“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.

Omri second blog post:

IR’s Genesis: Myth, Truth, and Incommensurability

Hi,

Here’s my second blog post:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/sofandinternationaltheory/2018/10/16/second-blog-post-international-theory-a-shape-shifter/

Hope you enjoy!

Best,

Sofia Shamsunahar

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.

Please find my second blog post here.

-Odessa Jarman

The article “Why Iran should get the bomb by Kenneth Waltz describes the issue of power politics in the realist perspective of international politics. He discusses the issue of international security and vulnerability. The article describes the security dilemma in which one state (Iran) wishes to become nuclear in order to be less vulnerable and increase their security and in turn, this desire for personal security makes another state (Israel) feel insecure as they fear that their own security would be compromised and at risk if Iran became Nuclear. This insecurity leads to Israel taking action to attempt to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Waltz argues that Iran should be allowed and potentially encouraged to become Nuclear as by gaining that status, the Middle East as a whole would have increased stability as the two nuclear states, Iran and Israel, will deter each other therefore promoting stability by creating a balance of military power. He notes that, “Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East” and as such, having another nuclear state will provide the much needed deterrence. The idea of deterrence promoting stability stems from the fact that there hasn’t been any full-scale wars between two strong nuclear powers as the possibility of completely destroying each other has meant that the conflicts never escalate to that level. The self-preservation of each state prevents them from risking themselves to destroy the other. He mentions examples of other states that this has worked for, such as India and Pakistan who have had conflict and hostility between them for a very long time, but when Pakistan became nuclear, the two states both become more cautious towards each other.

Waltz also mentions the US role in this situation. As a global power and potential hegemony, the US has a unique involvement in the issue. Waltz suggest the US should not be overly concerned with preventing Iran from getting nuclear power, however, as a hegemony, the US has to consider the possibility of other states attempting to get nuclear if they step back and allow Iran, they have to consider their own security and whether any global action would be a threat to their hegemony.

This reading helped shed light on how for realists, the world and world politics are viewed through the lens of power and prospective power dynamics. It helped relate the ideas and themes of the course and IR theory such as the security dilemma to current global issues

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

Blog Post 2

Here is my second blog post.

In Why Iran Should Get the Bomb, Waltz argues that a nuclear Iran could possibly have a stabilizing effect, one in which Iran and Israel would keep each other in check. This would help Iran’s leaders feel less vulnerable to Israel, which is a rising hegemony in the Middle East. Waltz reminds us readers that throughout history, there has never been a full-scale nuclear war between two nuclear-armed countries. Aside from concerns about Israel, Iran continues to combat ISIS and therefore wants to heighten its nuclear arsenals as a defense mechanism.

Waltz’ statement that “open lines of communication will make the Western countries feel better able to live with a nuclear Iran” is implausible. In 2003, an Islamic government official asked for the Ayatollah’s religious opinion on nuclear weapons. In response, the Ayatollah wrote a fatwa – an Islamic legal document that deemed nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction, and recognized that Iran was a victim of such weapons in the past. Therefore, the use of such weapons on the general public is considered haram, illegal under Islamic law. Current leader Hassan Rouhani seemed to share the same stance as Khamenei in 2013, when he said “nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s security and defence doctrine and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions”. It is inconsistent statements like these and a lack of credibility that would inhibit any possibility of “open lines of communications”.

Waltz suggests that the United States should not “take such pains to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon”. However, if the U.S. refrains from taking action against disarming Iran, the U.S. would be perceived as sending an unclear message to other nuclear-seeking countries, which would also weaken its reputation as a global power.  The U.S. has a history of interfering in international issues, but this has only solidified its position on the world scale, on a consistent platform where leadership is exercised. In the last 25 years, there have been six countries that have attempted to become nuclear states: Libya, South Africa, Syria and Iraq. Libya and South Africa gave up, while Syria and Iraq were stopped. Pakistan and North Korea continued and are now both nuclear-armed states. If Iran joins Pakistan and North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, this would result in a security dilemma in which other countries follow suit to protect themselves. This would effectively put an end to the global disarmament that the U.S. has been pursuing for almost 70 years.

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb helped associate relevant themes in our class such as the security dilemma, commitment problems, and hegemonies – it was very effective at bringing in these key IR topics and relating it to today’s global crisis.