The Challenges With Iran’s Nuclear Armament

For the last 100 years, Iran and America have had a complicated relationship. America’s support of the Shah and his eventual overthrow by Ayatollah Khomeini in the late ’70s led to a mix of turmoil and stalemate between the two countries for the past 30 years. When President Bush learned that Iran was building a facility capable of producing nuclear weapons in 2002, he branded Iran part of the “axis of evil” and so began the power struggle over Iran’s nuclear program (Sangar, p. 6). A recent visit to the US by President Rouhani of Iran has provided a possible ray of hope for discussing a solution to this juggernaut of a problem. The delicate path to a diplomatic solution will face many challenges and includes lack of trustworthy information, lack of political support in both countries and the questions on the ability of the international community to execute a disarmament plan.

The first challenge for the US in slowly unraveling the Iranian nuclear question is to determine if the information they are receiving is accurate. US policymakers receive intelligence every day from a variety of direct and indirect sources on many topics of national interest but for this question, several factors stand in the way of accurate information. According to Cohen, the Shiite religion allows some flexibility in telling the truth when it comes to protecting the religion. (Cohen, p. 4). If Iran sees the protection of its nuclear ability as a religious imperative, they would feel justified in laying out a trail of deceit in order to cover their actions. The US sees a disconnection between the words and the actions of the Iranian government. President Rouhani has made moderate statements disavowing extremism, making overtures to the Jewish community, and denying nuclear armament; however, Iranian military forces support extreme terrorist groups with agendas that are clearly anti-West (Cohen, p.4). In the rationalist explanation for war, a contributing factor is the quality of information that leaders work with to make decisions (FLS, p. 83). The duplicitous nature of the Iranian government makes it challenging for US leaders to trust the information coming from Iran regarding nuclear capabilities and could potentially lead to greater conflict if not resolved.

Another challenge that will undermine a solution to Iran’s nuclear disarmament is the lack of political support in both countries. While President Rouhani is the leader of Iran, there is a strong religious leadership in the country. This alternate leadership could become a powerful counter to Rouhani’s moderate viewpoints if they feel Iran receives inequitable treatment through the process of disarmament (Cohen, p.5). In addition, President Obama faces potential political turmoil if he asks for a lift on sanctions for Iran. Congress has not been the most unified entity lately and measures to lift sanctions may lack support due to political agendas not related to foreign policy (Sanger, p. 6). A realist approach states, “even if states can find a mutually acceptable bargain, peace can break down if they can not commit to abide by the terms of the agreement, especially if their relative power is expected to change in the future” (FLS, p. 83). Both countries face political volatility that could make upholding an agreement a challenge and adds another degree of difficulty when working towards a solution for disarmament.

A third challenge to coming to terms with Iran’s nuclear capabilities is the ability of the international community to execute any kind of meaningful oversight. Assuming Iran truly wants to trade nuclear power for a lift on economic sanctions and assuming that both parties receive support for their actions through their respective parties, there is still the question of whether oversight and monitoring will be allowed at all layers of the program. According to Sanger, Iran has over 18,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, a near-complete heavy water reactor, and a deep underground plutonium facility called Fordo that is immune to airstrikes and cyber attacks (Sanger, pp. 6-7). Sanger also states, “And then comes the hardest question: whether, as part of the deal, Iran will let international inspectors talk with the man the C.I.A. and the West are most worried about, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh” (Sanger, p. 7). Fakhrizadeh is credited with the design and implementation of the proposed nuclear program but lives in protective custody. Additional difficulties will occur in locating and disabling potential nuclear weapons sites because these sites are easy to hide. This form of international ‘anarchy’ or lack of an international structure to ensure compliance is another cause of war (FLS, p. 84). Because there is no overall government, the nation-states are compelled to protect themselves by lessening the power in others. “For this reason, realist theories of war often emphasize what we will call preventative motive – the desire to fight in order to prevent and enemy from becoming relatively more powerful” (FLS, p. 84). Full cooperation between Iran and the international team assigned to provide oversight and compliance will be based on trust and difficult to prove without a defined structure to ensure compliance.

While there are many benefits to finding a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear armament, the road to a peaceful solution has many challenges. Iran’s need to protect itself and its religious imperative to do so complicates the veracity of information coming directly from the country. Another challenge peacemakers would need to overcome is the volatility of political support in both countries. Finally, peace would rely on the full cooperation of the Iranians but will be challenging without international oversight to ensure compliance. The rationalist explanation of war shows that incomplete information, preemption and the dilemmas of disarmament are the seeds of war and peacemakers will need careful negotiation to resolve this issue before it becomes a conflict.

Understanding the Cause of War

The effects of power and the conflicts that evolve have shaped the modern world. “If you want to understand the causes of war, you only need to consider the nature of the international system. War is the inevitable result of states pursuing power and security in an anarchic world. The quest for power breeds conflict and conflict inevitably breeds war.” As various entities struggle to promote and protect their geographical, political or economic territory, they eventually encounter another party with the same goals and conflict ensues. In the case of nation-states, these conflicts can become wars. This claim regarding the pursuit of power can help unravel the underlying reasons for war in three major historical conflicts: World War I, World War II and the Cold War.

Before analyzing each of these world-changing conflicts, there are a few underlying political theories to review that will help with the assessment. Realism theory in political science is the idea that anarchy or lack of structure on the international level is one of the underlying reasons that nations go to war (FLS, p. 84). Because the anarchy creates instability, nation-states must protect themselves by either increasing their power or decreasing the relative power of a country competing for resources with them. These resources include power over geographical territory, economic factors or political beliefs.

Another theory is that war occurs because leaders have poor quality information and fail to compromise to prevent war. Compromise happens when the nation-states realize they have more to lose from the conflict than what they can potentially gain (FLS, p. 85). However, the policy maker’s ability to recognize their bargaining position can be undermined by the quality of information the decision-makers receive. Poor quality information can lead to overconfidence in one’s ability and underestimating the opponent. A third theory of war states, “wars are not fought because they serve the interests of the state, but because they serve the interests of influential groups within the state, such as corporations, arms merchants, and the military” (FLS, p. 86). In this manner, the political support a leader receives from factions within the country can play an important part in how the country approaches a conflict.

The counterpoint of the realism theory that the root of war is anarchy at the international governance level is the concept of hegemony. In hegemony, one dominant nation-state provides the structure for other nations. This structure provides stability and predictability and as a result, other states determine that they gain more by working with each other than against each other. The hegemon is the state with the economic and military power to keep discipline over other states. Gilpin, in his study of the Greek philosopher Thucydides, stated, “this fundamental idea-that the uneven growth of power among states is the driving force of international relations-can be identified as the theory of hegemonic war” (Gilpin, p. 591). In a hegemonic world, stability and prosperity are the foundation of the world society.

When studying the cause of World War I, the factors leading to the start of the war echo the concept of hegemony. The balance of power in Europe was unstable, with no country claiming the title of hegemon and therefore, no country was able to exert enough power over the other nation-states to keep stability in the region. Each country in the region was part of a convoluted web of alliances, treaties, land wars and varying levels of mistrust and hostility that led to an upswing in imperialism and militarism as countries sought to gain more power and security by reducing the relative power and security of other countries in Europe.

Stephen Van Evera’s article argues that the cause of WWI was the offensive mindset that was prevalent in Europe at the time. According to Van Evera, “the cult of the offensive was a principal cause of the First World War, creating or magnifying many of the dangers which historians blame for causing the July crisis and rendering it uncontrollable” (VanEvera, p. 58). While there is no doubt the cult of the offensive existed, offense is a strategy of war, not the reason for the war. Realism theory better explains the causes of WWI because realism compelled countries to go to war over the need for power and security. The desire for more territory and the security of an economic future drove European countries to develop their complex relationships and pushed them to the brink of war. Once it was determined that war was the only way to move the goal of power and security forward, the strategy of offense being the best defense became a factor. Van Evera’s concept of the cult of the offensive is valid, but it only served to exacerbate the power struggle already in place.

The pursuit of power and security were evident causes for battle in WWII as well. Hitler, a dynamic and charismatic leader, used the fractured politics of Europe at the time to his advantage and capitalized on opportunities to win more territory and resources with each opportunity. Some argue that the weak leadership of the other states led to Hitler’s rise to power but Bullock argues that Hitler, while certainly an opportunist, bore primary responsibility for WWII. Bullock states, “Hitler alone possessed the will and had provided himself with the means. Not only did he create the threat of war and exploit it, but when it came to the point he was prepared to take the risk and go to war…” (Bullock, p. 145). While early intervention from states like France and Britain may have changed the path of the war, the war would have still happened. Hitler’s single-minded focus on the pursuit of power, supported by his superior military strategies and his sheer force of will clearly shows that Hitler was the driving force behind WWII.

The third major conflict in recent history is the Cold War – so labeled due to the lack of any direct military action but marked by high tensions and waves of brinkmanship and détente between the United States and members of the Warsaw Pact. By this time, the world had discovered that the cost of war was economically devastating and the development of nuclear weapons left countries with the realization that one careless action would lead to mutually assured destruction. In the movie Thirteen Days, the developments around the Cuban Missile Crisis clearly show the level of tensions as the US attempts to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba. In the Cold War, the US and the USSR battle for the title of hegemon, each assured that their form of government would provide stability and prosperity for other countries. The Cuban Missile Crisis brings this power struggle to a head as both countries work frantically to find a compromise that will back them away from a nuclear war without losing public face. In this case, the original assertion that “conflict inevitably breeds war,” is not correct as the two powers understood that they had more to lose than to gain by going to war.

The pursuit of power and the conflicts that arise from this pursuit has shaped the modern world. Political theories for war include the absence of an international structure, poor quality information leading to over or underestimating a nation’s capabilities, and the effect of influential groups outside of the direct political arena but with the ability to affect policymaking. Hegemony is the existence of one overarching power that can control the actions of other states through military or economic means. WWI, WWII and the Cold War all occurred because of the need for power and security for a nation, but the Cold War stopped short of all-out war due to the realization that the development of nuclear arsenals would lead to mutually assured destruction between the superpowers. While the need for power is still a factor today, the rapid exchange of information and the interdependence of countries on the world economy make a full-scale world war unlikely to happen again; however, the mistakes of the past have to be lessons of the future if the world is to find true balance and stability.