Connect with us

Middle East

Neo-realism and Iran’s Nuclear Issue

Published

on

Just before a professor delivered a lecture on the neo-realism theory of international relations, he screened a video showing the dropping of the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima.

Observing the nuclear bomb flying towards the civilian area caused sudden panic among the students, before landing in the middle of innocent civilians. The students silently watched the consequences of the nuclear bomb and remained so after the video ended. The professor then began to explain the concept of neo-realism. The lecture was very engaging and afterwards the students were asked to prepare for a debate on a topical article written by neo-realist Kenneth Waltz (‘Why Iran Should Get the Bomb’, Foreign Affairs, 2012) with the question being whether Iran should be allowed a nuclear weapon?

Firstly, those in favour questioned why Iran should be excluded when Israel, Western countries and other Asian countries already possess nuclear weaponry? Another material question is why the West accepted India’s nuclear programme despite it being outside of the NPT? Therefore, Iran can legitimately acquire the same weaponry for its strategic, security and national interest, in deterring the nuclear threat of Israel in the West Asian region.

Further, those in favour of Kenneth Walt’s article argued that “history shows that nuclear weapons would balance and give peace to any region”. Walt described the “nuclear deterrence between the US and the Soviet as being the reason for the long peace during the cold war”. Let us apply this logic to the present situation. If Iran emerged as a nuclear power, it would deter Israel in West Asia, resulting in a more peaceful region. However, Iran’s behaviour at present reflects its insecurity and by extension the prevalent vulnerability in the region. Since neorealism expresses that states are self-interest oriented actors, Iran would never act as self-destructive state but as a responsible one if it had nuclear weaponry, knowing the impact of the nuclear casualty. Moreover, it has the capability to maintain the nuclear weaponry compared to the nuclear vulnerability of Pakistan.

Secondly, those against pointed out that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, the tension in West Asia would only increase. With many devastated states in the region, should Iran acquire nuclear weaponry, Saudi Arabia would be forced to do likewise, seeking weaponry from Pakistan or China within a week or month. This chain of events would mean there would be an increased threat to Israel’s survival and the security of the region. Moreover, this may trigger a move by a small, wealthy oil exporting country to acquire a nuclear weapon. If bipolar was the safe game for peace during the cold war, the post-cold war multi-polar would be the reason for the world present disorder. Nuclear weapons in more hands would be more threatening to the region. Iran has threatened Israel on several occasions that it will wipe it off the map.

Another important factor to be aware of is the possibility of Iran allows the nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists or that it transfers nuclear secrets to rogue states or to non-state actors. If such events occurred the proliferation of nuclear weapons would be unstoppable. The consequences and damage would be immeasurable. This would not only be a concern for West Asia security, but for the security of the entire world. Hence, it can be argued that there is no compelling reason for allowing Iran to attain nuclear weaponry. Moreover, the ‘no’ group argued that with Iran added into the equation, the precedent set by the growing number of nuclear weapon states would bring continuous threat to world peace.

Thirdly, the self-discipline of India as a nuclear state, in its exclusion from the NPT, is an example to follow. It did not produce a nuclear weapon by signing the NPT like Iran. However, India’s request for a security assurance from the western powers in the 1960s against the nuclear threat of China was not answered positively. Hence, India chose to walk down an undesired path, contrary to the vision of India’s founding father Mahatma Gandhi and the first Prime Minister Nehru. While India’s security was put at risk by its nuclear neighbour China, India refused to sign the NPT. When India refused to sign the NPT, it was expected that India would begin striving for nuclear weaponry. India did thereafter emerge as a minimum nuclear deterrent. Moreover, standing outside of the NPT, India has an impeccable track record with a non-proliferation past. So, with such striking differences between the two states, the value of such a comparison was not so high during this debate.

Fourthly, if the world requires more experience of the effects of nuclear warfare than it observed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki then it may have the opportunity if the international community’s stance on Iran’s claim for the nuclear bomb does not change. The oil fields will not recover if any nuclear bomb was dropped in West Asia. There will be no redemption across the entire region for the next five decades. A nuclear disaster would destroy the entire Arab region. It would also affect millions of expatriates and the global economy would soon come to a stand-still without the oil flow from this region.

The present agreement with Iran has been seen as an achievement of the P5+1 joint effort. Although this deal has several limitations, it is a better than launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear base. Iran cannot easily distract the P5+1. This agreement with the P5+1gives a strong signal that any violation of the agreement by the actor would result in a collective reaction by the P5+1. This would serve as a serious warning to Iran and to other reactionary states which seek nuclear weaponry. This path could also serve as a direction to deal with the North Korea nuclear issue in the future.

However, the chaotic stance of the US Republicans is entirely misguided and ill advised. They are politically correct, but diplomatically wrong. It may help them for the 2016 presidential election campaign but not for their national security. One thing is quite clear – if the US Congress continues to diverge on this issue – there will be negative implications for US non-proliferation initiatives globally.

Finally, the arguments on both sides of the debate are defended strongly. However, it is unlikely that the ‘yes’ group is in a strong position at the present stage of Iran’s ambition to attain nuclear capacity. The ‘no’ group has the upper hand. The core reason behind this is that Iran’s claim is unjustifiable because Iran has not demonstrated its responsibility as a state in the region so far. Hence, Iran’s claim of entitlement to nuclear weaponry did not convince the majority of the students in the lecture hall.

Antony Clement is a Senior Editor (Asia-Pacific), Modern Diplomacy an online journal. He is a researcher in Indian Foreign Policy. He consults on academic development and he is currently working on two books - “Discover your Talents” and “Diplomacy in Tough Times”. His research centres on India’s diplomacy & foreign policy and extends to domestic politics, economic policy, security issues, and international security matters, including India’s relations with the US, the BRICS nations, the EU and Australia.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

U.S. multiple goals for possible military action in Iraq

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

The spread of the coronavirus and its devastating impact on the US economy and US efforts to reduce Iran’s regional influence are possible motives behind US potential military action in Iraq.

While the world is fighting against the COVID-19 outbreak, regional countries including Iraq have been witnessing widespread US military moves in recent days.

Most News outlets and political analysts have anticipated an imminent massive military action in Iraq due to the extent of US military moves.

Any possible military aggression carried out by Trump’s administration comes as the US and the world are struggling to contain coronavirus and the US economy, and consequently, the global economy has fallen into a major recession.

Trump is pursuing a number of goals by launching military aggression against Iraq and creating new military conflicts in the Middle East:

*In line with its maximum pressure policy, the US occupiers seek to target Iraqi groups close to the Islamic Republic such as Badr Organization led by Hadi Al-Amiri, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq led by Qais al-Khazali, al-Nujaba Movement led by Akram al-Kaabi, and also Kata’ib Hezbollah. Washington assumes that adopting such an approach can reduce Iran’s influence in Iraq and undermine the economic, political and cultural cooperation between the two countries which play a significant role in reducing the impact of US sanctions on Tehran.

*After COVID-19 outbreak which triggered a global economic recession, Crude oil price dropped below $ 30 a barrel, causing serious damage to US  companies producing Shale oil and severely jeopardized their future production. Therefore, a military conflict in the Middle East can raise the global price of oil and prevent the bankruptcy of oil companies.

*Moreover, regional military conflicts and consequently a rise in the oil price can be a threat to the Chinese energy security, whose economy is heavily dependent on the Middle East oil. This can be used as a tool for the US to contain China and additionally obtain more business privileges from this country and other major economies, such as Europe whose economy are also dependent on the Middle East oil.

*Regional clashes can also possibly affect Saudi oil facilities and reduce their oil production which makes them lose some part of their share from global energy market which will be ultimately replaced by US oil.

*The US unemployment rate went up after many Americans lost their jobs due to the spread of coronavirus in the country and the world. Any US military adventure in the region can boost its military industry and consequently , to some extent, control the US unemployment rate.

*Ultimately, all of these goals can possibly save Donald Trump in the upcoming US election. Many polls suggest that Trump’s lying about the spread of coronavirus and his belated measures to contain the virus and also the subsequent economic pressure on the US citizens have cast doubt on his victory in the upcoming US election and helped his democratic rival have the upper hand.

From our partner MNA

Continue Reading

Middle East

Global Response to Coronavirus Exposes Governments’ Fault Lines

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

There’s a message in Pakistani and Egyptian responses to the Coronavirus: neither ultra-conservative science-rejecting worldviews nor self-serving autocratic policies aimed at regime enhancement produced initial prevention and mitigation strategies that could have blunted the impact of the disease.

To be sure, Pakistan and Egypt, although different in what drove their responses, are in good company. Overwhelmingly, governments across the globe with the exceptions of Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, failed to take the initial warnings signs seriously.

Unlike western democracies that have little to boast about in their handling of the crisis, countries like Pakistan and Egypt lack the checks and balances, robust civil societies, and independent media needed as correctives.

And both Egypt and Pakistan have gone out of their way to keep it that way.

Egypt, apparently taking a leaf out of China’s playbook, reprimanded foreign correspondents for The Guardian and The New York Times in Cairo for reporting that the number of cases in the country was exponentially higher than the 495 confirmed by authorities as of March 29. 

The coverage was based on conclusions by infectious disease specialists at the University of Toronto who had analyzed flight and traveler data as well as infection rates.

The scientists estimated that “Egypt likely has a large burden of Covid-2019 cases that are unreported.” They put the number of Egyptian cases as high as 19,130 as of March 15.

In response, authorities withdrew the press permit of The Guardian’s Ruth Michaelson and expelled her from the country while The New York Times’ Declan Walsh was forced to delete a tweet. Furthermore, several Egyptians have been detained on charges of spreading false and fabricated rumors.

Yet, Egypt imposed strict measures including the closure of all educational institutions and the suspension of flights on March 15, the day the scientists published their findings. The government also announced a $6.38 billion USD fund to fight the virus.

A World Health Organization (WHO) official in Cairo said the group could not verify the scientists’ methodology but added that “it is possible that there are many other cases with mild symptoms which did not result in hospital visits, and therefore are not detected or reported.”

Independent reporting is a crucial node in an effective early warning system. It creates pressure for a timely response. The effort to suppress it was in line with Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s initial reaction to the virus.

Rather than focusing on early preventive measures at home, Mr. Al-Sisi sought to benefit from China’s predicament.

With only one officially confirmed case of a Chinese national arriving in February at Cairo airport who was hospitalized and cured, Mr. Al-Sisi sent his health minister, Hala Zayed, to China to praise it for preventing a far worse global outbreak by taking very strong precautionary measures. This despite Beijing’s costly failure to confront the disease firmly from the outset.

Pakistan’s approach in recent months was no less negligent.

Like Egypt, a country in which the power of the military is thinly camouflaged by hollowed out institutions, Pakistan waffled until last week in its response to the pandemic.

The Pakistani government refused early on to evacuate some 800 students from Wuhan in a bid to earn brownie points in Beijing. It also failed to manage the return of potentially infected pilgrims from Iran. And finally, it catered to ultra-conservative groups whose worldviews were akin to ones long prevalent in Saudi Arabia with its significant cultural and religious influence in the South Asian nation.

As a result, Pakistan, a deeply religious country that borders on both China and Iran, allowed Tablighi Jamaat, a proselytizing group with a huge global following in some 80 countries that is banned in Saudi Arabia, to continue organizing mass events.

The group organized a 16,000 people mass gathering in early March in Malaysia where scores were infected with the Coronavirus.

Hundreds of Tablighi gathered from March 21 to 23 in the Mardan District of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province to pray, listen to speeches, and eat and sleep in congested quarters.

One participant, professing his belief that God would protect the Tablighi, described spending almost six weeks together with thousands of others at Tablighi headquarters near Lahore, a city of 11 million, just before traveling to Mardan.

Pakistan Religious Affairs Minister Noor-ul-Haq Qadri caved in to demands by the clergy to keep mosques open but capped the maximum number of people at prayers at five.

The minister’s concession reinforced a popular perception of the government’s message that the virus crisis was less grave than projected by health authorities across the globe.

“If the pandemic was serious, the government would’ve shut down all the mosques,” said Sadiq Bhutt, speaking through an interpreter, as he entered a mosque in Islamabad for Friday prayers.

Eventually, overriding government policy, the Pakistan military intervened in recent days to impose a lockdown like in much of the rest of the world.

But as in Egypt it may be too late for Pakistan, the world’s most populous Muslim nation of 207 million, that is ill-equipped for a pandemic.

Ultimately, the lesson of Egypt, Pakistan, and China’s initial handling of the Coronavirus is that neither self-serving autocrats nor authoritarians have the wherewithal to confront a crisis like a pandemic in a timely fashion. Their much-delayed responses have failed

to take the public’s interests to heart rather than those of elites that prioritize geopolitical or political advantage.

Western democracies have performed not much better with US President Donald J. Trump seemingly more concerned about economic impact in an election year than about public health and people’s lives.

The difference, however, is that western democracies have the potential of holding leaders to account and implementing lessons learned from the costly mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic.

It’s hard to hold out a similar hope for Arab autocracies or countries like Pakistan whose democratic façade is at best skin-deep.

Author’s note” This story was first published on Inside Arabia

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran Proposed Five-Nation Bloc for Regional Stability, Peace, and Progress

Published

on

In February this year, Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi received Syed Mohammad Ali Hosseini, an Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan. Pakistan’s foreign minister Qureshi expressed his thoughts through praising the traditionally strong ties between both the nations and showed his consent to further strengthen collaboration in all dimensions which would be mutually beneficial for both Tehran and Islamabad. As for as the historical, cultural, and religious affinities are concerned, both nations enjoy rich support of commonalities including similar views on the foreign occupation which proved as a source of disaster for them. Besides, Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan after its independence in August 1947. As both Pakistan and Iran’s basic factor of the independence was Islam and current scenario portrays a bad picture of Islamic countries which are suffering from a cluster of problems under foreign agenda. In this connection, the role of Islamic nations has not been effective in addressing issues of the Islamic Ummah. Hosseini also expressed his grievances over the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) by explaining that it was not producing fruitful results for Muslim Ummah. He further talked about the sufferings of Muslim Ummah and the malicious plan of the United States along with Israel to subdue them.

Moreover, FM Qureshi showed consent to visit Iran for meeting with its leadership to talk about their concerns and disputes and their possible diplomatic solution. Moreover, during a meeting with Hosseini the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Finance and Revenue, Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, told that the government aimed at expanding the bilateral trade with Iran. So, giving more boost to the relation of both the nations, the Iranian Ambassador proposed a new bloc for addressing regional issues and promoting cooperation among themselves. This bloc will include Russia, China, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran because these nations are capable of forming such an alliance that could effectively handle regional issues for the better future of the region. Similarly, he expressed his consent and help for solving the Afghan problem which is a great hindrance to regional peace and stability along with creating security issues for Pakistan. Iran aims at linking Pakistan’s Gwadar Port with Chabahar Port of Iran via rail link which ultimately generates the economic benefits for both the nations.

He dubbed the recent “Deal of the Century” proposed by American President Trump for peace in the Middle East irrational and unjust which consists of many doubts over American-Israeli Alliance. In this situation where the whole world is trapped with the fatal disease of Corona Virus, the United States which considers itself the oldest democracy, protector of human rights and most developed nation on earth, has imposed more sanctions on Iran. While UN Security Council Members and signatories of the 2015 Nuclear Deal with Tehran namely Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany rejected Trump’s call for sanctions on Iran. President Trump’s action portrays that he is under stress in whichhe looks unable to understand repercussions and results of the policies and actions taken by him. While at the same time he is ignoring the traditions and values of the founding fathers of his nation as well as he has no respect and obligation for international rules and laws.Furthermore, the Iranian Ambassador showed enthusiasm for increasing and strengthening the multilateral economic cooperation. In this regard, Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline is an important project and will even become more productive if it is linked with the CPEC which not only brings the huge economic development in both Tehran and Islamabad but also the region through making it more stable and developed.

Thisnew regional bloc could prove productive through solving themulti-faceted issues faced by the countries of this region. Whereas America has remained unsuccessful in eliminating the problems of the region, therefore, it is the responsibility of regional states to become serious in making such bloc which seriously takes the vast problems towards the solution for the development, peace, stability, and progress of the underdeveloped nations of the region. Besides, the Iranian President has also proposed cryptocurrency for Muslim nations for settling payment transactions as an alternative to the US dollar such as proposed by BRICS nations earlier. He further explained that the US always uses economic sanctions as the main tool of domineering hegemony and bullying of other nations. As stated by Iranian President that there is always room for diplomacy, therefore “let’s return to justice, to peace, to law, commitment and promise and finally to the negotiating table” which is the last and effective solution for any issue.Iran’s proposal of five nations bloc portrays a rational and real picture of solving the staggering and long-lasting problems of the region. Furthermore, the nations which are proposed by Iran in the bloc have no history of worsening or spoiling the situation of the region as America has been involved in generating the multiple problems throughout the region via its policies and actions. All these five regional nations have stakes in the region such as political, economic, social and financial. Therefore if the region is developed, peaceful and protected than they collectively can secure their interests along with giving the benefits to other regional nations as well.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Human Rights2 hours ago

Economic sanctions should be lifted to prevent hunger crises in countries hit by COVID-19

As the world exhibits new bonds of solidarity in response to the coronavirus pandemic, it is a matter of “humanitarian...

Economy3 hours ago

The COVID-19, Economic Package, UN system and Politics

Global pandemic of COVID-19 is affecting everyone. This has been described as the greatest global humanitarian crisis since WWII.  On...

Newsdesk5 hours ago

World Bank Support to Strengthen Lao PDR’s Financial Safety Net and Civil Registration System

The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors today approved $60 million in financing for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, of...

International Law6 hours ago

Satya N. Nandan: End of an era for Law of the Sea

The passing away of Amb. Satya N. Nandan of Fijion February 25, 2020 comes as a decisive loss to law...

EU Politics7 hours ago

Explainer: SURE, a new temporary instrument to help protect jobs and people in work

What is SURE and why is the Commission proposing it? The new instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks...

African Renaissance9 hours ago

In the big night

“What are you running away from? I’m sad too, you know. Leaving behind the only world that I’ve ever known....

Central Asia11 hours ago

Russia-China relations: Engagement abilities in managing their differences in Central Asia

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow and Beijing have converted their relationship from being Cold War rivals...

Trending