By Hassan Aden
In his Essay, “Why Iran should get the bomb”?, Mr Waltz aptly highlights how the only viable option for regional stability in the middle East is to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. The author highlights the many dilemmas that are surrounding Iran’s struggle to obtain the nuclear weapon and evidently demonstrates that the region will be better off in all like outcomes. A nuclear armed Iran, he argues, would balance power in the region and will balance Israel’s hegemonic dominance in the region and beyond. Although the author explores nuclear Iran’s regional implications, he fell-short to fully address the implications of a nuclear Iran at a global level and the repercussions that will inexorably follow.
Nuclear possession equates with unparalleled power and influence-plain and simple. A nuclear armed country will assume a global leadership and will have a say in all international relations and dealings. For example, nuclear armed countries across the world tend to be more powerful and influential than their non-nuclear armed counter-parts. Therefore, a nuclear armed Iran will have a bigger role in global politics and its influence will stretch far beyond bringing peace and stability in the region. And whether a nuclear armed Iran will resort to chaos and instability in the world or commit to nurturing global peace and prosperity is up for debate nonetheless a nuclear armed Iran will cherish an influential role in the world.
Moreover, from the inception of Iran’s nuclear activities, Iran has suffered continuous sanctions and yet endured a decade old political and economic isolations. The sanctions ranged from oil embargoes to trade embargoes and wrath has possibly been growing in the country in all likelihoods. Therefore, a nuclear armed Iran will inevitably turn its wheel into global politics and attempt to become a deciding factor in global politics and economics (for that matter). A nuclear Iran, therefore, will pursue an engagement with the rest of the world and it will attempt to make up for its long detachment from global politics economics rather than confining its influence on the comfort zone of its very region.
Similarly, the author discusses the impracticality of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and evidently resorts to Israel’s acquisition of the nuclear bomb hence becoming a regional power. However, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb occurred in many countries across the globe following the example of others most notably Pakistan and India. Since nuclear Iran would inevitably descend to global politics once again, there is every reason that many countries across the globe, not necessarily in the region, would grew wary of the regime. Therefore, a nuclear Iran would assuredly have a deciding factor in regional politics but its global influence merit equal concern.
After all, it’s quite feasible, as Mr. Waltz, argues that nuclear Iran will bring stability to the region but a nuclear Iran will also, perhaps more importantly, partake in global politics at a scale never seen before because it has a nuclear capability at its disposal. Nuclear Iran, henceforth, would have influence that stretch far beyond regional politics and it should be viewed with equal suspicion and optimism as any other nuclear armed country would.