Iran Challenges for Regional International Relations - Essay Example

What are the Challenges for the Region Posed by Iran? Introduction Ideological political and economic rivalries have been central in the competition underpinning geopolitical and security condition of the Middle East between Iran and its neighbors more so Saudi Arabia and Egypt. After the Arab spring, the political perspective in Tunisian, Egypt, Libya and Syria radially shifted in favor of identity based and religious politics with each country seeking to be viewed as a dominant power making the balance of regional power more delicate than before. Iran is emerging as major player in the Middle Eastern politics given that its actions have proven to have serious impact on the wellbeing of other nations more so with regard to the American and Israeli perspective. Iran’s attempts at enriching Uranium for nuclear weaponry for example has resulted to increased attention from the US and Israel both which feel threatened since they do not trust Iran with nuclear abilities. This paper will examine the geopolitical issues facing Iran and its neighbors in the region taking to account the spillover effects of their possible nuclear potential including a nuclear race as well as complicating the diplomatic relations between the US and neighboring Middle Eastern power such as Saudi Arabia. In the past three years, the Iranian nuclear program has been hitting headlines more so in the west with the US and even UN seemingly entering panic mode over Iran’s nuclear ambition. According to Kayhan Barzegar (2010) after the US failed to redefine the position of the new Iraq in line with the latest balance of power, they tried to minimize the role of Iran but this has resulted in a new sort of security dilemma. The atomic energy agency has expressed serious concerns in the recent past that Iran could be working towards building a nuclear weapon; these anxieties appear to be shared by most western governments (Waltz, 2012). The implication has been escalating levels of hostility albeit the diplomatic kind between Iran and these western powers as well as Israel. To the opponents of the program, Iran is seen as an unstable and unpredictable country that cannot be trusted to possess weapons of mass destruction due to its perceived propensity for irrational actions or at least threats. However, there appears to be certain inevitability about the capacity of Iran to assemble a nuclear device of sorts and this poses a serious dilemma for both the US administration as well as Iran’s regional neighbors (Kahl and Waltz, 2012). Israel has made it clear that should they suspect Iran capable of nuclear attacks, they will take preemptive steps to ensure that Iran does not pose a threat to them. Meanwhile, there are increased tensions in the neighboring Gulf States fighting for political dominance in the region since none feels safe from its supposed irrationality. At present, the threat presented by Iran is largely based on how irrational Iran is deemed to be, as far as Israel and the US are concerned it is a highly irrational actor and therefore and acute security threat to regional and international security. These fears may be exaggerated but they are by no means unwarranted. Nevertheless, some analysts have proposed that Iran with a nuclear weapon may actually be better off for the sake of peace and stability in the region. In his article titled “Iran should get the bomb”, Waltz claims that since Iran is seen to be active in anti-west activities such as funding terrorist and getting involved in proxy wars and competition with Saudi as a way to create a sense of security and superiority for themselves (2012). Therefore, if they had nuclear weapons, they would cease feeling vulnerable and not need to expend as much effort in supremacy battles. This point is further strengthened by the fact that despite popular assumption that Iran is not a rational actor, it is possible that they (the US and Israel) have simply painted it; thus, to justify their aggression and threats. Despite the fact that there has been explicit evidence regarding how Iran may choose to use the weapon when they have them, it has been speculated that they will likely serve as a determent against attacks by regional and international rivals (Bowen and Brewer, 2009). They may decide that like North Korea, Nuclear weapons are the only thing that can prevent the US from stepping in since they are aware the risk to them is significant. In the same way, Iran may be gambling on its ability to remain free of foreign interference into its private affairs by having a nuclear deterrent in its possession (Bowen and Brewer, 2009). Waltz (2012) argues that the principle of great power and responsibility applies in nuclear situations and that whoever is in possession of it is forced to act in a responsible manner. For example, Iran would know that using their atomic bombs against any of the western powers or their allies would be suicidal since the reiteration would be dire and just as nuclear (Bowen and Brewer, 2011). This is used to justify the assertion that Iran would not actually use its bombs since despite the aggressive rhetoric of its leaders, they recognize that using nuclear weapons against another nation is self-destructive. This is because, the attacked nations and its allies would also launch similar attacks and Iran might as well have bombed itself. Consider that in the cold war, the US and its allies considered the USSR to be just as irrational if not more irrational than to consider Iran today. However, despite the fears that she was not deemed trustworthy enough to possess nuclear weapons, in the end the US proved to be just as a big threat as USSR since any one of them could have triggered an attack. This is proof that even if a state is deemed irrational when they have the power they will be unlikely to use it unless if they are prompted to do so in defending themselves. Nevertheless, a nuclear Iran may still be a threat to security albeit in an indirect way. Given the superiority contest currently taking place in the region, it has been proposed that if Iran acquired nuclear capabilities its neighbors may be prompted to also do so. Therefore, there is the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which gave its current state or instability and tendency for religious extremism is be dangerous for both the region and the world. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will especially feel vulnerable and this will spark proliferation in the region with these Middle Eastern powers struggling to challenges Iran’s dominance. There is also the issue of terrorism and the involvement of Iran’s government with them. Even though one may argue that nuclear weapons will make Iran powerful enough not to need to engage in such antics, there is no telling if they would not covertly arm such elements with nuclear weapons. As such, while admitting that the threat of a nuclear Iran may be overstated, there is no denying that regional security would be very much in the balance if an unpredictable state that frequently makes irrational threats possessed almost unlimited power of destruction. On the other hand, a nuclear Iran may actually become more aggressive because they feel their traditional enemies will fear to retaliate because of their nuclear superiority. This has been played out once before in Asian when Pakistan acquired nuclear capability and they sent their soldiers to invade India while camouflaged as rebels. This was done under the assumption that India would be so awed by Pakistan’s nuclear power that they would not respond (Kahl and Waltz, 2012). However, the Indian government did indeed retaliate and this led to a long and near explosive missile deadlock. Should Iran feel heartened enough to attack other countries because of their nuclear capability, they could escalate aggression in the region because at the end of the day, the other nations may not refuse to be intimidated and respond prompting a nuclear defense. On February 5 in 1979, the first steps towards Iran’s current political disposition were taken when the government was overthrown and Iran became the first modern Islamic state. While this may have surprised policy makers and observes in the West, it was not as surprising to analysts who closely examined the Shah Muhammad Reza who had been evidently doing a bad job of stemming the disappointment surrounding his rule (Best, Hanhimaki, Maiolo and Schulze, 2008). His father who had been the Shah before him, had commenced reforms that had resulted in the liberalization of the law and religion, under him the Sharia law was replaced with modern western courts and wearing the veil was banned. He had taken away a lot of wealth from the rich merchants and this embittered them and made it easy for them to challenge his sons rule after the Second World War (Best, Hanhimaki, Maiolo and Schulze, 2008). Despite this, undertook radical political changes and as a result by the end of the 70s he had drastically improved the fortunes of the Iran people but around the end of the 70’s the economy imploded. Under the weight of excessive military purchase which Iran used to make itself a dominant force in the region, the economy begun to regress until eventually the GNP fell and budget deficit soared (Best, Hanhimaki, Maiolo and Schulze, 2008). This set the stage for the revolution that put Iran back to sectarian government that has been involved in major regional and international diplomatic and political conflict. The prevailing social political climate in which the post revolution Iran was founded was seen as too domineering given that nations were mostly classified based on their net worth rather than other issues such as religion. Iran therefore set out to change the status quo but the task was upset by two major tensions. The first is a combination of the country’s downright rejection and suspicion with the current ranking of international institutions with the expressed intention of Iran to improve their position within this scale. The second one is a result of the country’s sense of importance as a regional or even global power an assumption that is not reflective of their economic or military capabilities (Nau and Ollapally, 2012). Consequently, Iran instead of becoming the rising power it inspires to be has become a conflicting power a situation that is particularly evident in view of the contemporary regional and international conflicts (Miller, 2004). According to Nau and Ollapally (2012), Iran is no longer a comfortable state as its legitimacy as a dominant power has been constantly challenged by regional powers such as Egypt and Saudi. They have been forced to foster closer relations with the west in an attempt to preemptively protect themselves or gain ground against Iran which has been in most cases isolated. As a way of combating the Isolation, Iran has tried to get involved in a variety of ideological issues in which the representation of geopolitical interests of states have been central. However, this affects Iran’s relations with its neighbors to the extent that the Iran-West relations are affected by its regional policy Conclusion In conclusion, there can be no doubt that Iran’s internal politics weigh in heavily on global and regional geopolitics given the import her intentions for nuclear armament has had on world governments. The regional balance of the Middle East may not entirely depend on the actions of Iran but it matters a great deal many of the nations in the areas either look up to Iran or stand to be negatively affected by its actions in one way of the other. It is worth noting that despite the fact that the western world portrays Iran as a threat based on its “irrationality” it has been speculated that these claims are strategically used for purposes of justifying aggression towards Iran. Both the US and Israel are closely watching Iran for strategic and security reasons since they see it as threat to regional stability. Israel especially feels threatened given the anti-Zionist sentiment that pervades most of the Middle East. Therefore, it is crucial that an understanding of the political challenged facing the country is established actions for both its own sake and that of the region and to some extent the world. Bibliography Best, A., Hanhimaki, J., Maiolo, J.A. and Schulze, K.E. 2008. International History of The Twentieth Century and Beyond. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.   Bowen, W. Q., & Brewer, J. (2011). Irans nuclear challenge: nine years and counting. International Affairs, 87(4), 923-943.  Kahl, C. H., & Waltz, K. N. 2012. Iran and the Bomb: Would a Nuclear Iran Make the Middle East More Secure. Foreign Aff., 91, 157. Barzegar, K. 2010. Balance of Power in the Persian Gulf: An Iranian View. Middle East Policy, 17(3), 74-87. Miller, B. 2004. The International System and Regional Balance in the Middle East. Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, 240. Nau, R and Ollapally, D. 2012. World Views of Aspiring Powers. Domestic Foreign Policy Debates in China, India, Iran, Japan and Russia. foreign affairs. 1-34. Waltz, K. N. 2012. Why Iran should get the bomb: Nuclear balancing would mean stability. Foreign Aff., 91, 6. Read More