Alternatives Beyond Maximizing the Security Interests of a State - Admission/Application Essay Example

What alternatives exist beyond maximizing the security interests of a With the realists holding the view that in the quest to interact amongst states war is inevitable, other analysts hold a different view on the entire situation. However, a validation of this fact requires a critical analysis of the fact that without war, success would not be successful. Realists also believe that through threats on other countries, and claiming position by flexing the muscle leads to peace. This essay shall take the opinion that states can attain peace through formation of balanced alliances, and that war has infringed on the rights of individuals. More specifically, the essay shall highlight on the other alternatives that are existent in an endeavor to maximize the states’ security. The essay shall also shed light on the case of Iran and the alternatives of development of regional hegemony among the members, accessing wealth and achieving nuclear superiority, as factors that would reduce chances of war attempts in the name of securing peace and security. One of the aspects that can allow for peace and security among states relate to development of regional hegemony among the members. According to Richard & Michael, (pp.71), regional hegemony refers to maximizing security in the states so as to avoid a situation whereby the state would be attacked by another. Though analysts hold the view attaining hegemony is almost impossible especially security along the water bodies, a lot of countries have attempted a move to establish hegemony, despite their having minimal resources for the same. This means that all countries always have the hope that they may achieve security through attaining domination over other countries in the region. This can be proven from the example of U.S.A. that has managed to maintain its security through attaining regional hegemony. If this happens, then there is a great likelihood that the fewer cases of war will be witnessed in the globe. In the case of Iran for instance, this country has been seen with a keen interest in the issue of acquisition of nuclear weapons, so as to achieve hegemony in the Persian Gulf and the entire Middle East region. This has been part of the country’s aspiration of for a long time especially under the leadership of Shah. With the country gaining regional superpower, it would automatically gain supremacy, especially having neighbors of the like of India, Israel, and Pakistan amongst others. It is evident that being the center of the regional hegemony, the country would be spared from war scares. On another point of view, accessing wealth is yet another factor that reduces the chances that countries might go to war. In the work of Richard & Michael (pp.71) being wealthy is a form of political and military valor. An economically able state would be better placed to deal with the challenges that it faces in terms of military disputes due to its ability to dominate other countries. Economically able countries have been seen to dominate the wealth of other countries; thus, making it difficult for those countries to instigate war with them. On another front, economically challenged countries will undoubtedly have no guts of instigating war with the able countries, since their fate can arguably be indicated to rely on their ‘big brothers’. Focusing on the case of Iran, if the country manages to be the detective of the Gulf, and claim a wealthy position, it would automatically earn high opinion character. For instance, the country has been indicated to subsidize countries like Lebanon with military ammunitions and money. Implementation of this policy would see the number of loyal countries to Iran record a rising trend. The concept of the country being an invariable pain and detective of the region would also diminish, since more countries would move to the side of Iran. In the long run, it is apparent, that the country will gain pre-eminence, not having going to war with any country, but by earning reverence. Attaining nuclear superiority is a leeway to security and defense among states. Richard & Michael (pp.72) are of the thought that establishing nuclear dominance in the country has the ability to scare looming danger. In this case, the country is more likely to stage a strong self-protective team that would not only compel the country to attaining solidity, but also reduce any chances of occurrences of disagreements with other countries. Obliteration from these countries is definite; therefore, creation of both deference and trepidation from these countries. As opposed to war, this kind of approach would reduce the number of deaths and violations of human rights that would have occurred if the states would have been given the opportunity to wrestle their way to peace. Just like the aphorism goes, there is definitely no way to serenity, but tranquility is the way. In the case of Iran for instance, the major reasons behind Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons lies in the fact that it needed to create a feeling of fear amongst its neighbors particularly with Iraq. The debut of the nuclear plan would also reinforce the ability by Iran in terms of military potency especially after the devastating Gulf war. It is palpable that the country is conscious of the fact that the only way towards achieving reverence even from the superpower, is by endowing the country with more complicated armaments. Instilling doubt is without a reservation one way that has abridged the number of wars among states, but rather generates respect between both parties. Conclusively, on a critical point of view, it would be argued against that states must not always fight so as to come to consensus on what they need for both sides. The successful claiming of position by Iran has automatically been a result of the move to attain development of regional hegemony among the members, accessing wealth and achieving nuclear superiority. If these would not have been the case, how many wars would have been reported up to date? Works cited Richard, Little. & Michael, Smith. Perspectives on World Politics. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2006. Print. Read More