Iranian Nuclearization: Drew Holm

The Middle East would be worse off if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon. Like Kahl, I believe that by possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran will become more aggressive, and there will be an increase in the likelihood of conflict in the region.

Like Kahl in his response to Waltz, I believe that by possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran would act more belligerent in the Middle East. Even without a nuclear weapon, Iran utilizes its relationship with Hezbollah and other terrorist groups in order to expand its influence and flex its muscles in the region. Iran’s relationship with terrorist groups has led it into conflict with states like Israel in the past. However, because Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and almost complete US support, the Iranians have been unable to take full advantage of the Middle East. Israel knows this, as they have conducted operations like assassinations and missile strikes against Iran in order to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Once Iran gained nuclear capabilities, the entire landscape would change. They would no longer have to fear increased aggression from Israel or any other state because Iran, like Israel, will own nuclear weapons, making it much riskier for Israel to check Iranian activity. This is because Israel will not be able to hold the threat of a nuclear attack over Iran’s head, as Iran will also have a nuclear weapon. Because Iran’s largest threat in the region would lose its biggest playing card, Iran would be able to become more aggressive in the region, and push harder for its interests, most likely through its proxy groups, or its own military capabilities.

The increase in Iranian aggression would mean that conflict would be more common in the region. Khal finds that this is a common trend with newly nuclearized states, as the same thing happened when Pakistan, the Soviet Union, and China first acquired nuclear weapons. The reason for this is that the newly nuclearized power feels overconfident in their abilities to deter attacks, and thus acts more combative with other nuclearized states. While some, like Waltz, may argue that while small conflict increases for a period of time, larger wars do not occur, specifically citing declines in the scale of conflict after both powers gained nuclear weapons. However, I do not see that as a great comparison to Iranian Israeli conflicts. Unlike India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran have never been directly at war with each other. Instead there has been an ongoing proxy conflict between the two countries for quite some time. This conflict revolves around both Iran’s dislike for Israel as a state, and Israel’s desire to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Israel believes that an Iranian nuclear weapon would increase acts of Iranian aggression against Israel, meaning that if Iran did obtain a nuclear weapon, there is a chance that Israel would increase its military operations in an attempt to prevent Iran from being able to use its nuclear weapon, which would increase conflict and the likelihood of an Iranian nuclear strike because they may operate on the lose it or use it strategy, as they would fear no longer having the security that comes along with possessing a nuclear weapon. 

Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. If they do, then the Middle East is at risk of experiencing a heightened number of conflicts, and an increased risk of nuclear war. The current power structure would be overturned, allowing for the rise of Iran, which would pose a greater threat to the United States, and its allies in the region and abroad.