Arguments for a Nuclear Iran?

ISN: Last summer, Kenneth Waltz famously argued that a nuclear-armed Iran might actually improve regional security in the Middle East – indeed, that it may be the only way to ultimately bring stability to the region. How would you assess the reaction to this argument among policy-makers and academics? Do you think it has gained much traction?

Oliver Thraenert: Kenneth Waltz’ thinking about nuclear weapons is not new. Since decades he argues in favor of more nuclear weapons states. Over the years, he has established a – in my assumption – rather small group of followers who believe in his neo-realist ideas. As far as policy-makers are concerned, I think the impact of Waltz’ recent Foreign Affairs article has been close to zero. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of (Western) politicians shares the view that nuclear proliferation needs to be avoided, because otherwise, nuclear war would become more likely.

One part of the argument that Iran should have nuclear weapons is that acquiring them would make Iran a more responsible member of the international community? Do you think this would be the case?

I do not believe that the Iranian political and religious leadership is necessarily less responsible than the leaders of any other nation. Yes, their rhetoric often sounds rather offensive, especially regarding Israel, and I clearly condemn this as not acceptable. However, regime survival is their most important goal. Therefore, war is to be avoided, and the Iranians know that. That nuclear weapons make policy-makers behave more responsibly is nothing more than a myth. For instance, in the course of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, Soviet leader Chruschtschov decided to deploy nuclear-tipped missile on Cuba, well knowing that this would cause a severe crisis with the United States if detected.

Even if you do not personally agree, are there any parts of Waltz’s argument that you find compelling?

I think Waltz has a point arguing that the Iranian regime is not irrational by its very nature.

In your view, what does he overlook? Where is his argument the weakest?

Waltz’ argument is not based on empirical evidence. We simply do not know whether nuclear deterrence works. It is impossible to know why something – war – did not happen. Maybe other reasons were decisive for not going to war. As far as Iran in particular is concerned, Waltz overlooks that crisis instability would be the most likely outcome of Tehran going nuclear. Israel is a small country. One or two nuclear detonations on its territory would suffice to destroy the country as we know it. Hence, in a crisis, the Israeli military command would be tempted to destroy the Iranian nuclear forces pre-emptively so as to avoid the destruction of Israel. The Iranians on their part would know that and find themselves in a “use-them-or-lose-them” situation. Furthermore, it seems very unlikely that Israel and Iran would establish crisis communication such as red telephones as the US and the Soviet Union did after the Cuban missile crisis.

Even if you disagree, are there other arguments in favor of Iran getting nuclear weapons that you believe have some merit?

No.

In your view, what would a nuclear-armed Iran mean for the region and the world?

For the region, there would the danger of a crisis between Israel and Iran running out of control. Nuclear escalation could then follow. Moreover, other actors such as Saudi-Arabia might also acquire nuclear weapons, making the situation in the Middle East even more complicated. On the global level, an Iranian nuclear bomb would most likely be the last nail into the coffin of the nuclear non-proliferation norm, so that more nuclear proliferation could be expected.