Should Iran get the bomb? This has
been a question of great debate for many years. I believe that if Iran gets the
bomb, the balance of power that we have in the world will shift for the worse,
leading the world to yet another Cold War.
Kenneth Waltz, a professor of
political science at Columbia University, argues that Iran should get the bomb
since it will lead a balance of power in the world. He argues that although
Iran may have a negative reputation in the global community, they should be
trusted with a bomb. The logic of nuclear deterrence will hold and Iran will
not launch their missiles to any country.
However, I argue that if Iran
obtained nuclear weapons, the world could potentially enter another Cold War.
Iran has a history of hating the West and Israel. The Iranian revolution ousted
the pro-American Shah and brought in a leader who strongly opposed America and
the West. The Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 further revealed their hatred
towards America. Their Supreme Leader, Khomeini, has disdained America and even called America
the Great Satan (Katz, 2010). In Iran, there is negative propaganda towards
America on their buildings—messages that encourage taking down America and a
skull face for the Statue of Liberty. The same message of destroying Israel and
America is repeated in their religious services as well. With all these allegations
and past experiences with Iran, can we truly trust them with nuclear weapons?
First, if all countries obtained nuclear power, would the
world be at peace? During the Cold War, there was constant tension between the
US and USSR. Although each had enough nuclear power to destroy each other many
times over, they continued the arms race. Their mistrust in each other lead to
an air of fear and hatred amongst the people. This example reveals that nuclear
power does not create peace but fear, havoc, and confusion.
Now, let’s say that Iran obtained technology to create
nuclear weapons. First, they would continue the arms race that America had with
the USSR several years ago. Although they know it is in the best interest of
the world to hold back, they will not since their ultimate goal would be to
destroy America and Israel. Second, there would be more confrontations like
that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. There would be an increase in threats of
launching missiles as well as missiles pointed at us and Israel. With their
increase in power and their hatred towards the West, MAD would not keep them
from launching missiles. They would launch them and annihilate cities and
peoples. Their irrational past would place us, and the world, in harm’s way.
Given the situations in the Middle East at this very moment, if
Iran obtained nuclear power, the fear of being attacked is greater since their hatred
towards America and Israel only grows as each day passes by. Iran would be
irrational and would launch their missiles at America, which would threaten our
safety and security.
Hence I argue that, considering Iran’s past with America and
their hatred towards Israel, if they obtained nuclear power, there would be
chaos and fear since such great power has fallen into the hands of an
irrational country.
While I do agree with Thomas' overall argument that Iran should be slowed down in their quest to achieve Nuclear power, I still have a few issues with this post.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, even if Iran did achieve nuclear capabilities, I don't think that it would necessarily mean that we would be forced into a Cold War with them. When the US was in a Cold War with the USSR the circumstances were simply much different. The USSR was equal to the United States in terms of being an economic, political and military force in the world, three things that Iran isn't even close to matching. Nuclear power, even though important and influential, would not change this fact at all. In this sense, a Cold War with Iran is not something that the US would need to worry about in any sense, as they are not strong enough to compete with the US in any way.
Furthermore, Thomas mentions this idea that if obtaining these weapons, Iran would quickly threaten the United States and Israel because they are hated in the region. While it is understandable that these two countries should be worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities, in reality I don't believe there is a significant threat. The world today is so diplomatic and alliance based that it is not that easy to just bomb someone or threaten to bomb someone. The repercussion for Iran for just threatening to use the bomb against the United States or any of its allies, including Israel, would be far greater than the benefit. Iran would be crushed before the United States would let them harm the country, or any of its allies.
Overall, I completely agree with Thomas in that Iran should not be able to acquire nuclear weapons as it could be dangerous for the rest of the world. However, I do have some issues with some of his specific consequences of acquiring these weapons.
I understand where you are coming from, and after reading your comment, I would like to revise one thing from my argument. I would say that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, then there would be a Cold War which would lead to a hot war very rapidly. I say this since Iran's irrational behavior would lead them to do something as rash as launching missiles against America and Israel.
DeleteWe should not undermine their hatred and anger towards us. The Middle East, over a course of centuries, has been under the leadership of many nations. One can even argue that they just want to be left alone and learn to govern themself on their own. However, throughout history, that has not been the case. America's involvement in the Middle East has, according to their perspective, corrupted their culture and goes against everything that they uphold as true. They would definitely be blinded by their anger such that they will act irrationally.
Hence, if they obtained nuclear weapons, although their power does not match up with that of the US, they would launch it to send a message to the world and the US that they want to be left alone. Remember that they acting irrationally. So they will not consider the consequences as much, just the temporary relief.
Interesting post.
DeleteSomeone like Waltz would counter by saying that public pronouncements are not enough to determine the kind of irrationality that would ignore MAD. Soviet Premier Khrushchev made similar pronouncements about the US (even banging his show on his podim during one speech), Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un have acted as erratically as one could imagine and have yet to launch a bomb. Even Eisenhower repeatedly claimed that the US would use weapons in normal military encounters. There are many reasons to bluff and many reasons why outwardly irrational leaders might follow the rationality of MAD when the chips are down.
So why is Iran different?
Iran is different is from these countries because of what they stand for and what they strongly believe.
DeleteIn the case of Russia, they did not send missiles to the US because they saw it as the common good of the world. Although they fought against the US, and disagreed on many points, they knew that nuclear warfare would end the world.
In the case of North Korea, although North Korea has yet to launch the bomb, and although their leaders might thing irrational, they are reasonable. They know that they do not have the power or the strength to face the US or any country on their own. Hence, their alliances with other countries keeps from launching since they know if they lose that alliance, they will be done for.
However, that is not the same for Iran. Iran's anger and hatred towards the US is one that will never be forgiven. The propaganda against the US is strong. And their hatred is portrayed in their religion. The same message of hate is spread throughout the country. Furthermore, Iran has helped terrorist organizations. If they obtained the bomb, they can easily give it to terrorist organizations who can use it against the US.
Hence, Iran is different because they will be unreasonable, and they only are concerned with their region rather than the whole world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Thomas's stance on the subject. I particularly liked when he talked about how nuclear weapons would not lead to peace, but rather confusion and fear among other negative results. Additionally, he recognizes that the corrupt and irrational past actions of Iran would only lead to danger and destruction for nations like Israel and the US. We can't expect any nation to always act in a rational manner, especially Iran. I agree with Thomas's ideas, and he did a good job clearly refuting the ideas of Waltz.
ReplyDelete