On “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb” by Kenneth Waltz:
Iran’s nuclear capacities have long been of interest to Great Powers. Kenneth Waltz, the father of neorealism, or structural realism, provides insights on the concerns over Iran’s nuclear advancements. What Waltz describes as the United States and Israel’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear capacities is essentially a security dilemma. In the case of Israel, the Middle East’s lone nuclear capacity, Iran’s activities to gain nuclear arms are alarming since they want to maintain their hegemonic power in the region. Waltz writes that Israelis are worried about Iran in particular due to the irrational nature of the Iranian regime, which is apparently run by fundamentalists, or there is the concern of the pass-over of the weapons to terrorists. Waltz refutes the views of Israeli policymakers, and implies that it is actually irrational for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons to use them irresponsibility. It is highly unlikely that Iran wants to destroy itself; rather, he implies, Iran, like any other state who understands the international system, seeks to advance their security and defensive capabilities. It is relevant to quote our course textbook, which says that “the threatened states [do] whatever is necessary to ensure their survival, which, in turn, threatens other states, all of which leads to perpetual security competition”( Dunne, 54). Israeli-Iranian relations have been turbulent throughout recent history, thus, Iran’s motivations to secure nuclear weapons are understandable and perhaps even justified through this view. I believe that Waltz has made a compelling argument here.
Nuclear weapons provide stability between states who have them; no state gains in striking first. Waltz highlights the example of India and Pakistan, who maintained peace since the time that they have (both) acquired nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear weapon development does not signify the beginning of violence and war, it signifies the opposite. Waltz argues that Israel has long been the reason for instability in the Middle East, and there need be a balance of power. Balance of power is absolutely going to be sought in a region where there is a lone nuclear power.
This reading was certainly helpful in exemplifying the relevance of neorealist theory in international politics today, and it also helped me gain a more comprehensive understanding of Waltz’s views. It was helpful in distinguishing between neorealism and classical realism. The classical realist perspective would not even consider that the balance of power would maintain peace, however, I believe that Waltz provides good (enough) reasoning and examples to say otherwise. Furthermore, the great powers and the notion of power in the international system in general was better understood through this reading. Israel’s arguments against Iranian advancement, masked under apparent cultural concerns, emphasize the maintenance of domination as a “great”, or rising power, regionally and internationally.
Sources:
Kenneth Waltz (2012) “Why Iran should get the bomb,” Foreign Affairs, 91(4): 2-5
Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
