When Kenneth Waltz states that arming Iran with nuclear power will “restore” stability to the Middle East, he is basking in what seems to be a case of neorealist glory (Waltz, 2012). Back in 2012, there was already alarming discord resulting from economic sanctions and concerns regarding Iran’s supposedly peaceful nuclear program (with aid from the US). The balance of military power in the Middle East can be restored, he argues, just by giving Iran the nuclear weapons it needs and diminishing the tensions from Israel’s long-held nuclear arsenal. In “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” Waltz discusses three possibilities that could arise from US claims of Iran’s nuclear proliferation: 1) use diplomacy and sanctions on Iran to prevent all means of attaining nuclear weapons; 2) Iran may achieve a “breakout capability” and 3) Iran ends up publicly testing a nuclear weapon (Waltz, 2012).

At this point, reflecting on the 1979 “Theory of International Politics” by Waltz does not seem irrelevant. With his introduction to the extreme neorealist view in 1979, it is once again clear that Waltz is just presenting his theory, which he believes is the correct one. At a most convenient time, this theory also becomes a lens for how he thinks global stability can be achieved – arming Iran with nuclear weapons. He states that major powers object to smaller countries (or any other country) pursuing nuclear weapons initially, but after a while, they become accepting of it. Waltz then goes on to make the argument that we cannot be certain of Iran’s intentions of pursuing nuclear weapons, however, Iran is likely to consider its security as a major reason. In essence, Waltz seems to use fact-value distinctions by using historical evidence to support his claim that since the same course of action succeeded in for example, Maoist China, Iran will witness a similar pattern. It is important to consider that there may not be a guaranteed law – Waltz may be simplifying the case here by assuming deterrence will automatically apply. I think this is where the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction comes in as a reason for countries in possession of nuclear weapons, such as the US accepting other nuclear-armed countries. Perhaps Waltz could have made a stronger case by elaborating on his statement: “There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states” (Waltz, 2012). Certainly there have been many discussions on the paradoxical element of MAD and why states, in an almost law-like manner, understand the extent to which full state annihilation is possible with the application of nuclear capabilities. Further, Waltz applies a defensive realist perspective on the nuclear-armed Iran debate and we can assume that when he mentions major states (US) feel “riled up” in the midst of rising powers, he is also referencing hegemonic states feeling threatened by rising powers. While neoliberal proponents like Keohane recognize the existence of an anarchic society, put less influence on institutional influence and more on cooperation, structural realists like Waltz understand that power (in this case, with the possession of nuclear weapons) is sought as a means to state security. He includes an important point of evidence by saying that Iran did not close the Strait of Hormuz even with a coming oil embargo as they wanted to avoid any negative reaction from the US. From this article, it is quite astonishing how theory can change or influence a view and therefore, it seems to be more important than ever for less obscurantist talk so that we can critically evaluate one IR scholar’s thoughts and contrast it to another.

Kenneth Waltz (2012) “Why Iran should get the bomb,” Foreign Affairs, 91(4): 2-5

During my summer co-op, I sat in the lunchroom one day reading descriptions of the 300-level Political Science courses available. As I am in my fourth year and have limited time until graduation, I decided it was now or never to enrol in a Political Science course teaching solid theory while fulfilling an International Relations major requirement. I have to be honest (and Professor Crawford did advise us of this in the first lecture), it ended up taking a lot of persistence to get into this course.

I took POLI 260 in second year and I was introduced to the existing and developing schools of thought and their relevance to global politics. It was in this course that I first discovered the complicated, conflicting, and often overlapping nature of what constitutes International Relations and surrounding theoretical beliefs. I had examined (for example), how the security dilemma applies within the ideological frameworks of realism and liberalism, and whether IR emphasizes a constant power struggle or possible cooperation between states. By the end of it all, I have to admit that I was still trying to understand distinctions and limitations between the various IR theories, which is why I saw POLI 367B as an opportunity to expand on that level of understanding. On another note, in a history class, I remember my classmates and I discussing the difficulties in defining something as broad and largely relevant as intrastate wars (I was reminded of this after the discussion on IR as a divided discipline with changing interpretations). After all, the definition of civil war has changed over time following critical debates on what constitutes an end to such a war, or the minimum amount of bloody casualties before a war is declared “civil.”  I wonder then, (and I’m referencing what was discussed in the previous lecture), can defining a civil war also be categorized as an “Elusive Quest” based on how Ferguson and Mansbach chose to frame it?

This brings me back to the present and what I’m about to learn in this course titled “International Relations Theory and the International System.” With the help of the readings, I have a better understanding of what was demonstrated in class with glasses – theory can be a pair of glasses to see the world and there are the key proponents (like Hobbes and Rousseau) along the way with their own views. It can also lead an individual to understand and represent contemporary issues in our world in one (perhaps incomplete) way and therefore, it can be a limitation.

After attending the first few lectures, I confirmed what I initially thought – this is going to be a challenging course for all the right reasons. Certainly I will be puzzled and bewildered after one lecture or more, but I am excited to compare what I know now in September to the knowledge that I will have gained by the end of term in December. I realize that I will progressively get more familiar with the wide range of terminology used by Professor Crawford and my peers in this course. This is something I look forward to because of my interest in the etymology of words, for example, last lecture we were already introduced to one that will be used often – epistemology. And this begins what I predict will be an engaging course where I will learn to appreciate the complicated intensity of IR.