Irans Nuclear Weapons Paradigms - Case Study Example

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons: Realist and Idealist Paradigms Ttor Due Iran’s Nuclear Weapons: Realist and Idealist Paradigms This paper will discuss the impending nuclear agreement with Iran reflecting on the realistic and idealistic paradigms in international affairs. Observations of the relationship will firmly accommodate the two paradigms. The aim will be to elaborate clearly the use of international law and organizations on all the paradigms in connection to international security and inter-state relationships. Realist Paradigm Realism is mounted on the notion that, world politics is driven by competitive self-interests and a struggle for power that is aimed at preserving and improving military, security and economic interests. To realists, the presence of war is essential in a state system as it clearly underlines the hypothesis of international conflict. Such states are characterized by chaos and revolutions, which are directly linked to vested national interests, distribution of power and conflict. a. Political realism The Iranian nuclear program has attracted much attention within the international arena due to the interest devoted by nation’s states on their foreign policies (Bowen & Brewer2011). In international relations, realists and idealists paradigms are important as they concern themselves with substantive issues affecting nations and states while making foreign policy decisions. Political realists argue that states struggle to secure conflicting national interests creating the main action on the globe (Rourke, 2007). Iranian nuclear activities open up the possibility of a secret relationship between her religion and the ongoing nuclear standoff that is mounting international pressure. The European Union (EU), United States and UN unanimously agreed that the development of nuclear fuel cycle by Iran must be done in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (OConnell & El Molla, 2013) According to the Treaty, US felt that Iran was in violation with Article III that safeguarded obligations by using her enrichment program for weapons purpose (Fitzpatrick, 2013). The sanctions executed by the United Nations Security Council seeking to tighten restrictions on finance and sipping “proliferated-sensitive activities” clearly indicates a looming international crisis expressed by countries represented in the council. In a chaotic environment, those who do not apply chaos and choose to ignore realistic principles, they will not survive. Therefore, national interests mainly focus preservation of a state’s security mechanisms and power for success. It is clearly evident that states, just like human beings have strongly nurtured desire to dominate others while they aim at calculating their national security in a hostile and chaotic environment. It is not a lie that the continuous floating of the UN Security Council restrictions by the Iranian regime has seen formation of alliances between the EU and U.S putting more pressure so as to limit the risk of other Middle East nations pursuing nuclear options (Fitzpatrick, 2013). Idealism emphasizes on morality in international law and the importance of power which is the central point for the realists and the central point to understanding international relations. Based on this, countries base foreign policies on an existing Darwinian world dominated by ‘power’ as the key element in surviving for the fittest. The fear is truly genuine as Israel; the regional dominating power is ready to expand her military power over Israel to safeguard her peace and dominance. This is in line with the political realism that establishes a foreign policy on cultural and political frameworks. Thus, it is logical for nations to establish high-level security and seek more enforcement. Actually, the interests vested the E.U, U.S and UN Security Council over Iran’s nuclear program appears to be an interest of foreign policy as some of the nations act as super powers and are considered to have extensive military and economic influence over nations across the globe. On the other hand, smaller nations act as regional powers over the region. Based on idealist paradigm, a nation’s interest in protecting its sovereignty is of paramount importance, especially when such a nation is a primary actor in world affairs. This becomes a global concern rooted in the interests of nations and states directly affected. Political realism in this sense may be looked as interest defined in terms of power. Therefore, this would prompt nations like Israel and other surrounding states in sanctioning military action with the aim of preserving their regional relevance, power and security (Fitzpatrick, 2013). b. Classical Realism and Neorealism It is evidently true that Iran’s nuclear activity pose a major threat to international security, a topic that is not new not only to the contesting nations but also to her. This in turn threatens the security of states and nations who feel weakened by Iranians position. When examining classical realism, Hans Morgenthau denotes that human beings are as predictable because they are inborn dark side (Rourke, 2007). Meaning that, nations are made up of human beings, who may not be trusted. Therefore, nations opposed to such nuclear activity feel that their security is threatened. In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes notes that human beings have a dominating power which turns them against each other, and thus creating enemies among themselves (Rourke, 2007). Therefore, the presence of conflict among human being interactions is a common occurrence, even in their pursuit for power and interests. Nations like United States and Israel feel threatened by Iranian activities, and her citizens would support military action to trim down the security threat. Hence, the pressure mounted on the UN Security Council to impose more restrictive sanctions. Neorealism illuminates politics as a complete struggle for power and domination caused by chaotic and disorderly structures (Rourke, 2007). This means that international systems constituted by sovereign states which do not answer to any higher authority are disorderly as they do not have an orderly authority to provide security and order. When presented with such situations, single states end up relying on individual resources to survive. In this case, Iran is guided by her legal right to enrich uranium rights under the NPT. Furthermore, she believes she is in compliant to the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Article IV of the NPT as she is pursuing a civilian nuclear energy program. Therefore, states become their judges and end may resort to the use of force to defend their sovereignty. While classic realism accommodates ideologies and other forces to govern foreign policies, Neorealist’s care less about internal policy making process, but rather believe in the rational acts taken by countries in particular situations that press them to react similarly. In this case, Mr. Obama, determined to put an end to the strained relationships between US and Iran attempted to begin secret negotiations to adopt the Tehran declaration, a step that heavily fuelled anger among Arab countries. It is however interesting that both neorealism and classical realism do not believe in escaping from conflict. Idealist Paradigm Idealism is molded on the principles of minimization of conflicts by maximizing cooperation among nations, focussing on international relations legal aspects such as the formation of international organizations and law, and promotion of moral concerns. Human rights are the fundamental principal that guide idealist just as urged by Immanuel Kant that doing good is an end rather than a means to an end. The power to reason and eliminate any form of prejudice and unseen forces act as the major pillar of idealists. Democracy is highly emphasized and the strong belief in peace and justice (Dowding, 2011). Idealist have for long been attracted to manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction, one of them being Iran. Iran’s current predicament and her strained relationship with the US introduce a challenge to the role she is playing in promoting international peace. According to Mazzini, nationality and internationality are compatible (Dowding, 2011). Therefore, Iran’s actions should not only be for her good but the good of the international community. Even as she faces opposition from nations that might seem to be realists, the diplomatic efforts leading to the Tehran Declaration indicates that her nuclear activities might just be opposed by some idealists. The declaration also illuminates idealists’ emphasis on creating legal frameworks that attract universal support and attention and open people to research, reason and discussion about matters that affect them openly. Solutions offered by the declaration emphasize on guaranteeing peacefulness in her nuclear activities after joint efforts by Turkey and Brazil on the Tehran Research Reactor. This is based in idealistic principles that require a natural division of labor between nations especially when contributing to promoting the well-being of humanity (Dowding, 2011). Idealism is mainly aimed at creating an equal world for all people. Idealists stress on the importance of natural harmony and peace among all people regardless of their background. This means that values are based on the Kantian deontological ethics that apply to the universal treatment of all human beings irrespective of their interests or desires (Beardsworth, 2011). Therefore, for an action to be permissible, it must be applicable to all people without occurrences of contradiction. Thus, human beings are treated as ends to the means, and not means to the end (Dowding, 2011). Applicably, Iranian nuclear interests ought to have been respected and deliberated upon as was presented in the Tehran declaration. In addition, EU and U.S are pressurizing the UN Security Council to oppose personalized sanctions so as to satisfy their desires to remain superpowers in the disguise of maintain international peace. Thus, Iranian’s interests ought to be safeguarded just at EU and US were, rather than creating inconsistency in determining the case. Conclusion The study has so far confirmed the existence of realism and idealism in international politics by looking into the magnitude of law and integrity in international affairs. All paradigms have been through an examination of the Iranian nuclear agreement and in which the study has proved evidence of opposing views supporting either of the paradigms. On one hand, the command of power and national interests have been displayed through political realism, classical realism and neorealism while peace, morality and democracy have been emphasized through idealism. References Beardsworth, R. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory. Polity. Bowen, W. Q., & Brewer, J. (2011). Irans nuclear challenge: nine years and counting. International Affairs, 87(4), 923-943. Dowding, K. (2011) Encyclopedia of Power. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications. pp. 332-333. Fitzpatrick, M. (2013). The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Avoiding Worst-Case Outcomes. Routledge. OConnell, E., & El Molla, R. (2013). Prohibition on the Use of Force for Arms Control: The Case of Irans Nuclear Program, The. Penn St. Journal & International Affairs., 2, 315. Rourke, J. T. (2007). International Politics on the World Stage (p. 141). New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More