From an international relations perspective one could argue that Iran is unlikely to utilize nuclear weapons (in the event of developing them) this is according to Mearsheimer’s assumption that powers are rational actors, and thus because the United States has retaliatory capabilities Iran would not use the weapons against them. What is interesting however is the reaction that the United States would have if this was not Iran but what is considered to be a liberal country. According to Owen liberal states are unlikely to go to war with each other primarily for the reason that they are both liberal states. Even though Iran may be considered by some to be liberal as it had democratic elections, it is the view of the political elite which are important in this situation, thus the United States may perceive Iran to be an illiberal state. As a result of being seen as illiberal they may be seen as deceitful and more offensive, in this situation what may in reality be simply utilizing uranium for a medical reactor has created uncertainty among the international community. In addition to this Iran has broken its word with an international agency which demonstrates that these agencies do in fact hold little power. Therefore it is unrealistic to rely upon international organizations to achieve significant gains as states have continued to demonstrate that they will not forgo their own interests in order to comply with certain regulations.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Atomic Agency Views Iran’s Stepped-Up Enrichment of Uranium as a Violation
The article is concerned with Iran's increase of enrichment of Uranium during the past few days. This goes direct against an agreement with atomic directors in Vienna, and while Iran argues that this increase in enrichment is to fuel a medical reactor it appears as they have given the United States further arguments that they [Iran] are indeed seeking the ability to produce nuclear weapons. This is however also an issue as Iran did not warn the Atomic Agency with sufficient time to allow for "safeguard procedures" to be put into place. Thus it not only defied an international agency but also has created greater tension between them another great power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I agree that gaining nuclear capabilities could very easily be seen as an irrational act because of possible retaliation, I think you could also view it as a rational at. By gaining nuclear capabilities, Iran can be seen as less susceptible to attack because no body wants to spark a nuclear war. Therefore, it levels the playing field for Iran.
ReplyDeleteRegarding whether or not Iran is a liberal state, I think your point really brings up the difficulty determining what constitutes a "liberal" and a "democratic" state. It reminds me of the slide we were shown in class that had the different countries in different colors according to the level of democracy they had. I think that since there are so many levels of liberal and democratic, it is difficult to define states are purely liberal and/or democratic. I think this weakens Owen's argument. Is it true that only two states who are definitely, purely democratic do not go to war with one another? Or can it extend to one truly democratic state and one that is pretty democratic, or shows democratic tenancies, or is more democratic than not?
It is true that the fact that Iran broke its words with an international agency demonstrates that IOs have little power over states. But you may notice that this issue actually causes Iran to face many pressures. And it alerts Europe and the US to pay more attention to Iran. I think we cannot evaluate IOs influence over states and on world peace simply on whether IOs decisions over certain issues have some power over states. We need also see the increasing price states pay when they ignore IO's decisions.
ReplyDelete