Fear of Iranian nuclear weapons program are largely unfounded

For a while now, there has been this underling fear of the Iranian government obtaining nuclear weapons and using them to attack Israel and the U.S. abroad and at home. In 2012, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Iran had the capabilities to build nuclear weapons but did not know whether they would. Because of this report, the media was inundated with anti-Iranian propaganda that propagated the fear of the possibility of Iran creating nuclear weapons. Kenneth Waltz, in his paper ‘Why Iran should get the bomb: nuclear balance would mean stability”, argues Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would bring more balance to the Middle East, which is an interesting point and one that I tend to agree with. There is only one country in the Middle East that has nuclear capabilities and that is Israel, a U.S. ally. Waltz points out notes that much of the unrest in the Middle East is due to the fact that Israel is the only country in the region with nuclear capabilities. Since the U.S. and Israel are allies and Israel is perturbed by the idea of Iran having a weapons program, the U.S. also takes on this fear. However, I would ask, why does the US take on this fear when a country like North Korea actually has nuclear weapons? Waltz also points out that there is a perception that Iranian leaders are not rational actors and are foaming at the mouth, waiting in anticipation to use nuclear weapons. The theory of MAD states that even the most irrational actor will not use nuclear weapons knowing it would lead to the destruction of their state. I find this to be largely true and it also points out a flaw in defining actors as rational and irrational. Most would not label Kim Jong Ill and Kim Jong Un as rational actors but North Korea has not used their nuclear weapons, although they have threatened to on several occasions. North Korea having nuclear weapons is seen as laughable, whereas Iran is more of a threat and there’s larger sense of urgency when it comes to Iran. This is because in Iran there are more religious martyrs who are willing to sacrifice their life for religious purposes. I would say, however, this is not the case within the Iranian leadership and they are not any less rational than any other leader. In 2012, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’ Supreme Leader issued a fatwa or order stating that having nuclear weaponry is a sin in Islam. This got very little media attention because it counters he dominant narrative of Iran wanting nuclear weapons. Also, Iran is a country that is filled with natural resources unlike North Korea. An invasion of Iran, much like Iraq, would be far more enticing because of the country’s resources. Iran is decades behind North Korea in terms of advancement of nuclear technology and even North Korea isn’t anywhere near many other countries with nuclear weapons are, like Pakistan. Waltz’s main argument is that if Iran had nuclear weapons, the Middle East would be far more stable because they would not be as vulnerable to Israel who has nuclear weapons. I find this to be mostly true. Balance of power is a concept that manifests itself in several different ways within social science. Hard power in regard to state relationships should be no different. In addition to US involvement in the region, the Middle East has also been unstable at the hands of Israel who has issued attacks on both Iraq and Syria in fear of a nuclear weapon program. Waltz states that power begs to be balanced and while I do not believe that Iran having nuclear weapons would put an complete end to unrest in that area, I do think that would provide more stability than there is currently.