This blog post is going to focus on the week-two reading, Why Iran Should Get the Bomb. Written by Waltz, with his unique “lenses” of Neo-realism, the article discussed the potential effect of when Iran obtained nuclear power. To be more specific, Waltz argues that the best way to maintain the balance of nuclear power and the power of a state (in this case, Iran) is to try to use the nuclear power within the country while other countries are not interpreting aggressively as Israel did in the past. The article discussed the current potential methods to balance the nuclear power, the Middle East nuclear crisis, as well as the misunderstanding among countries.

Waltz listed three possible practices to balance Iran’s power. The first is economic sanctions, which is a highly aggressive method that may cause opposite effect due to the vulnerability of the state power (p. 2). In the case of Iran, the result of sanctions may cause the country to build nuclear weapon faster to maintain its power status among nations. The second method suggests Iran could develop a conceptual framework of nuclear power instead of creating the actual bomb (p. 2, 3). While the third way is letting Iran build its own nuclear weapon (p. 3).

Interestingly, through the article, Waltz claims that the third method is the best way to balance the international and regional stability. Waltz proposed that due to Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, caused a series of troubles in the Middle East (Middle East nuclear crisis) (p. 3). The aggressive progression over the nuclear monopoly could be seen from the last forty years, both Iran and Syria was bombed (p. 3). The unbalanced power in the Middle East may create potential rivals, in this case, Iran. The ongoing debate caused by misunderstanding is also notable. Stated by Waltz, the creation of nuclear power will increase the state’s self-awareness of power. By listing the example of China, India and Pakistan (p. 4), the awareness of power will hence the national security as well as making the state more cautious about the nuclear materials (p. 4, 5). Thus the overall international and regional stability will be improved.

I see the link between lectures and readings from this article. With Waltz’s invention of structural realism, I also see the hegemonic state’s fear of rising power. Stand from the Iran aspect or Waltz’s, the desire for power is for national/international security. However, because of the “security dilemma,” the Western power (US, Europe), as well as Israel, felt threatened by the rising power of Iran; thus they tried to implement various aggressive methods to stop Iran obtain the bomb.

Kenneth Waltz (2012) “Why Iran should get the bomb,” Foreign Affairs, 91(4): 2-5.

As the title suggested, I’m from China. Study political science was never my intention by any means. Back in home, we were taught to trust the Party as well as believe in communism, and yet no one can honestly explain what the final obligation is. I came to Canada about three years ago and started to think about what makes China varying from all the other countries. That’s when I began to think about politics. Over the three years, I have learned different political concepts as well as terms. Many of them are generally difficult to understand since they are so abstract and most of them are theory based.

POLI 367B is about the basic theories of international relations. I thought the course would be just like the most of the political science courses, dry and profound. The course is so fascinating that I was amazed by the politics for the first time. From 911 to realism to the debate of consensus of IR, the class was actually fun. To unpack words and theories, I could see the influences of political science from daily life instead of reading Plato’s abstracted ideologies. I could engage these theories with passion and my own experiences rather than finish the readings and hoping to get a good grade. Being an international student, I sometimes experience theories in certain ways that my home country would or Canada would as my experience goes. This course can illustrate more aspects of approaches from other different perspectives. Just like the debate over IR, although we study international relation theories, we still hold varied opinions at some point. Because of this, the discourses and debates over some ideologies made today’s IR discipline so captivating and so different from other subjects.

I like the idea of viewing the world with lenses. Everyone is different, yet so many of us are following the norms of the society. In the field of IR, we recognize ourselves more and more clearly for being naturalism and embrace the difference of states’ cultures, to shed light on the world politics and to understand the world. I wish to know why some states/governments choose some necessary political conceptualizations over others. Such as why the government of China chose communism instead of being liberal and being a democratic country. What are the fundamental factors of choosing specific policy rather than others? I believe this course would not only provide me some fundamental understanding of different theories, but I would also be able to view the world with “lenses” to follow different perspectives and shift my preconceptions, and being more naturalized.