The reading ‘Why Iran Should Get the Bomb’ by neorealism thinker Kenneth Waltz clearly illustrates his view that power is the most important factor in international relations theories. Waltz explains the historical instability of the Middle East has been caused by the power imbalance created by the fact that Israel is the only state in the region to hold these weapons. As he points out, the power and security obtained by having these weapons is what motivates countries to develop weapons, not necessarily to improve their offensive capabilities. Classical realism would have stated that leaders of Iran would have been drawn to developing nuclear weapons because of basic human nature, and the idea that having these weapons could bring order and justice to the region. On the other hand, Waltz explains the motivation behind the nuclear weapons program as trying to obtain an advantage over other state powers. He says that by allowing Iran to produce these weapons, a balance of powers would be created with all states interest being to not use these weapons against each other, but simply hold them as a means of security. Richard Ned Lebow contradicts this statement as he suggests that a balance of power may not only fail to preserve the peace but make violence more likely. This helped to identify differences between the theories of classical, and neorealism in that Waltz believes granting equal power to nations will increase stability, whereas classical realists recognize the efficiency of having dominant powers guiding international issues. Furthermore, the fact the US views Iran’s nuclear program as so dangerously unacceptable could be because of the human security risks it imposes on citizens from a classical realism perspective. From a neorealism perspective, the US could feel their power as a minority of nations with nuclear capabilities is being undermined by an increasing number of countries holding this weapon as well. The US cannot dominate the world stage with its military might if other countries are allowed to bring theirs up, or close to par. If the international community is in an anarchical state as neorealism suggests, then each state is by default equal as none holds a central authority over other states. This means that states will look to ensure their own survival, as Waltz puts it, by developing security mechanisms that will grant them more power than other states. Waltz also uses historical examples to support his idea that a balance of power with lead to international stability stating that when nations such as China, India, and Pakistan developed their nuclear programs they reverted to acting more cautious on the international stage. In conclusion, I agree with the structural realist view of Waltz on this issue in that countries motivation to develop their own or prevent others from developing nuclear weapons is solely based on power dynamics. States who have nuclear weapons want to make sure they stay on top of the international community by making sure no other states can match their weapons, and states without believing that obtaining these weapons will provide them with security and a fair power balance between powerful nations.

Greg

22341151

Waltz, K. N. (2012, August). Why Iran Should Get the Bomb. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2012-06-15/why-iran-should-get-bomb

Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (2016). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity(4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.