Iranian nuclear enrichment is a one of the key issues in the current convention of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Ryoji Terayama stated that according to the United Nation Security Council Resolution 1696 in July, 2006, the United Nation Security Council called Iran to discontinue all nuclear activities such as uranium enrichment and reprocessing of plutonium. Then, in both December 2006 and March 2007, the Security Council eventually took economical sanctions toward Iran. However, Iran has not changed its behaviour towards nuclear weapons; Iran constantly asserts the peaceful use of atomic power and justifiable it in accordance with NPT. Thus, it uncertain whether or not Iran has acquired offensive nuclear weapons, and likewise it is unclear why the Security Council took such a sanction against Iran. Additionally, America has been observing Iran with a critical eye, despite the existence of other nuclear ‘rogue states’, such as Israel which is unofficially recognised as a nuclear state. In addition, Pakistan, India and North Korea are the states that do not accept the NPT and have acquired nuclear weapons. (Tateyama,n.d) Hence, a controversy arises over why Iran cannot have nuclear weapons—why only Iran is highly criticised. Realists, as Clifton W. Sherrill argues that Iran’s nuclear enrichment will cause an imbalance in the states’ power and interrupts the interests. Neo-realists may say that it is not possible to maintain world security under these anarchy and security dilemmas, such as the nuclear double standard and the opacity. (Sherrill, 2012) Constructivists would argue that Iran has enough oil to maintain its citizens’ energy needs; it is irrational therefore, to let them have nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, Huge Gusterson argues that under the current unstable Islamic political regime, Iran does not have empirical conditions for nuclear weapons. Otherwise, the social order can easily be destroyed under the Iranian Islamist doctrine. (Gusterson, 1999)
The aim of this essay is to show the reason why Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. As evidence, this essay shall examine the reason by realists, including classical, Neo-realists models and also constructivists’ point of view. The following section will describe the relationship between America and Israel in order to provide additional arguments, in particular why there is a bias toward Iran in the international community. Finally, this essay will conclude by pointing out for all of this reason, the international community will never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Realists and Neo-realists—arguments against Iranian nuclear enrichment Stephanie Lawson says that Realists see the world as a balance of power and consider states as the only actors in world politics. The ideology of Neo-realism arose in the wake of Cold war. As Kenneth Waltz stated, Neo-realists argue that the power of fear can be interpreted in an offensive way—that Neo-realists analyse one enhancement of military capability can lead to others, which creates a security dilemma as demonstrated by the occurrence of World War I. Therefore, world politics is based on anarchy. (Lawson, 2003; Waltz, 1981)That means Neo-realists put emphasis on states’ security in order to protect themselves in the anarchic world. As evidence, Sherrill also defined that Neo-realism is a theory which argues “a state merely needs sufficient power to defend itself, thus permitting a satisfactory level of power to be reached and the infinite struggle to end.” (Sherril, 2012, pp34) In this section, we will take a closer look at offensive-realism, and then following the section will examine the security dilemma, states’ interests and power which explaining from Realists and Neo-realists points of view, and the reason why the international community is against Iranian nuclear enrichment.
Iranian nuclear enrichment may lead to other states’ making preemptive military strikes against it,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document