More reading material to prepare for the presidential campaign: “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb” in the current issue of
Foreign Affairs (payment required, unfortunately, although you can get a free
summary).
Kenneth Waltz, a senior research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War
and Peace Studies and a Columbia adjunct professor of political science, argues
that the current US policy has it wrong. Rather than being dangerous, a
nuclear-armed Iran would help stabilize the Middle East. You’ll need to read it
to see his rationale.
This will be a controversial article, to put it mildly, but it’s worth
reading. Among Waltz’s arguments: the international discussion about Iran has
been “distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstanding of how
states generally behave in the international system.” The justification for
resisting Iran’s nuclear-weapons development has been that Iran can’t be
trusted with nuclear weapons. Waltz’s response: “Despite a widespread belief to
the contrary, Iranian policy is not made by ‘mad mullahs’ but by perfectly sane
ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders.”
Provocative or not, Waltz’s article is worth reading and thinking about.
Waltz believes sanctions are not likely to force Iran to stop developing
nuclear capability. If that’s the case, US leaders are likely to face a
terrible decision in the not-distant future: if Iran continues to try to
develop nuclear weapons, what’s our response? Is there an option other than
bombing that country?
This article appears in Bye bye unions?.
