In the book ‘Man, the state and War’-, a realist author, Keneth Waltz highlighted the anarchic nature of international politics in the following words “With Many sovereign States with no system of law enforceable among them, which each state judging its ambitions and grievances according to the dictates of its own reason or desire-conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur”. This quote is even relevant in today’s world, where number of international institutions and organizations exist to overcome the anarchic nature of the world. Unfortunately, the legitimacy of these institutions is increasingly challenged with triumph of military might over the diplomacy and international norms. The most recent case is the Israel’s counter proliferation efforts against Iran. This is not the first time counter proliferation efforts were used. Counterproliferation refers to use of military force to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the recent case is alarming in a way that it is pushing the world towards nuclear anarchy, where self-help will prevail over the liberal institutionalism.
A report from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) highlighted that Iran has about 60% of enriched Uranium in violation of IAEA safeguards. IAEA has not even verified that Iran is on the path to nuclear development. In a unilateral move, Israel launched a military operation against Iranian nuclear sites, killing Iranian top military commanders and nuclear scientists. Not only Israel, but the USA has also attacked Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz, claiming that it has dismantled Iranian nuclear capabilities successfully. Nonetheless, as the war ended, Iran refused to cooperate with the IAEA. This has raised concerns among the International Community. Apart from the geopolitical implications, the counterproliferation efforts will have wide implications for the nuclear non- proliferation regime.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was formed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and extend cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Iran, being a signatory to the non-proliferation regime, has IAEA inspection aligned with the non-proliferation spirit. On the other hand, Israel, a Non-signatory to the NPT, has attacked Iran and raised a question mark on the efficacy of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In addition to this, some of the signatories to the NPT, including Germany and the United States, have supported Israel’s counter-proliferation efforts. This highlights the lack of transparency that exists within the non-proliferation regime. Despite the fact, states have submitted their trust to the international regime. It is inefficient in the case of realpolitik. This notion fundamentally challenged the efficacy of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Hence, it augments Keneth Waltz’s point that when laws become inefficient, every state determines its action based on its own rationale.
Secondly, counter proliferation is not always productive. Out of 9 cases where counterproliferation efforts were used included Germany, Iraq and Syria. Only 1 case was successful. So, counter proliferation may exacerbate nuclearization efforts of Iran. The recent attack by Israel has challenged the territorial integrity of Iran. As security is the ultimate aim of states in international relations. So, Israeli attack has created security dilemma for Iranian. The attack has reaffirmed the notion that acquisition of nuclear weapons is only a guarantee for the territorial security and integrity of Iran. Moreover, Iran has long maintained the policy of strategic ambiguity with respect to its nuclear weapons. Attack of military strikes from Israel and United states has provide the rationale to hardliners in Iran, surpassing the moderators who were against the nuclear weapons and achieve the political legitimacy on acquisition of nuclear weapons is indispensable to Iranian security and territorial integrity. Israel has demonstrated its aggressive and expansionist policies in the region. It has no regards for international law and international regimes. The west has shown its hypocrisy by providing protective cover to Israel illegal actions. So. Countries like Iran has no other option put to pursue to nuclear weapons to maximize their security in the region.
Thirdly, the Middle Eastern region is already involved in a bloc politics. On one hand, there is Gulf monarchies having oil wealth and gained significant attention from the west. Most gulf countries host military bases of United States to counter Iranian threat. On the other side, there is Iran that has long resisted western Influence. This orientation towards the west places Gulf countries and Iran at opposite poles. The road to acquisition of nuclear material as evident from IAEA and recent suspension of Iranian cooperation with IAEA along with rumors of threat of exit form NPT are putting the Gulf countries in a security dilemma. In order to overcome this dilemma, there is a likely chance that the Gulf countries will go nuclear. Saudia Arabia is already in talks with United States related to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. UAE has already four Korean nuclear reactors for energy purposes on which the Qatar has raised objection. This shows that Israel counter proliferation efforts against Iran will have a spill over effect on the nuclearization of Gulf countries and thus leading to failure of nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Thus, it can be concluded that in a nuclear world actions have a wide repercussion. International Institutions and regimes that were formed to bring peace in the world are increasingly challenged by the real politik of the states. The use of force to prevent another state for acquiring nuclear weapons does not necessarily lead to submission of states. Sometimes counter proliferation efforts prove to be counterproductive.
