Kenneth Waltz’ Why Iran Should Get the Bomb helped associate relevant themes in our class such as the security dilemma, commitment problems, global power, and hegemonies. Waltz argues that a nuclear Iran could possibly have a stabilizing effect, one in which Iran and Israel would keep each other in check. This would help Iran’s leaders feel less vulnerable to Israel, which is a rising hegemony in the Middle East. Waltz reminds us readers that throughout history, there has never been a full-scale nuclear war between two nuclear-armed countries. Aside from concerns about Israel, Iran continues to combat ISIS and therefore wants to heighten its nuclear arsenals as a defense mechanism.

Waltz’ statement that “open lines of communication will make the Western countries feel better able to live with a nuclear Iran” is implausible. In 2003, an Islamic government official asked for the Ayatollah’s religious opinion on nuclear weapons. In response, the Ayatollah wrote a fatwa – an Islamic legal document that deemed nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction, and recognized that Iran was a victim of such weapons in the past. Therefore, the use of such weapons on the general public is considered haram, illegal under Islamic law. Current leader Hassan Rouhani seemed to share the same stance as Khamenei in 2013, when he said “nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s security and defence doctrine and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions”. It is inconsistent statements like these and a lack of credibility that would inhibit any possibility of “open lines of communications”.

Waltz suggests that the United States should not “take such pains to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon”. However, if the U.S. refrains from taking action against disarming Iran, the U.S. would be perceived as sending an unclear message to other nuclear-seeking countries, which would also weaken its reputation as a global power.  The U.S. has a history of interfering in international issues, but this has only solidified its position on the world scale, on a consistent platform where leadership is exercised. In the last 25 years, there have been six countries that have attempted to become nuclear states: Libya, South Africa, Syria and Iraq. Libya and South Africa gave up, while Syria and Iraq were stopped. Pakistan and North Korea continued and are now both nuclear-armed states. If Iran joins Pakistan and North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, this would result in a security dilemma in which other countries follow suit to protect themselves. This would effectively put an end to the global disarmament that the U.S. has been pursuing for almost 70 years.

Since last year, I have found political theory very interesting. When I had taken POLI 240, we studied Hobbes’ Leviathan, John Locke, Machiavelli, and Hannah Arendt and I loved reading their works and connecting it to current events. I thought, what would they have to say if they were alive today, and wondered if they would be disappointed with the current state of affairs around the world. For example, Machiavelli would see the ruling potential of a President like Trump – he is most definitely more feared than loved, but above all he is somewhat cutthroat and ruthless and participates in backroom politics. On the flip side, Machiavelli would criticize Trump’s approach to being President and the sneering outward impression he gives off. Therefore, what drew me to POLI 367 was the ability to see how these ideas brought forth by these big names in political theory have contributed if at all to IR theory and developed it into the form it takes in our present day.  So far I have found the course readings interesting and in particular I enjoyed Kenneth Waltz’ Why Iran Should Get the Bomb. I learned a bit about nuclear security in POLI 260, but I had yet to read this sort of perspective on the matter. Growing up in the US, we see Israel through rose-colored glasses. President Trump further pushes this image towards us because Israel is one of our strongest allies around the world and definitely in the Middle East. Waltz’ article opened my eyes to the real problem at hand – it isn’t nuclear-armed Iran, it’s Israel. I was also surprised to read that being nuclear-armed heightens security, but then it clicked and made sense. The security dilemma plays a huge role for Israel. In an ideal world they would like to have the strongest nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, but by doing so have made neighbouring states around them prioritize nuclear weapons as well. Overall, I am starting to see connections in 367 with my previous 200 level political science classes which is exciting! I think some of the material I learned in those classes will probably come back to me throughout this course. Or during lecture, I might think “hey, this relates to what I learned about democratic peace theory!”. All in all, I hope that this class will not only enlighten  my knowledge of global politics around the world, but also broaden my understanding of IR theory.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!