History suggests nuclear weapons overall have been a stabilizing influence
[ Page 85-86 ]
Assumption #2: A nuclear-armed Iran will destabilize the region
As with the previous assumption, the prospect of further destabilization of the region in the wake of Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon cannot be ruled out. However, Kenneth Waltz, a prominent American international relations scholar, in a recent provocative Foreign Affairs article entitled “Why Iran Should Get the BombWhy Iran Should Get the Bomb ." Foreign Affairs. Vol. 91, No. 4 (July / August 2012): 2-5. [ More (7 quotes) ]” makes precisely the opposite argument. " Waltz argues the overwhelming preponderance of historical evidence suggests nuclear weapons have been a stabilizing influence on international politics imposing a tremendous degree of rationality and caution on the part of nuclear powers. The most obvious case in point: The US-USSR nuclear arsenals contributed to what diplomatic historian John Lewis Gaddis aptly dubbed The Long Peace—a period of history uniquely characterized by the absence of violent conflict between the major powers. Indeed, since the advent of nuclear weapons there has not been a single major armed confrontation between nuclear powers. The same logic would likely apply to Israel and Iran. "