The Diplomat.
Kenneth Waltz speaks with The Diplomat‘s Zachary Keck on his controversial article in Foreign Affairs, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” China, India-Pakistan troubles, terrorism and more.
Over the years you’ve entered into the policy debate only on a few choice occasions, such as your critique of the U.S. war in Vietnam. I’m therefore wondering what made you decide to write on the Iranian nuclear issue?
I did think it was an important issue not adequately discussed. The
issue was being very narrowly defined simply in terms of Iran. But there
are a lot of important lessons beyond this country or this region that
must be considered and that can be applied to Iran itself. So I was
interested in what I might contribute to that aspect of this debate. But
I did this mainly because I was asked by Foreign Affairs.
Policymakers work from the perspective of their own national interests. As you note in the Foreign Affairs piece,
Israel confers substantial benefits from its regional nuclear monopoly,
and a nuclear-armed Iran would significantly curtail Israel as well as
the United States’ freedom of action in the region. How strong of an
incentive is this for Israeli and U.S. policymakers to prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear arms?
Clearly Israel has a very great interest in preventing Iran from
becoming a nuclear weapons state. I do not think the same applies to the
U.S. The American interest in the long run is that the region be stable
and peaceful. The existence of a single nuclear power without a
balancer is a recipe for instability in the long-run. The amazing thing
is that Israel managed to remain a single nuclear power for such a long
time! Israel is an anomaly in this way. This anomaly will be removed if
Iran becomes a nuclear power.
