In his article, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb”, Kenneth Waltz introduces the debate between how the United States and Israel should react to Iran’s nuclear activities. He elaborates on three possible outcomes of these nuclear standoff. Firstly, The US and Israel and other states could convince Iran with sanctions to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapon. However, Waltz argues that this method would cause more trouble, making Iran feel the need to acquire nuclear weapons even more. Second, Iran could develop a breakout capability similar to Japan, where although a nuclear weapon would not be created, they would develop an easy way to create on quickly when needed. Israel fears Iran as a threat, and even though no weapon would be created, just the thought of its recipe in Iran’s hands would keep Israel uneasy. Lastly, an outcome that might be most likely, is Iran continuing as they are, pursuing nuclear weapons publicly. In regards to international relations, especially in the Middle East, the pursuit for nuclear weapons by Iran might be the best outcome. Why? It creates a balance of power.

This article is related to the content we study in class to explain the exact reason why Kenneth Waltz created structural realism. Waltz believes that power is a means, not an end. States value power as the most important factor of International Relations. Since the 1960s, Israel has been the nuclear monopoly of the Middle East region. This has created an imbalance of power between states in that region. Waltz argues that Iran is finally reacting as a security response to Israel’s growing power. He says that this is not the beginning of a Iranian nuclear crisis, but the ending of the Middle East nuclear crisis that started with Israel being the only state with nuclear weapons. It is a similar event to the events of the Peloponnesian War, where as Thucydides says “the growth of Athenian power and the fear this occasioned in Sparta”. Waltz being a huge fan of Thucydides, would agree that Iran is simply fearful of the growth of Israeli power. They are not wanting to start any conflict or war, but simply increasing their own security. In relation to our course, this is about structural realism. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is the pursuit for power to maintain security.

Iran is not run by “mad mullahs” as the United States and Israel fear, but rational people who want to keep themselves and their state safe. The pursuit for power, is the pursuit of security, not the destruction of other states, or themselves. In addition, other states fear that the terrorists coming from Iran may have access to these weapons, but what kind of state leader would allow these dangerous and important things be given to just anyone? To conclude, this article is related to our course where it is a perfect example of how structural realism is visible in our world relations. I think it was a great comparison to the original argument of power as a means.