International Relations Iran s Nuclear Program


In recent times, Iran has been developing nuclear energy, but recently, China, Russia, and the United States all agreed to sanction Iran for its nuclear build up. These nations regard Iran as a threat to world peace especially at this point that it is trying to develop a nuclear program which could possibly be used to produce weapons of mass destruction and pose a danger to the democracies around the world. In the light of these developments, sanctions have been imposed on Iran which include those who could have been its allies in the United Nations, namely Russia and China (The New York Times Bone Tran).
In terms of international relations, why did these states do this  In order to answer these questions, one needs to look at the theories employed in international relations to get a very clear understanding of the issue. In international relations, there are at least three theories used to discuss the behavior of nations towards one another   liberalism, Marxism, and realism.

In relation to Iran s nuclear program, the theories of liberalism and Marxism would be considered too weak to support or provide a framework to understand this issue. Liberalism derives its ideas from idealistic thinking which is considered very Wilsonian in nature, alluding to the ideas of American president Woodrow Wilson. The liberal school of thought, subscribing to idealist thinking, holds that the political policy practiced by the state should be applied to its foreign policy as well. In this instance, if the state s domestic agenda is to eradicate poverty, it would pursue the same policy with its neighbors around the world as well.

In the case of Iran, liberalism would not be applicable. This would be suited for discussion in the theory of realism which will be tackled subsequently. Liberalism is somewhat optimistic in nature with regard to the relationships of states. Furthermore, critics tend to regard the liberal approach as too utopian and  out of touch  with reality.  The reason for this is that one of the offshoots of liberal theory is what is called the  democratic peace theory.   The theory assumes that democratic countries never go to war with one another over certain issues, and they often use diplomacy to address their issues. In the case of Iran, this state would hardly be considered democratic since it is an Islamic state where there is the union of religion and state. This religion (the Shia branch of Islam) is very influential in everything in society to the extent that it supports the suspension or the curtailment of certain rights. Democratic countries are expected to be civil to one another and would often adhere to protocol. The United States, according to Spencer Weart,  never has fought a democratic government basically like its own  (3). Iran has proven to be somewhat belligerent if not defiant of the norms of international relations and thus cannot be treated as one of the democracies. In addition, Iran is regarded as hostile country, especially by the United States which Iran regards as the  Great Satan  which speaks a lot of how they feel toward each other. Since these two nations do not see eye to eye, it is very unlikely that they would make headway in making peace with one another, and this is what critics of the liberal school of thought have been trying to emphasize. If one were to believe what Weart wrote in Never at War, this would not apply to Iran since it is a nondemocracy and a conflict is very likely (Weart 2-3).

The Marxist approach is also considered inappropriate in providing a framework for discussing the relationship between Iran and the other nuclear powers. Although Marxist theory does highlight conflict and antagonism, it falls short in providing a suitable framework. This is because it focuses too much on economic and material aspects that are related to class struggle, which further makes this theory somewhat an anachronism especially with the collapse of communist states in Eastern Europe (Cox 130).

Iran could hardly be considered a Third World country that is oppressed by capitalist states such as the United States. While it is true it is  bullied  by the latter, it is not primarily because of economic reasons but entirely political in nature. If one were to look at it from Iran s perspective, they are trying to be more independent and self-reliant especially since they are regarded a pariah by western states, which is why it could be hardly said that Iran is dependent on any state. They are merely trying to show they can stand on their own two feet and that they would not care what the other nations, particularly the West, would think about them. But still, this has nothing to do with economy nor capitalism. Perhaps, the only linkage this issue has to Marxism is that Iran is resisting what they perceive as American  hegemony  by developing its nuclear program to prove no greater nation can dictate on them how they should run their country.

If there is one school of thought considered to be the most appropriate, it would be the school of thought of realism. By far, this is considered the most  popular  of all theories since the ideas they present appear to make sense because it is very much  in touch  with the realities of the world and free from the absurd ideas of idealism. The theory regards the states as the primary actors in international politics if one were to view it from the Statist tenet of realism.

Another tenet of the school of realism is the concept of survival. According to this notion, there is no central government governing all nations. Anarchy is the prevailing system that governs the conduct of all nations. As such, every nation, particularly the powerful ones, tends to pursue their own interests and will use any means, diplomacy or war, to get what they want so as long as their interests are met and protected. Simply put, it is a  struggle for power among self-interested states  (Snyder).

In applying this to the case of Iran, the members of the  Nuclear Club,  the US, China, Russia, and others saw Iran not as a potential partner but as a competitor, if not a threat.  One reason for this is as members of this club, while these nations do possess nuclear capability for economic or infrastructure purposes, they also have the potential to make weapons out of these as well, and they even see each other as a potential adversary.  This is how they see Iran as well. Furthermore, Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic nation.  Its religious leaders run the nation and their word is the law. They see the world differently from how secular-minded people see it. They see the West as the enemy due to their materialistic lifestyle that tends to corrupt their way of life, which makes them hostile towards it to the point of committing acts of violence, especially with Iran s continued policy of wanting to see Israel destroyed. Having nuclear weapons would make it easy for them to carry out this threat and this is what makes Iran  dangerous  to the world (Snyder). The fact that Iran is developing a nuclear program makes them all the more dangerous as they might use it to produce weapons that can be used against them. Despite the sanctions, the West is not trying to destroy Iran. As one Western diplomat would put it,   The aim of sanctions is not to bring about regime change it s not about destroying the Iranian economy it s not about making Iranians suffer.  It s about changing the behavior of the Iranian Government. That is why unanimity is as important as substance  (Bone). What this means is that short of waging war, the US and its partners at the United Nations Security Council, namely Russia and China, are trying to keep Iran in line through sanctions to minimize the threat Iran poses by making them abandon their nuclear program.

Clear-sighted states can mitigate the causes of war by finding ways to reduce the danger they pose to each other. Nor is realism necessarily amoral its advocates emphasize that a ruthless pragmatism about power can actually yield a more peaceful world, if not an ideal one. (Snyder)

The other tenet is called self-help. This is best applied when looking at it from the perspective of Iran. It is here that certain states like Iran believe no other state can be relied upon to help them or ensure its survival. They feel that they have been unjustly bullied by the West and  misunderstood.   Just because they are an Islamic state does not mean they are a haven for terrorists even though they assume an antagonistic stance towards the West and are even doing their best to promote Iran as a place to visit, at least among nations of Asia and Africa. This underscored in Iran s foreign policy agenda which can be summarized into four key points  security, dignity, prestige (through the mastery of nuclear technology) and flexibility  (Tran). Iran is trying so hard to convince the world that it has good intentions with its nuclear program and to gain recognition for its place as a potential powerhouse in the Middle East as part of getting over its turbulent past the guarantee for non-aggression though it still takes a belligerent stance against Israel and the assurance that it will not try to oppose the ongoing war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically pointing out Iran s stand on Israel, the West, particularly the US can easily denounce Iran for a  two-faced  policy of trying to be friendly to all while trying to will the destruction of one (Israel). This makes them wary of Iran, hence the need to  neutralize  it through sanctions.

In conclusion, it could be said that the school of realism in international relations is the most appropriate school of thought to help explain Iran s relationship with the world. This school of thought provides more valid points as opposed to the other aforementioned schools, including others like the school of constructivism. Iran s relationship with the West, and even Russia and China, is anything but cordial, given that the fundamentalist leaders may be actively participating in acts of terrorism. However, their words and teachings can influence would-be terrorists, especially with Iran s commitment to see to the destruction of Israel. This is what the West is put on the defensive and short of waging war, sanctions proved to be a stopgap measure in trying to dissuade Iran as part of maintaining the balance of power in an already seemingly anarchic world, if one subscribes to the ideas of (political) realism.

0 comments:

Post a Comment