Nuclear Activities and Iran

        The nuclear activity of a Middle Eastern country sparks great controversy

and provides a serious threat to not only the region, but also the rest of the world.

There are various opinions as to what the result would be if Iran developed nuclear

weapons, but it is hard to see the result as a positive one. Kenneth Waltz, a Senior

Research Scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, believes that if

Iran obtained these nuclear weapons it would have a positive effect on the Middle

East. I disagree with Waltz because he assumes that people will be rational mainly

because of the history relating to nations developing nuclear weapons.

While I can understand Waltz’s points, I don’t agree with the supporting

claims he makes for his argument. When dealing with foreign policy and the

possession and use of nuclear weapons, it is not in our best interest to take matters

lightly. Throughout his writing he provides the possibilities of Iran developing

nuclear weapons, but tends to support his claims with assumptions. I would like to

believe that we could all live in harmony, but it’s simply not realistic. It is important

to understand historical trends, but it doesn’t change the fact that there could be

large consequences to the “weaponization” of Iran. If these weapons and advanced

technology got into the wrong hands, it would be disastrous. The potential to act

aggressively is greatly increased when nuclear weapons come into play. Also, It is a

realistic fear that it could support the efforts of terrorists and terrorist groups in the

Middle East, and even be directly provided to these people. Waltz persistently

claims that they would not act irrationally in order to avoid retaliation, but if a

terrorist group were to get involved it makes retaliating difficult. As we’ve learned

and discussed, there is no return address for terrorist groups. It threatens every

single nation including Iran itself. Self-destruction and internal conflict could arise

at any moment, so it is bad for everyone involved. 

It is understandable to think that a nation would never strike with a nuclear

attack due to the fear of retaliation. For example, Waltz states that “Maoist China

became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and

Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. “ This may be true,

but Iran’s nuclear development differs from the aforementioned nations. In terms of

becoming a nuclear power, it is a case-by-case basis in terms of possibilities it

presents. Each nation and regime is characterized differently, and I believe this is

the case for Iran. Iran is seen as irrational throughout the world, and the threats of

terrorism would rise significantly if they were to develop these weapons. Waltz

makes the argument that they are not irrational as a whole. Whether they are or not,

the fact that they have this reputation speaks volumes. The negatives greatly

outweigh the positives in my mind, and to say the fears of Iran as a nuclear threat

are “unfounded” is ignorant.

While nuclear weapons serve as a form of national security, it also has the

ability to destroy a nation. I see that history has shown that stability has often

stemmed from nuclear capabilities, yet I don’t take comfort in that on its own. A

nation with constant issues developing nuclear weapons is a disaster waiting to

happen.  There are other methods that could increase security that are much less

threatening to the world and Iran. We can’t have faith solely based on the past, and

we need to be aware of the potential issues that can and will arise from this crisis.