Militarization of Iran

            Power begs to be balanced. This concept has been proven true through countless foreign policy tactics such as, deterrence and mutually assured destruction. All states desire power, therefore when one state in a region becomes significantly stronger than the others because of a nuclear buildup, these other states begin to feel vulnerable. Thus, some states threaten their own military build up in order to balance the scope of power and ensure national security. Disequilibrium of power has been a reoccurring problem throughout history. The most recent case has been Iran’s threat of a nuclear buildup. Many world powers, such as the United States and Israel, argue that Iran’s threat is something to fear and should be deterred, however I believe that militarization in Iran could actually bring more stability to the Middle East and should therefore be encouraged.

            Currently, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with a thriving nuclear program. Given Israel’s close proximity to Iran and it’s abundance of military strength, it’s no wonder why the latter is left feeling susceptible. With the admission of a nuclear program in Iran, equilibrium of power would be restored between the two states. In turn, Iran’s acts of aggression would decrease because of a sense of restored security that they’d feel once a nuclear program was established.

            The United States and Israel peg Iran as an irrational state because of past incidents between the nations. The US and Israel fear that if Iran were to become a nuclear state, terrorist groups could easily attain these weapons, which in turn could create mass chaos. Although the Iranian government supports terrorist groups, it is unlikely that the government would negligently pass on these weapons to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Kenneth Waltz argues “history shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers.” (Waltz, 2012) There have been various irrational states throughout history—such as Stalin’s Soviet Union and Maoist China—who have possessed nuclear weapons and have not used them. This is because they are aware of the consequences that would ensue if they used their weapons against powerful rival states. Given this argument, Iran would become more cautious and discrete if they did militarize and would merely possess, and not use, their weapons in order to demonstrate their strength to the world. If we were to illustrate this, it would be the equivalent of Iran flexing their muscles.

Another concern that arises if Iran were to militarize, is the commencement of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This concern is not likely because of the historical evidence stacked against it. “Since 1970, there has been a marked slowdown in the emergence of nuclear states.” (Waltz, 2012) Nuclear Programs are expensive and risky because of the often negative attention that nations receive and the diplomatic risk it produces. This is why many states aren’t allured to the idea.

It is normal that the US and Israel are concerned with Iran’s threat of a nuclear build up, but these two nations shouldn’t continue compelling Iran through sanctions. This will only provoke them. The US and Israel should allow Iran to militarize, however they are free to retaliate if their national security is threatened. Once again, it is highly dubious that Iran would do anything to provoke the major powers, because in the end all they are seeking is power through immediate deterrence (build up of military for the state’s own protection).

Sources:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb