The article discusses the recent announcement by the Iranian government that it had obtained uranium enriched to 20% potency from a scientific perspective, with some commentary about Iran's enrichment program from an International relations perspective (specifically, various countries and international body's opinions regarding the enrichment program). The article also discussed the unlikeliness of Iran actually being able to do anything with their nuclear material. To get it to the point where it could fuel a nuclear reactor for power, they would have to figure out how to form the uranium into fuel rods, and they don't have nearly enough material at 20% potency to make the final push to 90% potency and actually make a bomb. As a result, the idea was that Iran was only enriching uranium to give them extra chips at the bargaining table.
I thought the article was interesting because it offered a good look at the contrast between constructivism and realism. Realists would agree with the assessment given above, that the reason that the Iranian government is enriching uranium is so that they can gain power in bargaining with the rest of the world. Constructivists would say that this not necessarily true, because it rests on the assumption that the Iranian government perceives the rest of the world as anarchical, and that the biggest threat to the current Iranian government lies outside its borders. If you think about it, though, that assumption is not necessarily true. The political situation within Iran is precarious and, from where I'm standing, I'm not 100% sure what the government in Iran will look like in 5 years. The uranium enrichment could have to do with gaining the upper hand in an internal power struggle and nothing at all to do with the rest of the world. Realism cannot account for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment