Iran is on the global scene for its persistent and resilient efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Despite resistance from certain countries, Iran has gone ahead to test and launch some of its nuclear missiles. The leadership of Iran argues that as a state, it should have its military independence. As a result, the state chose to utilize the available uranium within the country to device weapons that will guarantee the country its military capabilities.
However, other nations view the idea differently. One of the forefront runners to stop any further development of nuclear weapons in Iran is the United States of America (Jackson, 2005).
America has continuously opposed Iran’s nuclear program terming it as a threat to the world’s security at large. In its effort to stop Iran, America has lobbied several states and international organizations to help convince Iran to abandon the project. Talks are still undergoing to find an amicable solution to the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, which has threatened its diplomatic relations with the United States of America (Steele, 2007).
The main actors, in this case, are the United States and Iran. The United States of America has, for a long time used military superiority to protect its international interests in the Middle East nations, as well as a defense mechanism against any external attack.
It is common with most American regimes to solve international crises and disputes through military combat. America has always associated Iran with terrorist activities and sees no point in the claim that Iran will change. In this regard, America always anticipates more sophisticated terrorist developments emanating from Iran and other Middle East countries.
The development of nuclear weapons is thought to be a sign of equipping the terrorists with more powerful weapons whose main target is the United States, and according to them, it is a preparation for war. America being a realist has its military operating principles such as “states are always getting ready for war, fighting wars or getting over wars” (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2012, 56). Hence America will always move to avert Iran’s actions.
Iran, on the other hand, perceives America as an enemy of the Middle East. Again, as realists would put it; the mighty make right and the strong do as they please, but the weak suffer what they must. Therefore, Iran could just be trying to be the mightiest and avoid the suffering of the weak.
Effects on the United States of America and the Middle East
The United States of America is one of the world’s superpower nations with huge military capabilities. However, the subsequent research in nuclear energy by Iran is a major threat to the United States of America. Over a long period, the United States of America has had cold relations with most nations in the Middle East.
The relationships between America and Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran have been characterized by tension and suspicion. Development of nuclear weapons by Iran will thus imply that the nation would be on the verge of making serious steps towards military independence and advancement. It further means that Iran will have equal chances of winning a war against America.
Another reason why the United States of America is against the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is the protection of its authority in the Middle East. It is established that most terrorist groups are mostly associated with the Middle East, and they thrive due to financial gains obtained from exportation of oil.
America has a strong military base in the Middle East, is charged with the responsibility to check the activities of such groups (Steele, 2007). Thus, by doing so, it gains a lot of revenue from the control of exports from such countries, as well as control over their oil wells. Therefore, should Iran attain the necessary powers to oust America out of the Middle East it will lose a lot of revenue?
On the other hand, most Middle East countries support Iran’s efforts and undertakings. These countries view Iran as making a major development towards fighting against a common enemy since it would be a reprieve for most countries in the Middle East to see America finally match out.
This will imply unchecked self-governance besides unsanctioned trade and international relations. Currently, America dictates trade partners in such countries where it has a great influence.
Realism involves analysis of state relations based on military superiority. Realists use military prowess and capability as the fundamental basis for evaluating the state’s power. In realism, the international community concerns the moral implications of military decisions, as well as the plight of the general public. (Doyle, 2007, 67).
Thus, realists only focus on military structures and paraphernalia to assess a given state. It is important to note that realists advocate for status quo, especially when it touches on military supremacy and any attempt to induce a negative change in military position is usually met with harsh rejection from the realists.
This theory is quite applicable to Iran’s case since America would like to maintain and extend its supremacy in the Middle East while Iran wants military prowess to be considered a strong nation.
Liberalism explains the world as a system of states where each state averts its fears through definite security measures. This implies that if a state feels threatened by another state, it will make the necessary adjustments to secure itself. Subsequently, they carry on with their social lifestyle despite the absence of world governance. There is no war between America and Iran except for diplomatic tussle.
Iran feels threatened by America’s continued influence, and reign in the Middle East hence opts for nuclear weapons as a security measure (Dunne, 2005, 24). On the other hand, America feels insecure by Iran’s nuclear power and counters further development as a security measure to guard its territory and maintain its profile in the Middle East.
Iran and America are entangled in a diplomatic tussle with the later striving to end the former’s exploration of nuclear weaponry. Based on the two theories, each state is justified in its actions. However, the justifications are based on probable assumptions and not on concrete explanation, and although Iran holds that this is a self-defense venture, the United States of America argues that it remains a threat to the world security.
Whichever way, each country needs to attain self-independence in security, as well as military matters without conflicting with the international society. Thus, developed countries should not use their military achievements at the expense of other weak states for self-gain.
Doyle, Michael. 2007. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Dunne, Tim. 2005. “Liberalism.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, edited by John Baylis & Steve Smith, 23-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, Joshua and Jon Pevehouse. 2012. International Relations. London: Longman.
Jackson, Robert. 2005. Classical and Modern Thought on International Relations: From Anarchy to Cosmopolis, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Steele, Brent. 2007. “Liberal-idealism: a constructivist critique.” International Studies 9, no. 1 (August): 1-16.