Should Iran Have a Nuclear Bomb?

      The question is presented, should Iran have a nuclear bomb? Kenneth N. Waltz would say that Iran should have a bomb. Waltz’s logic for this topic is presented in his article Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability with the quote, “If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have. There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear armed states” (Waltz, 5). Waltz’s take is that nuclear weapons from rival countries would counteract each other. I disagree as I feel that Iran does not need a nuclear weapon due to the fact that Iran has supported attacks on US military bases recently and due to the fact that they have an ally with a nuclear bomb.

    For as long as human beings have roamed the earth, there has been serious conflict in the Middle East. In July, 2021 there according to the usnews.com, “The U.S. and Iran were poised for a dangerous escalation in violence early Wednesday following a new rocket strike on a U.S. military base in Iraq – at least the fourth attack on U.S. facilities in the region in three days” (Shinkman). While Waltz may argue that Iran having a nuclear weapon could help “stabilize” the Middle East, he is overlooking one major factor. Iran is not a stable government. Waltz argued that, “In fact, adding still more sanctions now could make Iran feel even more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection of the ultimate deterrent” (Waltz, 2). The logic behind his claim makes sense, but even when Iran does not feel “vulnerable” they still are a danger to the US as well as other nations. 

    Also, a large portion of Waltz’s argument lies in the domino effect of counteracting nuclear weapons. Waltz feels that Iran having a nuclear weapon would stop a rival, like Israel, from attacking as they would get bombed right back. I see it as Iran having allies with states like India and North Korea who have nuclear weapons. If a nation would bomb Iran, I would be willing to bet that either India and North Korea would help Iran. If Iran had a weapon, they could just re-attack a nation who bombed them. When allies get involved in a nuclear weapon exchange, this could cause a whole mess of states getting involved as well as many lives being taken. Although Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, I still feel as if the same domino effect of multiple nuclear weapons being used would occur if someone were to attack Iran, so it is highly unlikely for Iran to get bombed.

    Overall, while Waltz makes points in his article that have merit, I do not feel like Iran having a nuclear weapon would create stability for the world. One could argue that regardless of the nuclear weapon status in Iran, there will never be peace. Being that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and no nuclear attacks have happened, I feel that there is no need for Iran to have a nuclear weapon to prevent nuclear attacks. 


Comments

  1. Ellie StephensonOctober 4, 2021 at 7:10 AM

    I think you have a very interesting take on the situation with Iran getting the Nuclear Bomb. While I initially did believe in Waltz's claim that nuclear balancing could be a reasonable justification for Iran's possession of the bomb, I think that your point, that Iran is not a stable government, makes a strong point against the case for nuclear balancing. This was very eye opening and thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Austin W.October 7, 2021 at 10:44 AM

      I appreciate your support, there definitely are solid arguments either way in this case. I just saw this as no nuclear bombs have been dropped, and with Iran lacking one has not resulted in them getting bombed. Therefore, I do not think the stability could improve as it has been stable.

      Delete
  2. Eli WebbOctober 6, 2021 at 12:46 PM

    I do not think Iran should have a nuclear weapon. Like what you said, Austin, and you, Ellie, with the lack of structured and strong government, and history of violence and terrorists in the middle east, it seems a danger to hand them over a weapon of such capability. I really think it is going too far to be handing nuclear weapons to more people, regardless of government or leadership, and since there already is the threat of MAD and many countries have WMDs, why are we adding to the tension, especially in a region with multiple failed states and unbalanced resolutions. One problem, however, is the role Israel has in the middle east. Why does Israel receive so much benefit from the United States no where else does? Yes, we are allies with them, yes people want us to support our allies, but why do they get so much while their neighboring countries get so little and have to live with the fear of Israel's power?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Austin W.October 7, 2021 at 10:42 AM

      I think your point with Israel stems from the fact that America being an Allied Power in WW2. Being an Allied Power has had America being very supportive of the Jewish community and especially Israel for years, while America (a primarily Christian state even though people have freedom of and from religion) seem to label Muslims as "bad" and Jewish people as "friends".

      Delete
    2. Thomas WOctober 13, 2021 at 12:04 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. Thomas WOctober 13, 2021 at 12:04 PM

    Like Ellie and Eli, I think I agree with you, and I appreciate the somewhat simplistic, but in my opinion, correct approach. I feel as if Waltz is somewhat overcomplicating the situation, and is looking to fix a problem that would instead only create more issues. It reminds me of the weapons/security paradox discussed in class, the more weapons one nation has the more weapons their neighbors/rivals have to get. I also believe that with having such a small sample size of time where states have had nukes being our data set, I would much rather not give more and more nukes out, seeing as all it takes is one being dropped to eventually end humankind. The hypothesis of MAD may be correct, but it feels much too risky to rely on it in this way.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Was the Afghanistan Pull-Out Inevitable?

     There is no doubt that the controversy surrounding President Biden’s recent decision to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan is justified. Opposing sides continue to argue about Biden’s handling and planning of the situation, and whether or not troops should have stayed there indefinitely. But the largest question these debates seem to circle back to is whether or not the Afghanistan pull out was inevitable. In my opinion, it is clear that withdraw from Afghanistan was bound to occur, and the sooner it occured, the better. As the article, Every Option in Afghanistan was Bad , explains, “the Afghan government couldn’t stand on its own, and the security forces couldn’t hold the country, despite 20 years of international support.” Clearly, the inability of Afghanistan to support itself, as well as the “instability and non-cohesive nature of the Afghan state,” was not something that Biden, or any American president could have solved. (Disentangling the disaster in A...
Read more

The Benefits of Realism and Human Security Working Hand in Hand

     Within international relations, there is a separation between the concepts of Realism and human security. Realism revolves around the state and how it must operate in order to control inevitable, constant anarchy. On the other hand, human security is about the individual and ensuring that the individual is free from violent and non-violent threats (ex. access to food, clean water, education, shelter, etc.). This blog post argues that the two are entangled and must both be considered in order to reach political decisions and outcomes that are beneficial for all and that are rooted in justice.        In Tickner’s article, titled Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism, A Feminist Reformulation , she argues that masculinity is embedded in political realist theories and written concepts. This same type of argument was made by Zvobgo and Loken’s article Why Race Matters In International Relations where they exposed how race is a central organ...
Read more

Blog 5

  For my final blog post, I wanted to further explore the topic which I discussed in my last analytical essay, climate change and its relationship to international relations.  I found this topic to be extremely interesting as it highlights a real issue that continues to stay unresolved due to the fact that any means of international organization is extremely difficult.  I felt like my paper was lacking in the broader ramifications of climate change in relation to how climate change will impact physical relations, rather than a focus on the inability of asserting some sort of international governance to mitigate climate change.   I was still interested in exploring other facets of this topic, and found the answers to a lot of the questions that I had in a recently published Phys.org article, “Can the World Change Course on Climate?” by Kathryn O’neil.  This article is Q&A style with MIT professor Nazli Choucri.  One of the most interesting points th...
Read more