Is the world ready to accept a nuclear Iran?
Is the world ready to accept a nuclear Iran? The ongoing military and security tensions in West Asia, the intensification of Israel’s aggressive and war-mongering policies in the region, the expansion of military operations and Israeli aggression towards southern Lebanon, and Israel’s provocative actions against Iran have gradually led international political, media, and strategic circles to join a movement that, contrary to the past, not only do not consider Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons as a threat to international security but deem it necessary and essential for the security of the Middle East and the world.
Two of the most prominent thinkers and strategists in international relations, namely John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago and the architect of the theory of offensive realism in international relations, and Stephen Walt, a professor at Harvard University and a proponent of defensive realism in international relations, have separately and thoughtfully commented on Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and its positive outcomes.
A notable point in the positions of these two international relations scholars is their extensive and sometimes joint studies in the fields of U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East, Israel, and Iran. In an interview conducted some time ago, John Mearsheimer, noting that nuclear weapons are a force for peace, considered nuclear deterrence as the highest form of deterrence and emphasized that neither the U.S., Israel, nor any power can attack a nuclear-armed Iran.
Mearsheimer, pointing out that Israel’s extensive attack on Gaza has increased the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, explicitly emphasized that if Iran possesses nuclear weapons, the possibility of a widespread war in the Middle East will be significantly reduced.
Stephen Walt, in the latest issue of the reputable journal Foreign Policy, initially references the views of Kenneth Waltz, a neorealist theorist of international relations in the 1980s. Waltz believed that the simplest way to create stability in the Middle East is for Iran to acquire a nuclear deterrent. Waltz argued that having a nuclear arsenal reduces Iran’s security fears, gives Iran fewer reasons to cause trouble for others, and forces its regional rivals to refrain from using force against Iran in a way that could inadvertently lead to nuclear exchanges.
Stephen Walt, citing this view of Waltz, believes that the actions of the United States and Israel in recent decades have pushed Iran towards nuclear weapons to create deterrence. He notes that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons might lead countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia towards this power, resulting in a relative nuclear balance in the Middle East. He concludes that this situation could lead to peaceful coexistence in the region and reduce tensions and conflicts in this challenging part of the world.
In explaining the views of these two prominent international thinkers, it should be emphasized that neither has an interest in a country like Iran acquiring nuclear power. However, the logic of the realism school, of which both are current leaders, compels them to have a realistic view of the positive consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and they might implicitly accept the necessity and importance of this occurrence and insist on this view in the future.
This realism logic naturally influences the traditional views of governments, international circles, and media that have been strongly opposed to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and one can predict that gradually this view will change, and the world will slowly move towards accepting a nuclear-armed Iran, and perhaps even see the necessity of this happening.
Therefore, reactions such as resorting to any means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even war, which are proposed by the U.S. and Israel, are not merely declared threats, and the likelihood of their occurrence is very low due to the heavy costs they could impose on the region and the world.
As Stephen Walt believes, what has driven Iran towards nuclear weapons are indeed the provocative actions and economic and sometimes security threats from the U.S. and Israel in the past two decades.
However, the increasing factor in highlighting this view is the recent war between Israel and Gaza, Israel’s aggression towards Lebanon and Hezbollah, and the subsequent reciprocal attacks between Israel and Iran, including two unprecedented missile attacks by Iran on Israel, which have made the possibility of conventional but prolonged, costly, and widespread wars in the Middle East, which could spread to other regions, more apparent. This has seriously prompted some major powers, security circles, and political experts to consider and plan for a nuclear-armed Iran.
In this situation, only one player, Israel, is certainly opposed to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and might even resort to unconventional measures because with this event, military superiority in the region would be lost, and this country would no longer be able to pursue its military and non-military policies and plans in the region, like its attack on Gaza, without concern and backed by its nuclear superiority.
Apart from Israel, other countries, including regional countries and major powers like the U.S. and the European Union, have reached or will reach the necessity of a regional nuclear balance in the Middle East aimed at creating stable and lasting security in the region.
Therefore, based on the findings of international relations studies and ongoing trends and developments, creating a nuclear balance in the Middle East with Iran at the forefront will more likely establish and ensure regional and global stability and security. However, the question arises as to when this balance will be publicly and practically established in the Middle East. Can we witness the formation of a nuclear balance in the Middle East in the near future, as suggested by the positions of some Iranian officials regarding a strategic shift in Iran’s nuclear issue?
