Political Science Notes Iran and the Bomb Kahl in reference to Waltz Waltz Nuclear Iran will stabilize the Middle East because it will restore balance of military power in the region 1 History shows us that nuclear countries do not engage in full blown wars with other nuclear countires 2 Heightened awareness of presence in the nuclear club in the international scene deters bold aggressive action because nuclear weapons make you a target for major powers 3 Arms race is unlikely because it has been seventy years and there is yet ot be another country in the middle east with Nuclear capabilities besides Israel when Israel got the bomb it was far more dangerous to other Middle Eastern Countries than if Iran were to get the bomb 4 Iran will most likely not hand over nuclear weapons to terrorists 5 Iran is not crazy the leaders of Iran are acting logically given their situation Kahl s response 1 waltz is dead wrong that the Islamic Republic would likely become a more responsible international actor if it crossed the nuclear threshold a According to Kahl Waltz badly misreads history and mischaracterizes Iranian motivation 2 Nuclear states are often more reckless not less reckless at lower levels of conflict which is what Waltz says 3 Iran is Rational But Dangerous a Iran is not suicidal so it will not give weapons to terrorists or attempt to use the bomb to engage in nuclear war b Iran might use the military power to curtail its support for proxy wars in order to avoid needless disputes with other nuclear powers c Iran is not a status quo state i Iran will use nuclear capabilities as an offensive tool 1 Pressure and intimidate other states 2 Expand Iran s influence 3 Advance revisionist agenda Iran the preeminent power in the Middle East d Iran would pursue their regional goals more aggressively e Would supply Hezbollah and Palestine with more sophisticated longer range missiles in order to weaken Israel f Iran could commit violence abroad with impunity 4 Stability Instability Paradox a Watz misreads history Nuclear weapons make regions more volatile b The paradox in which the supposed stability created by mutually assured destruction generates greater instability by making provocations disputes and conflict below the nuclear threshold seem safe i Nuclear military power reduces large scale war but increases proxy wars and small regional wars ii Inexperienced nuclear powers tend to be more crisis prone than other types of states and nuclear states are more likely to engage in lower level militarized disputes with one another c Iranian adventurism i Risk of nuclear exchange resulting from miscalculation an accident or an unauthorized use a risk that doesn t exist if Iran doesn t have the bomb ii Cuban Missle crisis was a close call with out the institutions in place to protect the world form Iranian miscalculation nuclear exchange could occur and be devastating 5 Very real Threat a Nuclear Iran would make an already volatile Middle East even more conflict prone b Preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold should remain a top US priority i US cannot carryout a preventative strike on Iran s Nuclear facilities that would have adverse effects 1 Solution negotiation and diplomacy Waltz replies 1 Colin Kahl rejects my contention that the states tend to become more cautious once they obtain nuclear weapons and claims that I minimize the potential threat of an emboldened Islamic Republic He accuses me of misreading history and suggests that I overestimate the stability produced by nuclear deterrence In fact it is Kahl who misunderstands the historical record and who fails to grasp the ramifications of nuclear deterrence