Why Iran Should Not Be Nuclearized
When considering if Iran should be in possession of nuclear weapons, it is important to consider the
region that they are located in, and additionally the history of behavior that they have initiated. The very
argument which tackles and weighs up whether or not Iran should be nuclearized is described in Colin
Kahl's One Step Too Far where he argues that it would be very ill-advised to allow Iran to be in possession
of nuclear weapons, especially in today's political climate. I agree with Kahl's viewpoint in this instance,
and my determination that Iran should not have nuclear weapons is heavily influenced by the instability in
the region and the history as well. In the Middle East as a whole region, there is a lot of instability, and
terrorist groups flourish throughout the region. In recent memory, groups such as the Taliban have been
able to get better footing in countries such as Afghanistan due to government misguidance, and reliance on
foreign powers for security and stability. If Iran's theoretical nuclear stockpile fell into a terrorist group's
hands, it would entail an international crisis, and very dangerous situations. In fact, Kahl even argues that
"Iran's government currently sponsors terrorist groups. . . to demonstrate a capability to retaliate against
the United States" (Kahl 157). This argument brings forth a powerful point that Iran makes emotional and
ignorant decisions such as these. Therefore, giving Iran a nuclear stockpile would give them a great deal
of responsibility not just with the decision-making of using the weapons, but also keeping them out of the
wrong hands. Additionally, nuclear deterrence and the principle of mutually assured destruction may not
be relevant if a military coup were to occur, and less rational decision makers are place into power.
I agree with your stance that Iran should not have be given nuclear weapons, but I fully think about the consequences in there was a military coup. This is an incredibly interesting point because this is a huge risk to world wide security. If a terrorist group happened to posses nuclear weapons this would be incredibly dangerous to the United States as a whole. The idea that Iran having a nuclear weapon for nuclear deterrence does not outweigh the possibility of nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hand especially considering the fact that nuclear deterrence may not even occur because other nuclear powers such as the United States and China would still be much more powerful.
ReplyDeleteI approve with you that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and that the uncertainties in the region contribute significantly to that opinion. However, when we follow this thought, one can also argue that Pakistan should not have nuclear weapons. In addition, Israel is also a country in the Middle East that owns nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, you also mention many other reasons why Iran should not have nuclear weapons. That is why I agree with you and think that Iran distinguishes itself in many ways from the other nuclear powers in that region
ReplyDelete