“Power begs to be balanced”: this quote qualifies Waltz’s ideological position pithily. The passive tense of this phrase is parallel with neorealists’ commitment that states’ behaviours are determined by the objective constraints that the international system imposes. In the article, Waltz makes a persuasive argument, in my opinion, that Iran should be allowed (by greater powers) to develop nuclear bombs, as past instances suggest that nuclear enrichment would likely leads to greater stability instead of less. However, other neorealists will take issue with some statements he makes.

Waltz asserts that aggressive expansion of power will likely lead to pushback from other powers. In the neorealist paradigm, increase in Iranian power ipso facto hurts other powers, who might form a coalition against Iran, which Iranians, as rational actors, should be aware of and avoid. Thereby, great powers such as the US should not worry about Iran’s rising nuclear capacity, as Iran would be cautious after nuclear enrichment. However, this position would be debated by offensive neorealists such as John Mearsheimer. They would argue that coalitions are insufficient as countries naturally buck-pass, so that possibility would not be enough to intimidate Iran. Iran would continue to increase military power as much as possible, so the US should try to prevent that from happening. In their paradigm, the system makes it so that nations seek every opportunity to maximize power.

Furthermore, Waltz seems to believe that balanced power would be more likely to lead to security in a region – as in, the Middle East might become more stable if Iran acquires the military capacity to counter Israel. The rationale is perhaps that Iran and Israel could work to control each other’s military empowerment. However, some other neorealist theorists would disagree, as if there is only one great power in the region (Israel), that great power can control other states’ ambitions, and the power itself will feel secure against a group of much less powerful competitors, thus not likely to be too aggressive. For the latter theorists, power does not have to be balanced, because status quo can be maintained.

The fact that we are talking about nuclear power, instead of other military power, complicates the situation. Because neither power, whether as the defender or the rising power, will have the advantage, so reluctant peace is likely to follow, as in the case of the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet some other neorealists might believe that a power rising against the preponderant power is very dangerous, as that situation presents a direct conflict of interest unmitigated by other states in the region. As one can see, although Kenneth Waltz is perhaps the most recognizable name among the neorealists, his positions are not unchallenged.