In high school I was quite notorious for the ‘No Nukes for Iran’ bumper sticker affixed to the rear of my Volkswagen. This undersized magnetic circular statement was stolen not once, but four times. Strolling through the halls of my school, I always wondered which unlikely students were the culprits of this crime and why they would steal such a miniscule magnet. I came up with two reasons: the crooks either love my bumper sticker so much they want one of their own or they love the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The latter is more probable and much more worrisome.
There are two arguments relating to the (ir)rationality of Iran attempting to become nuclear. One side views Iran’s actions as irrational in the realm of the global perspective and international relations while the other believes that, domestically, Iran is essentially acting quite rational in terms of Iran’s status in the Middle East region. Despite whatever connections with identity may exist for Iran, their pursuit of nuclear weapons is detrimental to Iran’s standing in the world, making the chase for the bomb seem quite irrational.
But first, what are the dimensions of irrationality in terms of politics? According to the International Society of Political Psychology, there are four facets to irrationality: 1) incompatibility with policy goals, existing consensus, or preferred outcomes,
2) incomprehensive search and evaluation, 3) inconsistency of statements and actions, and 4) nondispassionate style (Political Psychology). Classifying Iran’s actions as irrational means that they are deviations from rational norms, not that they lack significant forethought and planning.
Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. If Iran’s aim was to acquire a bomb for the sole quest for peace, the country would not have enriched its low-enriched uranium into weapons-grade fuel uranium. Iran's defiance of Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend all enrichment of uranium has resulted in UN Security Council sanctions on Tehran. In 2006, the UN passed a resolution banning trade with Iran in materials and technology, which could contribute to its enrichment of uranium, the material for a possible nuclear weapon.
This insubordination on Iran’s part is an example of irrational actions – why would a country purposefully disobey the international organization in charge of international law and security? It seems much more beneficial for Iran to play along with the United Nations, in attempts to appear cooperative.
As the leading state sponsor of terrorism, a nuclear-armed Iran would pose unacceptable threats to global security. Iran would be confident in further intensifying its support for its terrorist allies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, all of which are actively working to undermine U.S. interests and peace efforts (Council on Foreign Relations). Perhaps one of Iran’s goals is to strengthen their allies, but doing so further isolates them from international acceptance and moreover links them to the label of a rogue nation. Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons also would likely touch off a nuclear arms race, constituting a potent threat to regional stability in the Middle East. A world in which nuclear weapons have spread widely would be a much more dangerous place and exponentially increase the likelihood that such weapons might actually be used. Without knowing Iran’s intentions, this could either help or hinder Iran. If other nations acquired nuclear weapons, Iran’s power would severely decrease, generating the idea that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear bomb is in fact irrational. However, a Middle East amassed with nuclear weapons would pose an even greater threat to the United States and other countries against Iran’s acquirement.
A nuclear-armed Iran would likely exacerbate regional tensions. Israel, a mere 1,000 miles away from Iran, may find it hard to live with a nuclear armed Iran whose leader claims that “Israel must be wiped off the map” (Ahmadinejad). In this case, acquiring a bomb is of great benefit to Iran. If Israel ever does take military action against Iran, the Jewish state would be regarded as confrontational, not Iran. The future of peace in the Middle East is dismal so long as Iran remains a menacing actor on the world stage with nuclear weapons as its prop.
Ever since the Iranian revolution turned into an Islamic Republic, the country has become increasingly disenchanted with Iran's international isolation (Council on Foreign Relations). With this in mind, the case may be that perhaps Iran is simply not concerned with cooperating with the United States and other nations. Perhaps gaining strength from nuclear weapons is how they believe they will become a great power within the Middle East. With nuclear weapons held above other countries’ heads, like Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan, Iran could gain a following and immense influence.
The National Intelligence Estimate says, “Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political economic and military costs" (NIE). This suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.
President Ahmadinejad’s signature look – a grey suit and white button-down shirt sans tie – is one of the few rational qualities of Iran. But deeming Iran’s actions as rational or irrational really depends on what you believe Ahmadinejad’s intentions to be: does he want Iran to be a key player in the United Nations globally or would he rather Iran to be the eminent leader of the Middle East region?
Whatever the case, no matter the benefits for Iran, there is nothing good that can come of their acquisition of a nuclear bomb for the rest of us. As for Iran with a bomb, their status through the global viewpoint will be regarded as hostile because they have gone against the wishes of international organizations. However, Iran could also gain prominence in the Middle East region for this acquisition of weaponry. Through discussing the various consequences of Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb, it seems that this action is irrational because Iran would be deemed as aggressive, sponsoring international rivalry rather than promoting international cooperation.
Works Cited
Council on Foreign Relations: Iran, http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362#p2
New York Times: Iran's President Says Israel Must Be 'Wiped Off the Map'
Political Psychology: The Desirability of Irrationality in Foreign Policy Making, p. 644-647
National Intelligence Estimate: Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
In your conclusion you bring up the point that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will probably exacerbate tension rather than create cooperation. In that case, will Iran really be seen as a Middle Eastern leader if they become a nuclear power? True, less powerful states may be forced to bow down to Iran, but how long could that kind of tense relationship last? From a purely realist point of view, it's true that Iran could become a regional hegemon. If the Middle East were the only factor, Iran may be able to consolidate its power. However, would other powerful states (particularly the United States) allow an irrational state like Iran to become that powerful?
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned Israel as a potential source of conflict. Even if Israel were to attack Iran, wouldn't Israel be able to point to Iran and say "Iran was the aggressor because they obtained nuclear weapons first"? Again, the United States, a hugely powerful actor, is likely to side with Israel and against Iran. Does Iran just not feel threatened by the United States?
I believe that Iran will be seen as a MIddle Eastern leader if they become a nuclear power and this will exacerbate tensions between that region and the rest of the world. With the Middle East in such an unstable state right now from the Arab spring, I think that Iran could very easily consolidate its power. The United States could attempt to thwart this from happening, but as seen from Iran's participation with terrorist groups like Hezbollah gaining power in Lebanon, the US may not have much leverage, especially when the US is very pro-Israel. And going to your second question - there is a trend that no matter what Israel does, whether it is reacting to rocket attacks on their southern cities from Gaza, Israel is viewed as the aggressor. PM Netanyahu in his speech to the UN a few weeks ago said that Israel is singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel. Yes, the US will side with Israel, but the UN will not. It all depends which you deem to be a more powerful player in the realm of world politics.
ReplyDeleteI do not think you can assume the U.N. would not side with Israel if tensions were to escalate into war between Israel and Iran. Though Israel has been subject to much criticism from the U.N., the countries there understand that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the very existence of Israel. I don't think the U.N. is inherently anti-Israel and that the organization is capable of understanding and considering the threat of Iran before condemning either side.
ReplyDeleteMollie: I think your paper was well written! You say that at first thought it seems much more beneficial for Iran to obey the international institutions to appear cooperative. You say later that a lack of cooperation may just be due to lack of interests, and motives elsewhere--Iran wanting to establish its own power in the MIddle East. In the long run, though, do you think that one of these strategies (or one of Ahmedinejad's motives that you state) is better for the country as a whole? Do you think that "playing along" with an international institution is the best decision for the country and for the public?
ReplyDeleteYour also reference the idea that even though individual states may have their own strategies and motives for establishing power (like Iran in the Middle East region), they may choose to cooperate with a body such as the UN in order to bolster an image. Do you think this angle argues for the liberal institutionalism? That perhaps states act a certain way in order to create illusions or false confidences, even though in the end it's all still grouped as cooperation?
Caroline: I believe that, if Iran does want to become powerful in the region (which it seems it does) then acquiring nuclear weapons is its best bet. What I was stating earlier is that though they will probably gain leverage in the region, they are alienating themselves from the rest of the world. For the public, Iran "playing along" is the best decision. Most countries - most individuals - are not for Iran acquiring the bomb - there really is no benefit to any of us.
ReplyDeleteFor your second paragraph/question, we can look back at your post "Institutions Matter?!" regarding Bush. Regardless of what the UN said, Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. This argues that the UN holds a superficial power over states, I believe. Just as states act a certain way to create illusions, I believe UN institution power is an illusion within itself. Though it is a brilliant idea, this international organization holds little influence - this can be seen with Iran and with Bush alike.