theoretical implications of Iran growing its nuclear arsenal. Specifically, Waltz focuses on how Iranian nuclear growth affects the power dynamics in the international arena, particularly its effect on Middle Eastern political stability.
Contrary to the messages of U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts, Waltz argues that allowing Iran to pursue development of a nuclear program would not result in a world-wide nuclear catastrophe. First, Waltz rebuts the common argument that Iranian leaders, unlike other world leaders, could not be trusted with nuclear arsenals due to perceived irrationality. Waltz points out that “it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself)” (p. 4). Next, Waltz refers to previous regimes the West perceived as enemies, such as Maoist China, who, upon becoming nuclear, “became much less bellicose” (p. 4). Finally, Waltz points out that the potential transfer of nuclear weapons from the Iranian government to terrorist organizations would be highly unlikely due to the amount of U.S. surveillance in the area.
Waltz’s argument is reminiscent of the political phenomenon of ‘the security dilemma’, a situation in which State A, feeling threatened by State B’s rising military capability, increases their own military capability. Then State B, witnessing State A’s rising in military capability, follows in suit, and so on. The never-ending struggle for power might not seem like a sustainable solution for world peace. For neorealists like Waltz, however, in an anarchic political arena with the absence of a central authority, it is the ultimate balancing of power— each state may hold the other accountable for their actions by having the ability to retaliate.
With all of the efforts to prevent Iran from having nuclear arms, Waltz argues that the natural balance of power in the Middle East is being disrupted. Furthermore, Waltz notes that Western efforts, such as sanctions, do little to actually deter nuclear growth, and negatively effect ordinary Iranian people. Thus, Waltz concludes that even if the U.S. does not decide to actively allow Iran to build a nuclear arsenal, we should take comfort in the fact that even if Iran does manage to actively pursue a nuclear program, the results will not be nearly as catastrophic and detrimental as we may have initially been led to believe.