By definition, a nuclear weapon is an explosive device such as a bomb or a missile that makes use of nuclear energy to cause an explosion. In other words, a nuclear weapon derives its destructive power from nuclear reactions, which could either be a fission reaction or a combination of both fusion and fission. Rinaldi (2008), agrees with STRATFOR’s classification that categorizes nuclear arsenals into three; Peer Systems, Legacy Systems, and Negotiation Tools. The most important attribute about these weapons that gets everyone at the edge of their seats is the immense destructive power of the weapons resulting from a small amount of matter. Rinaldi further explores the relevance of these devastating weapons in the 21st Century following the gradual landscape shift from being used as weapons of war to primary political tools. Conceding to these sentiments is LaMar (2017,) who stipulates that symmetrical nuclear power is essential for international negotiation. Nuclear weapons emerged with the onset of the cold war, and if the war taught the world anything, it is the fact that global geopolitical parity as a concept is inescapable. In this regard, this paper aims at articulating the importance of nuclear balance, and in particular, why Iran should get the bomb. Spearheading this debate is Waltz, whose sentiments shall be discussed.
Nuclear weapons have carried their relevance from the 20th century through to the 21st century. To comprehend and recognize the relevance of these weapons in the modern day and age, one need not look further than the concept of geopolitics and the ‘watchdog’ mentality of the western superpowers. Take, for instance, the US and Russia; nuclear weapons continue to play a pivotal role in their relations, and as Colby (2016) contends, the weapons relevance and role continues to increase. For the two nations, nuclear arsenals are used to bring each other to a truce or the negotiating table. However, looking further, one will realize that the weapons are used as leverage to impose sanctions and enforce treaties regarding weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, this watchdog mentality is oppressive and leads to instability rather than the opposite, for instance, the tension between Iran and Israel and the general political and security instability in the Middle East.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Essentially, nuclear balance provides a balance of power between states. As it stands, Israel is currently the only nuclear power in the Middle East, and for years, this has been the epicenter of the insurgency and upheaval in the Middle East. However, experts acknowledge that if Iran is allowed to have nuclear power, then other states such as Saudi Arabia, a nation that openly supports terrorism will be inclined to get one as well (Ndungu, 2015). However, the shortfall of the above hypothesis is that Iran and Saudi Arabia have been mortal but perfect enemies for decades even before the United States invaded the Middle East. At the center of the enmity as Ndungu reports, was and still is power and unfulfilled ideological differences regarding religion. Nevertheless, despite their enmity and warring nature, the two powers have never shown the propensity for self-destruction; they are just two oil-rich nations fighting for control of the region. To this end, acquiring a nuclear bomb by Iran or both Iran and Saudi Arabia will not change the ancient status quo.
Indeed, nuclear balance means stability. Even though analysts and vested geopolitical parties speculate and predict imminent danger to its immediate neighbors and the world following Iran’s acquisition of the nuclear bomb, the opposite is true. Already, Iran’s nuclear bomb acquisition threats have realized alliances between Israel and the Arab states as well as state relations between Arab (Sunni) nations. Ellis and Futter (2015) assert that by causing concerns among its geopolitical neighbors, the Iranian nuclear program has induced substantial nuclear stability in multiple ways. Moreover, nuclear balance leads to the development of a region. Indeed, geopolitical reorganizations and transformations have taken place in the Middle East in response to the nuclear capability threat posed by Iran.
According to Lyon (2017), stable nuclear balances mean that neither party feels the pressure to attack or fire fast. To this end, it seems unlikely that Iran would feel this pressure with the knowledge that it faces the risk of retaliation. Waltz (1981) ascertains that nuclear weapons have been a fundamental force in the establishment and maintenance of peace in the post-war world. He further explains that the weapons create a frightening perception of the debilitating cost of war hence discouraging any particular state from starting a war that might provoke the use of such weapons. Waltz (2012), further explains that the Middle East is the only region in the world where a nuclear state is unchecked. The statement by Waltz is in reference to Israel’s nuclear capability in the Middle East and how this monopoly has resulted in instability in the region. As reported by Keck (2012), Waltz explains the above assertion by stating that the existence of a nuclear powerhouse without another state or organization to check it is a recipe for instability in the long-run. Manning (2012) argues that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear power raises questions regarding what degree the balance-of-terror logic would apply to the region, and as such, it is risky, and the volatility of the region raises doubts. However, Waltz discussions counter this argument by discussing the balance of terror concept which was salient in keeping the cold war ‘cold.’ He ultimately contends that International relations theory suffers from a substantial dearth of regional knowledge.
Conclusion
Indeed, Iran’s pursuit for nuclear weapons offers great risks and volatility, but no analyst and state can say for sure that acquiring the weapons will outset a chain of proliferation to obtain the weapons in the region. Additionally, no individual can state for sure that Iran will use the weapons offensively against her neighbors culminating in self-destruction. What is evident is the positive vibe spreading across the nation such as the Israel-Arab alliance following the Iranian nuclear program. To this end, power balancing in the Middle East by Iran’s nuclear program seems to be the best option for stability. This is evidenced by the relationship between the US and Russia, two superpowers that check and balance each other’s nuclear power thereby guaranteeing peace in Europe.
References
Colby, E. (2016). The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the U.S.-Russian Relationship. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace . Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/26/role-of-nuclear-weapons-in-u.s.-russian-relationship-pub-62901
Ellis, S., & Futter, A. (2015). Iranian nuclear aspirations and strategic balancing in the Middle East. Middle East Policy, 22 (2). https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12130
Keck, Z. (2012). Kenneth Waltz on “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” The Diplomat . Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2012/07/kenneth-waltz-on-why-iran-should-get-the-bomb/
LaMar, C. (2017). The Importance of Power Balance in Nuclear Arms Negotiations: An Addendum. International Negotiation , 22 (1), 162-180. DOI: 10.1163/15718069-12341351
Lyon, R. (2017). Nuclear Balancing and the Curse of the Heavy ICBM. Real Clear Defense . Retrieved from https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/30/nuclear_balancing_and_the_curse_of_the_heavy_icbm_110714.html
Manning, R.A. (2012). A Response to Waltz: Why Iran Shouldn't Get the Bomb. The Diplomat . Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2012/07/a-response-to-waltz-why-iran-shouldnt-get-the-bomb/
Ndungu, J. (2015). Is Nuclear Balancing in the Middle East Possible? International Policy Digest . Retrieved from https://intpolicydigest.org/2015/04/15/is-nuclear-balancing-in-the-middle-east-possible/
Rinaldi, M.J. (2008). Nuclear Weapons: The Question of Relevance in the 21st Century. Stratfor . Retrieved from https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/nuclear-weapons-question-relevance-21st-century
Waltz, K. N. (1981). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better. Adelphi Papers, 171. Retrieved from https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
Waltz, K. N. (2012). Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability. Retrieved from https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fczagare/PSC%20504/Waltz.pdf
