It seems surprising that the ultra-establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, would go to the extreme of publishing a lead article by the noted political scientist, Kenneth Waltz, with the title “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb” in its current issue. It is more the reasoning of the article than the eye-catching title that flies in the face of the anti-proliferation ethos that has been the consensus lynchpin of nuclear weapons states, and especially the United States. At the same time, Waltz takes pain to avoid disavowing his mainstream political identity. He echoes without pausing to reflect upon the evidence undergirding the rather wobbly escalating assumption that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons at this time. Waltz does acknowledge that Iran might be only trying to have a ‘breakout’ capability of the sort long possessed by Japan and several other countries; that is, the technological capacity if facing a national emergency to assemble a few bombs in a matter of months. Nowhere does Waltz allude to the recently publicized agreement among the 14 American intelligence agencies that there is no evidence that Iran has decided to resume its military program that had been reportedly abandoned in 2003. In other ways, as well, Waltz signals his general support for the American approach to Israeli security other than in relation to nuclear weapons, and so, it should be clear, Waltz is not a political dissenter, a policy radical, nor even a critic of Israel’s role in the region.
Waltz insists that aside from the breakout option, there are two other plausible scenarios worth considering: sanctions and coercive diplomacy to induce Iran “to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons,” which he deems unlikely to overcome a genuine appetite for the bomb; or Iran defies the pressures and acquires nuclear weapons, which he regards as the most desirable of the three options. It seems reasonable to wonder, ‘Why?’ In essence, Waltz is arguing that experience and logic demonstrate that the relations among states become more stable, less war-prone, when a balance is maintained, and that there is no reason to think that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons it would not behave in accordance with the deterrence regime that has discouraged all uses of nuclear weapons ever since 1945, and especially during the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. In this regard, Waltz is expressing what I regard to be a wildly exaggerated faith in the rationality and prudence of leaders who make decisions on matters of war and peace.
He does make a contextual argument that I mostly agree with, namely, that Israel alone possessing a regional nuclear monopoly is more dangerous and undesirable than Iran becoming a second nuclear weapons state in the region. In effect, a regional nuclear monopolist is worse than a regional system of balance that incorporates deterrence logic. For Israel to be deterred would contribute to peace and security in the region, and this seems likely to reduce somewhat, although at a level of risk far short of zero, the prospect of any use of nuclear weapons and other forms of aggression in the Middle East. But to say that A (Iran gets the bomb) is better than B (breakout capability but no bomb) and C (sanctions and coercive diplomacy induce Iran to forego bomb) is to forget about D, which is far better than A, B, and C in relation to sustainable stability, but also because it represents an implicit acknowledgement that the very idea of basing security upon the threat to annihilate hundreds of thousand, if not more, innocent persons is a moral abomination that has already implicated the nuclear weapons states in a security policy, which if ever tested by threat and use, would be genocidal, if not omnicidal, and certainly criminal. This anti-nuclear posture was substantially endorsed by a majority of judges in a groundbreaking Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on 8 July 1996, although these strong findings as to international law were, not surprisingly, cast aside and ignored by the nuclear weapons states, most defiantly by the United States.
The Case for Option D
What then is Option D? Option D would involve the negotiation and implementation of a nuclear weapons free zone throughout the Middle East (MENFZ), reinforced by non-aggression commitments, normalization of economic and political relations, and ideally accompanied by genuine progress toward a just and sustainable Palestine/Israel peace accord. Significantly, Waltz does not even pause to consider it, as in all likelihood he regards such an approach as completely inconsistent with the hard power realities of global diplomacy, making it foolish and irrelevant to take the possibility of a MENFZ seriously. Needless to say, D is also not in the Netanyahu playbook, and quite likely no future Israeli leader will be prepared to give up the nuclear weapons arsenal that Israel has been consistently acquiring and developing over the last four decades. And it seems fair to conjecture that anyone who proposes a MENFZ would be at odds with the realist camp in international relations, and such a piece would almost certainly be rejected by the editors of Foreign Affairs, among the most ardent guardians of the realist status quo.
Waltz’s preference for A, favoring an Iranian bomb, is an extension of his long-standing belief that proliferation is actually desirable based on a view of global security that depends on sustaining power balances. In my judgment, this carries confidence in the logic of deterrence (that is, the rationality of not using the bomb because of a fear of nuclear retaliation) to absurd degrees that go well beyond even the extreme rationality relied upon by the most influential war thinkers during the Cold War era. In this sense, Waltz is correct to equate the Middle East with the rest of the world, and not engage in the widespread practice of ethno-religious profiling: that is, Israel’s bomb is okay because it is a rational and ‘Western,’ while Iran’s bomb would be a world order disaster as it is irrational and governed by Islamic zealots that have declared their implacable hostility to Israel. If such distinctions are to be made, which is doubtful, it should be appreciated that Israel is the antagonist that has been threatening war and pushing for coercive diplomacy, while it is Iran that has so far peacefully tolerated a variety of severe provocations, acts of war, such as the assassination of several of its nuclear scientists, the infecting of its enrichment centrifuges with the Stuxnet virus, and verified violent covert acts designed to destabilize the Tehran regime. Had such incidents been reversed, it is more than 100% likely that Israel would have immediately gone to war against Iran, quite likely setting the entire region on fire.
Objections to Option A
My basic objection to the Waltz position is a disagreement with two of his guiding assumptions: first, with respect to the region, that other countries would not follow Iran across the nuclear threshold, an assessment he bases largely on their failure to acquire nuclear weapons in response to Israel’s acquisition of the capability. Surely Saudi Arabia and Turkey would not, for reasons of international status and perceived security, want to be non-nuclear states in a neighborhood in which both Israel and Iran had the bomb. Such an expansion of the regional nuclear club would become more prone to accident, miscalculation, and the sort of social and political pathology that makes nuclear weaponry generally unfit for human use in a conflict, whatever the region or occasion. In this respect, the more governments possess the bomb, the more likely it becomes that one of those horrible scenarios about a nuclear war will become history.
And secondly, Waltz does not single out nuclear weapons for condemnation on either ethical or prudential grounds. In fact, he seems to hold the view that we can be thankful for the bomb as otherwise the Cold War would likely have resulted in a catastrophic World War III. In my view, to have sought the bomb and then used it against the helpless Japanese at the end of World War II was certainly one of the worst instances of Promethean excess in human history, angering not only the gods but exhibiting a scary species death wish. Leaders have acknowledged this moral truth from time to time, most recently by Barack Obama in his 2009 Prague speech calling for a world without nuclear weapons; but politicians, including Obama, seem unable and unwilling to take the heat that following through would certainly entail. In the end, anti-nuclearism for leaders seems mainly an exercise in rhetoric, apparently persuasive in Norway where the Nobel Prize committee annually ponders the credentials of candidates, but without any behavioral consequences relating to the weaponry itself. To be sure nuclear policies are challenged from time to time by a surge of anti-nuclear populism. In this regard, to favor the acquisition of the bomb by any government or political organization is to embrace the nuclearist fallacy relating to security and the absurd hubris of presupposing an impeccable rationality over long stretches of time, which has never been the case in human affairs.
The secrecy surrounding policy bearing on nuclear weapons, especially the occasions of their possible use, also injects an absolutist virus into the vital organs of a democratic body politic. There is no participation by the people or even their representatives in relation to this most ultimate of political decisions, vesting in a single person, and perhaps including his most intimate advisors, a demonic capability to unleash such a catastrophic power. We now know that even beyond the devastation and radiation, the use of as few as 50 nuclear bombs would generate so much smoke as to block sunlight from the earth for as long as a decade, dooming much of the agriculture throughout the world, a dynamic that has been called ‘a nuclear famine.’ As disturbing as such a possibility should be to those responsible for the security of society, there is little evidence that such a realization of the secondary effects of nuclear explosions is even present in political consciousness. And certainly the citizenry is largely ignorant of such a dark eventuality bound up with the retention of nuclear weapons.
It is for these reasons that I would call Kenneth Waltz dangerous, not crazy. Indeed, it is his extreme kind of instrumental rationality that is dominant in many influential venues, and helps explain the development, possession, and apparent readiness to use nuclear weapons under certain conditions despite the risks and the immorality of the undertaking. If human society is ever to be again relatively safe, secure, and morally coherent, a first step is to renounce nuclear weapons unconditionally and proceed with urgency by way of an agreed, phased, monitored, and verified international agreement to ensure their elimination from the face of the earth. It is not only that deterrence depends on perfect rationality over time and across space, it is also that the doctrine and practices of deterrence amounts to a continuing crime against humanity of unprecedented magnitude and clarity!
A few years ago, in a BBC documentary about Israel`s nuclear weapons, Benjamin Netanyahu stated that as a last resort Israel would use nuclear weapons, he described this as “The Solomon Scenario”. Israel could attack any Arab country without fear of killing Israelis. Were any Arab country use WMD to attack Israel, millions of Arabs would be killed, the Iranian leadership has stated that such a scenario would be unacceptable to them, they have repeatedly confirmed they have no intentions of developing nuclear weapons. Unlike all the current holders of nuclear weapons, Iran alone has, for the past 200 years, shown no offensive military aggression. It seems to me it is Iran`s desire to progress free of US influence, that is the reason for US demands that the world accepts US propaganda, or should that be, US Porky Pies!
America’s political class has bent completely to the will of the Israeli lobby and to Israel. Rationality and a realistic assessment of the facts has long ago been abandoned and replaced with shrillness and political infighting to control the reigns of power at the expense of truth and good will. Washington politicians live in a fantasy world where it would never occur to them to question the so-called “conventional wisdom” and honestly consider what is in America’s best interest. And as far as the devastating affects of the use of nuclear weapons is concerned, when you are living in a fantasy world such considerations aren’t even dreamt of.
Im quite familiar with Waltz’s perspective since I recently double majored in International Affairs. While he presents a completely academic and valid point from the realist perspective, I would be very cautious to apply the realities of Cold War politics to Iran. A major concern I have with his argument and the realist perspective in general revolves around the idea that all states have a universal standard of rationality. Secondly, I highly doubt a nuclear Iran would not lead to an arms race in the Middle East. I could almost guarantee that Saudi Arabia and Turkey would seek to develop nuclear weapons should Iran become weaponized in order to ensure their own security. Lastly, while past experience indicates nuclear states become less hostile, I would be very fearful of how an Israeli – Iranian version of the Cuban Missile Crisis would be resolved. Khrushchev and Kennedy were by all means rational actors yet they came within a hair of nuclear annihilation. While the theory of mutually assured destruction has held true up until now in preventing nuclear war, the security dilemma that would ensue should Iran become nuclear would be far from the best possible outcome in my opinion.
William, I assume you are implying that Israel and US leaders do not have the rational of the Iranian leadership, certainly the actions of Israel and the US would confirm that situation.
If by Iranian rational you mean the promotion of death by suicide as the most valued moral when it results in the deaths of westerners, then yes I would be implying that.
Furthermore your belief that Iran does not intend to become weaponized is foolish. If this is the case, why does Iran continue to prevent inspections at its nuclear facilities. The Iranians must have the weapon in order to balance power against Israel. Simply stopping short of weaponization with the ability to develop one on short notice would not be satisfactory for the Iranians.
William, do facts not matter? There is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and there is no evidence its leaders intend to manufacture a bomb, and Iran permits the IAEA full access to its nuclear facilities in accordance with its obligations under the NPT.
While there may not be any physical evidence at present, there is certainly circumstantial to support this assertion.
William, there is no evidence that Iran is making, or wanting to make nuclear weapons, all that exists is the possibility of that event (and US/Israeli assertions of Iranian intentions), both these countries have an established track record of lying through their back teeth and taking aggressive military action. Why no objections about the existing Israeli nuclear weapons, or the US supply of delivery systems, or the refusal of Israel to join IAEA? Why do you mention non-existent Iranian suicide bombers? and not the instigator of that method, Baruch Goldstein, a US/Israeli, who in 1994, fully armed and in Israeli army uniform, entered a Mosque and massacred 29 Palestinian Arabs and wounded more than 120, as they knelt in worship? He was killed with a fire extinguisher! His tomb says “A martyr to God, his blood will be avenged”. I am appalled at US perception of Arabs as being universally bad people, fully deserving of whatever atrocities the US and Israel deliver, particularly as there is ample evidence available to the contrary, it is not restricted only to those with open minds.
I certainly do not think all Arabs are bad people and I agree Israel shares alot of the blame for this situation. In fact I do know that many of Iran’s citizens are pro western. The military and Revolutionary Guard are not and act irrationally by our standards. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Revolutionary Guard marched children to their deaths through Iraq’s minefields in order to clear them and praised their sacrifice in the name of Allah. Neorealism is a Cold War theory that cannot be applied to fundamentalist regimes like Iran. Constructivism is much more suitable approach.
It is unwise for you to think Iran does not want to develop a nuclear weapon. The IAEA is not satisfied that Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly for peaceful energy. They do not have full access to sites like Natanz and Qom and many enrichment facilities remain undeclared. We know they are enriching uranium to 20 percent when you only need 5 percent enrichment for energy purposes. Granted you need 80 percent enrichment for a successful bomb, but once you get to 20, its not a dramatic leap to reach 80. If the IAEA is not satisfied with their intentions, then nor am I and from a neo realist perspective like Waltz’s, it makes sense for Iran to get the bomb and not just the capability.
Hi William, I`m pleased you came back, I`ve replied to Cory, so I would suggest you read that as well as this. Not sure where you get your minefield information, it sounds like a Gil Eyal production, certainly there is no evidence of such an act.
You mention “Fundamental” Iran, I presume you mean religious fundamental? Well consider this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and Jehovah`s Witnesses, created in the US, regularly approach total strangers in an attempt to gain conversions, not just in the US, I met a couple of them when walking the French Pyrenees, at 10,000 feet speaking excellent French and demanding my attention, is this not “fundamentalism”? I have never ever been approached by Moslems. What could be more fundamentalist than Pastor Mark Wolford, bitten to death by snakes, whilst proving God`s power, and he was not the first! Don`t start me on about US TV and Radio evangelists, those people are seriously scary, but living and thriving in the US. It may well be normal for you, but the US is the most fundamental religious country I have ever visited (and enjoyed). Would some power the gift to give us, to see ourselves as others see us! As a Brit, I was taught of a benevolent caring Empire, it wasn`t of course, it was self serving, cruel and dismissive of the countries it subjugated, portraying the people who objected as loathsome and worthless, an age old technique, still used by the US. Iran has repeated on many levels, many times that the possession of nuclear arms is not it`s intentions, not least because such might is expressly forbidden by the Koran, as are acts of desecration to the Torah and New Testament. The God of Abraham and Jesus, is the same one known to Mohammed, let`s ask him eh?
Yet in the United States, we do not sentence people to death for practicing a religion of their choice. Christianity does not promote the killing of non believers. Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
During the Iraq-Iran War –
Ettelaat, an Iranian daily, reported, “Before entering the minefields, the children wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.”
Furthermore, you claim the public declarations of the US and Israel embody only deceit and falsehoods yet you take the Iranian Regime at their word. This sort of gullibility will at best take advantage of you and at worst be the death of you in the real world.
William, every country`s politicians are bias, they are promoting their own agendas. However it was the CIA organized installing of the Shah and support of his regime, that led to the revolution and rejection of US influence. The current regime have no reason to trust the USA, with the active support of Russia and, more importantly, China, why should they? Israel is the driving force for anti Iran sentiment, as it was with Iraq.
Israel focused attention on Iran when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked the question “The Holocaust didn`t happen in Palestine, why then are Palestinians punished for the crimes that were committed in Europe?” The last M.E. leader who openly criticized Israel was Saddam Hussein, he denied he had W.M.D. Iran, in an uncanny repeat of history, is denying building a nuclear bomb. Sorry William when it comes down to it, in the believability stakes, the US has a very poor record.
William, Iran`s Christian population (125/400,000) are recognised and guaranteed freedom to worship in the Iranian Constitution, as are some 25/40,000 Iranian Jews, both religions have seats (which are taken) allocated in the Iranian parliament . Since the Islamic revolution (33 years ago) no Christian (or Jew) has been executed in Iran, even Pastor Nadarkhani who`s execution was widely reported in western media early this year, is alive and well.
Just a thought, the US has executed hundreds of Christians and Jews during the last 33 years! Whilst Iran has hundreds of Churches and Synagogs, any application to build a Mosque in the US is met with mass demonstrations by objectors, like I say, just a thought!
As for the Koran, It`s a book I haven`t read so I can make no comment on you implication that it`s purpose is to encourage the killing of non-believers. However, Moslems accept the teachings of Abraham and Jesus, they regard the Torah and New testament as being part of “The Book” of which the Koran is the third part.
The Iranian newspaper Ettelaat, in 1988 was published in Farsi?, no internet at that time, the current Ettelaat web site has a limited English section but no search facility, so it`s not possible to access a report of Iranian children used for mine field clearance from that source. There are, however, many reports on pro-Zionist web sites that bear all the hall marks of Gil Eyal propaganda, that man is genius, a master of manipulation quite outstanding at producing such fiction, but it has a zealous following!
I acknowledge that the Iranian Constitution recognizes and protects minority religions so long as they follow Muslim principles. Additionally, it is true that Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians are allocated seats in parliament. They receive 5 of the 270 seats and are not permitted to hold any senior positions. I would say that is fundamentally different than our congress or your parliament. Lastly, I never said anyone has actually been executed for practicing or converting to Christianity. But they have been arrested and sentenced to death. Like you said, we can argue facts all day, its just a matter of how you perceive or characterize those facts.
William, did you know that a British monarch must be a practising member of the Church of England?
It`s a funny old world, but you hit the nail on it`s head when you mention the value of the internet as a debating forum. Websites such as this one, in my opinion, present a perspective that otherwise would probably be suppressed, it also tends to reveal how alike people are, whatever their nationality, maybe even Iranians?
My take:
I don’t think Iran is building a bomb, but I think they are compiling the capability and all the pieces to quickly be able to create one. And I think they should be prevented from doing so.
I read Waltz’s piece, and my main takeaway is that he seems to be basing his assumptions on a very selective reading of history.
A few examples:
1. He makes the point that upon becoming a nuclear power, states realize they’re a target, and thus shy away from any “bold and aggressive action”.
That wasn’t the case with North Korea selling nuclear secrets to Syria back in the first half of the last decade.
2. He attempts to reinforce that point by adding: “…India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear.”
But Pakistan works with terrorist groups to hit India – that’s provocation, not caution.
3. “Rest assured”, he says, for, “There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states.”
‘Because it has never happened, therefore it never will happen’ is a weak – and naive – argument.
4. “Most important, policymakers and citizens…should take comfort from the fact that history has shown that where nuclear capabilities emerge, so, too, does stability.”
One word: Pakistan.
5. Finally, concluding that “more [nuclear weapons] may be better” is so terribly backwards and troubling that it makes me question the author’s basic judgment.
Am I reading this piece – or history’s lessons – wrong?
You make reasonable affirmations Cory, from a US mainstream perspective! Argentina, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, are amongst 30 countries operating nuclear power stations, all have the potential to make nuclear weapons, all are members of the IAEA, as is Iran. France gave nuclear secrets to Israel, who now has nuclear weapons, but has refused to join IAEA. Why then mention the unsubstantiated US claim that North Korea gave nuclear secrets to Syria?
Wars between India and Pakistan were long regarded as “normal” indeed (West and East)Pakistan was created because of civil war, with Kashmir still in dispute, but no wars since nuclear weapons were developed. The Pakistan government works closely with India to prevent terrorist actions emanating from Pakistan, to say Pakistan “works” with terrorists is an emotional inaccuracy.
Only one country has used atomic weapons in war, both times on non-military civilian targets. The US continues to claim the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as “justified”, I wonder if having been the first to “pull the trigger” the USA now assumes other countries would do the same? But that would suppose other countries pursue the same aggressive policies as the USA, and there is no evidence of that!
Mike, I appreciate the thought-provoking response! This is what I have to say:
To your first paragraph:
1. I haven’t heard the same kinds of rhetoric from the leaders of Argentina, Brazil, etc. as I have from Iran, so I’m not sure you can make that comparison.
2. Ok, France gave nuclear secrets to Israel. Yes, Israel has nukes. Yes, it refuses to join the IAEA. But what does that have to do with the NK-Syria relationship? If you flatly disbelieve everything that comes out of the US and Israel, I can understand why you would call it “unsubstantiated” (although I think that itself is unsubstantiated :), and while I disagree with you, based on your perspective I think that’s an okay conclusion to draw.
As to your second paragraph – I definitely have disagreements.
I don’t know what an “emotional inaccuracy” is – I don’t feel much emotion about Pakistan-India politics, after all – but to say that Pakistan hasn’t worked with terrorists is a “historical inaccuracy” in my mind. Pakistan is scared to death of encirclement by India, and rightly view Karzai as closer to India than to Pakistan. Maybe the civilian leadership in Pakistan hasn’t directly worked with terrorists, but the powers that represent continuity in that state – i.e. the military and the ISI – have maintained their longstanding ties to the Taliban (and to an extent, Al Qaeda and other militant groups). That’s an open secret.
I’m not sure if you’re disagreeing with me in your last paragraph, but I will say one thing: the actors on the world stage today aren’t just “states”, as they’ve traditionally been. Today, we have non-state actors who scare me more than a government does. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, I don’t think they would use it. But do you agree with me that – as a general rule – having more nukes in the world makes things worse, not better (whether the nukes are in the US, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, or any other country)?
Love the internet Cory! how else can opinions be shared by people thousand of miles apart, or perspectives be challenged? We could debate “points” till the cows come home, I simply posted an alternative perspective to your original comments. So where do our opinions come from? I would guess from our Governments, who feed our media which recipients, in general, accept, and why not! I understand whilst Fox News thrives Al Jazeera is banned in most US States, OK Al Jazeera is focused on Africa and the M.E. but in my opinion, is as balanced as the BBC. Here in the UK Iran`s Press TV is also banned, luckily it`s internet service is available, I find no objectionable rhetoric on that site, certainly nothing to compare with Fox News, But there you go, it depends on where information comes from I suppose. As for Nuclear weapons, what on earth are they good for, long range mass destruction? then what? And all tax payers are squeezed to pay for them, bring back single combat that`s what I say.
While I do consider myself a conservative thinker, I certainly do not allow Fox News, BBC, CNN or Al Jazeera (which I do read occasionally and agree with you for the most part) to formulate my opinions. I focus on history and a constructivist school of thought when forming opinions about international relations. If you allow yourself to be manipulated in thought by the media then you will be forever a pawn of misguided perception.
William, during childhood and adolescence, we are all “conditioned” By our environment, TV, cartoons, films, radio, comic books, parent`s opinions, chance remarks, religion!! Our outlook/attitudes are formed long before we ever start to question why or how we hold a particular view, or why we are interested in some things and not others. As adults, without thinking, we seek confirmation of our opinions and interests, it`s very difficult to plan a future that is uninteresting and opposite to our opinions. You may well be correct in claiming TV news does not formulate your opinions, however your lifelong “conditioning” will motivate your interpretation of history in a way that sits most comfortably with you. Most go through life without changing their basic opinions, some of us do, it`s arduous, challenging, traumatic and not at all comfortable, much easier not to rock the boat, good fortune William.
I most certainly agree that our environment plays a key role in our development and thought process and its difficult to break that mold. Some are not as fortunate to receive higher education which is essential to this process of changing your opinion. There are many things I believed when I was younger that I dont believe now and I am still relatively young at the age of 26 and will probably change my opinions again with new knowledge. Forums like this are a great way to alter one’s perspective and hear other points of view and I do appreciate hearing yours as this is the only way to acquire true knowledge. While rocking the boat may not be easy nor popular, its the only way to advance humanity sometimes.