In his article Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability, Kenneth Waltz claims that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would bring stability to the Middle East. He argues that, once Iran acquires these weapons, they will act rationally and cautiously and be motivated by self-preservation. However, I simply cannot see this being the answer for stability in the Middle East. The United States (and the world) cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Much of Mr. Waltz’s argument hinges on the idea that Iran would act rationally once they acquire nuclear weapons. While it is true that countries like China, India, and Pakistan have shown restraint with their nuclear weapons to this point, can we truly rely on Iran acting in the same sense? While mutually assured destruction (MAD) certainly has a lot of weight to it, can it be applied to irrational countries? Iran has stated on many occasions that they would like to see Israel “wiped from the map”. While many people believe that Iranian-Israeli relations are mostly talk and little action at this point in time, would that stay the same if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon? Israel is one of the United States’ best allies. It is for that reason that this country cannot take chances with Iran.
A nuclear Iran also becomes a much bigger domestic threat to the United States than they are right now. As of yet, Iranian missiles cannot reach this country. But allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons would allow them to make direct attacks on this country and/or our resources. In addition, according to a federally mandated commission to study electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, a nuclear weapon detonated hundreds of miles in the air above America could still wreak catastrophic damage (Anti-Defamation League).
Finally, the Middle East is an absolutely necessary source of energy for both the United States and the entire world. If Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, it would likely result in an arms race across the Middle East. This would almost assuredly destabilize the region and lead to worldwide energy issues.
A nuclear Iran is not a stabilizing technique for the Middle East. It is a frightening prospect that would lead not only to widespread panic, but to the destabilization of the region. Relying on the idea that Iran would act rationally with a nuclear weapon is a risk that is simply not worth taking. For the sake of the United States and the world, Iran cannot be permitted to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. It’s simply too dangerous.
Sources: http://www.adl.org/israel-international/iran/c/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-matters.html
http://researchport.umd.edu/V/GPH2JRIDXU1JJ7UA19CJBAY89VN91RXJMV1BDYYNIKG8P5SLR4-47028? func=quick-3-full-save&doc_number=000902927&format=999&encoding=UTF_TO_WEB_MAIL
Your post brings up some very interesting points. I definitely agree with you that as of now, Iran obtaining nuclear weapons could lead to serious danger. I think later down the road, the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear power in order to stabilize the middle east could be debated, however, right now I don’t believe Iran is strong enough to handle such a power. A nuclear power is a huge responsibility and can cause detrimental effects if used. I think if Iran ever wants to be able to acquire one of these weapons, they first need to figure out a way to better stabilize their government and control conflict, which ensues within its borders. Until that can happen, I agree that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would not only be dangerous for them, but for all other global powers as well.
ReplyDelete