In Why Iran Should Get the Bomb, Kenneth Waltz argues why states should not worry if Iran becomes a nuclear power. He states 3 possible outcomes to the nuclear program in Iran. First, Iran could “abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon”, second, Iran doesn’t quite create a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability and third, Iran will continue and publically begin testing a weapon. Waltz argues for the third and proceeds by addressing major concerns attached to the possibility of Iran becoming nuclear.

Now the way in which Waltz addresses these concerns sheds light onto structural realist theory. Instead of reading or listening in lecture to the difference in theories in International Relations, Waltz’s piece gives us a real world issue and addresses it with his structural/defensive realist lens. Taking what I’ve learnt so far and applying it to Why Iran Should Get the Bomb, we can clearly point out all the main arguments of structural realism/ defensive realism.

The 5 key assumptions of structural realism of why states want power outlined in our course textbook International Relations Theoriesis as follows: 1, Great powers are the main actors in an anarchical system. 2, All states possess some offensive military capability. 3, States are never certain about the intentions of other states. 4, The main goal of states is survival. 5, States are rational actors and are able to come up with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival. In terms of point three, the idea of Iran getting the bomb is a “uniquely terrifying prospect” according to Israel. Israel will never know the true intentions of Iran. In regards to point 4, Waltz emphasizes that Iran is not irrational but just “want to survive like any other leaders” and “show no propensity for self-destruction”. He emphasizes the point that the gain of power (in this care the bomb) is most likely to ensure their security rather than as use for striking. Waltz’s argument also helps to explain the defensive realist perspective. Defensive realists state that it is unwise to for states to try and maximize their power because they know the system will punish them if they gain too much. In this respect, we can see Waltz follow this defensive realist perspective. If Iran takes it took far they’ll be screwed but they know not to as it would “provoke … a swift and devastating American response”. Structural realists emphasize the fact that nuclear weapons “have little utility for offensive purposes” so unless both countries wanted to destroy themselves, there is simply no harm according to Waltz and structural realists in Iran getting the bomb, its simply out of needing to feel secure in a self-help system. Instead of Israel being the main nuclear power in the Middle East, the system would balance out and “Israel and Iran would deter each other”. Realists emphasized that balancing is more efficient in bi-polar system just as Waltz does here.

Overall I found Kenneth Waltz’s piece a helpful example into understanding how a structural realist would interpret world events.

Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. 2016. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity.New York: Oxford University Press.

Waltz, Kenneth N. “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability.” Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (2012): 2-5.

Since before I even started taking Political Science courses I’d always been fascinated with the field International Relations. I found myself watching world events and asking the question ‘why?’. Now after sitting in two weeks of lectures I can now say that the question ‘why?’ is not so easy to answer and that depending on where one might class themselves theoretically, the answers can vary greatly.

I had taken a 200 level International Relations course and had a general idea of what was in store. I was familiar with classic IR thought such as realism, liberalism and Marxism, and such big names as Hans Morgenthau and Thucydides. To me, the Melian Dialogue seemed like a logical way to explain why states went to war with each other. Now in our third week of class I have learnt that realism may not be as realistic as we thought. I believe my impression from my 200 level IR course left me slightly closed minded in regards to the world of IR thought. I didn’t even realize it, but I believe I was completely under the impression realism was the core paradigm of IR. It makes much more sense that as new world events continue to erupt so do new paradigms. While the variation of thought in IR that has been presented so far is rather overwhelming, I am excited to go beyond the classics.

What shocked me the most from our lectures so far though was how much IR is an anglo-american field of study. How can a field that involves all states be dominated by a few core states? If this isn’t a big enough sign to evolve IR from the classic thought, then what is? While IR can be dominated by a certain anglo-american way of thinking, it seems only necessary to start taking into account theories that other countries rely on. How are we suppose to understand the whole world while only focussing on the dominant way of thinking in our culture. What I then look forward to in this class is that we will go beyond this anglo-american school of thought and take others into consideration. If the way we think in Canada is completely opposite to the way China sees IR, to me it makes most sense to then understand how China sees IR. This brings me to the point that, like already emphasized in class, IR is most definitely NOT dominated by one core paradigm like the previous impression I was under. IR is dominated by many ways of thought and I’m nervous but excited to learn more about them.

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