Kenneth Waltz presents an interesting argument in his article titled, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability”. Waltz reexamines the prominent debate of either dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons or allowing it do so. He uses a neo-realist point of view to convince the audience that a nuclear Iran is essential in creating stability in the Middle East. Waltz firmly believes the danger of nuclear Iran to be “grossly exaggerated” and introduces the benefits of having another state in the Middle East with nuclear capabilities (p. 4). Through a variety of counterarguments, this critique will challenge aspects of Waltz’s claim of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. In his article, Waltz challenges
…show more content…
Waltz makes an absurd claim that since “[…] an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now” (p. 5). He goes as far as claiming that once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply and no other states in the region will have an incentive to develop or acquire nuclear weapons (p. 5). I believe that Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous in the region for all states concerned with proliferation of nuclear technology and its future militarization. States who are members of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and utilize nuclear energy programs for civilian use may feel threatened by Iran’s acquirement of nuclear weapons, motivating them to utilize their nuclear energy programs for militarization. Iran’s ambition for nuclear weapons has already created deep-seated tensions within the region and its development of nuclear weapons holds the dangerous probability of destroying the peace created by regional international regimes. Waltz’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility of states having different motivational factors in developing nuclear weapons than simply for …show more content…
5). It is arguable whether or not a nuclear Iran would create a domino effect and trigger a chain of proliferation but I would not easily assume that states with nuclear capabilities would not engage in nuclear competition with Iran. India and Pakistan may have signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other’s nuclear facilities, but as tensions rise between the two states, as does the uneasiness within the international arena. Simply because two nations have engaged in an international peace regime does not mean each state will comply in the future. There have been many incidents of nations embarking upon peaceful regimes and withdrawing
Waltz makes an absurd claim that since “[…] an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now” (p. 5). He goes as far as claiming that once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply and no other states in the region will have an incentive to develop or acquire nuclear weapons (p. 5). I believe that Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous in the region for all states concerned with proliferation of nuclear technology and its future militarization. States who are members of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and utilize nuclear energy programs for civilian use may feel threatened by Iran’s acquirement of nuclear weapons, motivating them to utilize their nuclear energy programs for militarization. Iran’s ambition for nuclear weapons has already created deep-seated tensions within the region and its development of nuclear weapons holds the dangerous probability of destroying the peace created by regional international regimes. Waltz’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility of states having different motivational factors in developing nuclear weapons than simply for …show more content…
5). It is arguable whether or not a nuclear Iran would create a domino effect and trigger a chain of proliferation but I would not easily assume that states with nuclear capabilities would not engage in nuclear competition with Iran. India and Pakistan may have signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other’s nuclear facilities, but as tensions rise between the two states, as does the uneasiness within the international arena. Simply because two nations have engaged in an international peace regime does not mean each state will comply in the future. There have been many incidents of nations embarking upon peaceful regimes and withdrawing