In his article, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb”, Kenneth Waltz discusses the current instability in the Middle East over Iran’s interest in continuing with its own nuclear program. Although many actors, both regional and foreign have made various speculations over the true reason behind this behavior, most agree that if Iran does develop a nuclear bomb or at the very least the means to do so, the result could be disastrous and therefore it must be avoided at all costs. Thusly, Waltz chooses to begin by focusing the possible ways that the United States and Israel, (two of the powers most concerned about this problem) can respond to Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

Firstly, Waltz notes the option of maintaining the strategy of increasing economic sanctions over the Iranian regime in the hope of dissuading its leaders from continuing with the program through economic pressure. On this point however, he argues that opting for this strategy might exacerbate tensions as economic sanctions have not proven to be the most effective tools in international relations and might additionally increase Iran’s sense of vulnerability and force them to pursue nuclear power with even greater determination. Secondly, there is the option of allowing Iran to go forth with its nuclear program without letting them get to the point of developing a nuclear bomb, thus increasing Iran’s level of security and keeping them from becoming such a major threat in the region. Finally, Waltz’s last option, and the one he favours most, is that of permitting Iran to develop their own nuclear weapon. He claims this course of action is the one that is most likely going to bring instability to the Middle East as it will reestablish a regional balance of power and deter other actors in the region to challenge it.

Nevertheless, I have to say I do not entirely agree with Waltz on this point. It seems he places too much confidence on the ability that balance of power and military capability alone have to act as an effective deterrent in the region. Although of course as a neorealist, this manner of thinking would make sense, I believe that while allowing Iran to get a hold of a future nuclear arsenal would increase its own sense of security in the region, other powers in the Middle East such as Turkey and (most notably) Saudi Arabia would feel less secure. Moreover, these countries among others, have been seeking greater power and influence in the region for nearly as long as Iran and view themselves as direct rivals based not only on the military arena but also on a variety of other factors including, religion, economy and political ideology.

For this reason, I believe that Waltz presents an interesting argument and although I agree that perhaps countries like the United States and Israel base their own foreign policy towards Iran based on possibly exaggerated and inaccurate assumptions, there are or consideration to be taken into account contextually in order to figure out the true repercussions that the rise of a new nuclear power could have in the region.

Alfonso García

By: Alfonso García

As someone who has always enjoyed reading about history and the various conflicts and events that have occurred throughout it, I was always curious to understand the reasoning behind the patterns of behaviours of states that would explain why certain issues have developed the way they did across time. Due to the fact that so many of these “conflicts” turned out to be wars waged by states, my main point of interest in understanding international relations has always aligned mostly with finding out the importance that these state actors have in the international system. After taking POLI 260 and having read John Mearsheimer’s “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, I started thinking of myself as more of a realist seeing as most of the information that I was learning through history and realist writings all pointed towards the “state” as being the most important actor at the center of discussion. Although, this made sense to me as a result of the lack of mention in history books about the influence that other actors may have had in international affairs, I was aware that these existed and that there were theories that gave these actors greater importance and relevance to world politics.

Registering in a course that seems to offer information about these other theories from such an even or “neutral” perspective (in the sense that no one theory seems to be given greater importance than any other)  which I find quite refreshing as I am hoping to broaden my understanding of IR with a less biased outlook. I believe that the discussion of the wide-ranging types of IR theories in this course and the emphasis being given on the basic differences of their most basic assumptions about the world is a great way of showcasing that IR theory is not like any “science” that we might be familiar with due to the inherently large presence of subjectivity in the way that academics in this field view the world. Even though this at times gives me the sensation that I may never fully understand why international actors behave the way they do, learning about all these unique “lenses” through which to view the world gives me the tools to view the world in various ways and ultimately enable me to take more things into consideration and ultimately allow me to have a more educated understanding of global developments.

I look forward to learning about the assortment of schools of IR and their respective theories so that perhaps, once I have more knowledge about these different outlooks I may find one (or more) that I can more closely agree with and from there be able to develop my own views and interpretations about current events and as well as events from the past.