Here is also the link to my blog: https://blogs.ubc.ca/funfab4year/
The article “Why Iran should get the bomb: Nuclear balancing would mean stability” by Kenneth N. Waltz for our assigned readings in week three has stuck with me, and thus will be the article I will be discussing today. The premise of the article is the analysis of Iran’s plan for nuclear weapons, and if them possessing it is as dangerous as some believed, specifically the United States and Europe. These countries fear that with the Iran’s control of nuclear weaponry, it would be problematic and thus promote to remove their nuclear control, which would result in one of these three outcomes: implementation of extreme sanctions in hope to convince Iran to relinquish their weaponry, which is highly unlikely; the country switches from nuclear testing to developing a “sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb” (pg.2), which is also unlikely due to the Iranian governments desires for real nuclear weaponry; or let them continue with their nuclear weapon plan and begin testing publicly, which is the best course of action for Iran while theoretically being the worst for the United States and Europe. However, what stood out was the closer examination of the latter result. Waltz makes an interesting remark about allowing Iran, and countries in particular, to in fact possess and test nuclear weaponry “produce[s] more regional and international stability, not less” (pg. 3). The article goes on to lay out why this is in fact true, and concludes that by allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons it would in fact bring stability to the Middle Eastern region.
This article was a part of week three readings, which connected to that week’s topic: Stories without origin, world politics as “eternal recurrence.” After doing a detailed reading, I found that this article connected well with what we talked about in class on September 20th; having Waltz describe the fears the United States and Europe have with Iran possessing nuclear weaponry, versus Waltz’s view on the situation reminded me of the ‘Frames versus lenses’ slides. What I took away from this topic was theories have for the most part the same frame, positivism, but change their lenses to fit with their specific perspective, such as being a realist, liberalist or Marxist. However, there are also cases where both the frames and lenses are different, post-modernists, or even completely removing the lenses and only having the positivistic frames, constructivism. Why this reading relates well to this part of the course I found that I could read this article with different frames and lenses because of the way Waltz presents it. For example, if you sided more with the United States/ European view, the article could be looked as focusing more on war prevention strategies and the importance of the state, ideas that are central to a realist theory. An argument could also be made that this view can fall under a constructivists standpoint because they focus solely on how to benefit their country and less on the benefits of others. Whereas, if you agree with Waltz’s view on Iran possess nuclear weapons, then you could read this in more of a liberalist view, with respect to the benefits this would have on the individual in regards to bringing stability to the region.
It is worth noting what was mentioned in this class in regards to theories and the real world; how in reality “there is always more than one story to tell” and this can be seen in this context as well. The way I related the readings to class could be viewed completely different by another student, and thus what I say might not resonate with everyone. This is one of the many reason why I love the political science field as it has such a variety of opinions and views. Nonetheless, I do hope that my connections add to this reading and I hope that another student blogs about this reading so that I can look at a new story.
Reference:
Kenneth Waltz (2012) “Why Iran should get the bomb,” Foreign Affairs, 91(4): 2-5.