Kaiser 1

Cameron Kaiser
International Relations Theory
Dr. Hill
Fall 2012
What Should the United States Do About Iran?
A Perspective Analysis of Neorealists and Neoliberals
A popular topic in United States foreign policy today is the issue of nuclear Iran.
Many politicians and popular news media simply state that Iran should not be allowed to
have a nuclear bomb. What would the consequences of the Iranians achieving such
nuclear capabilities be, and what should the US do about it? This topic is of the upmost
importance in todays world. As the worlds leading military and economic power, the
United States actions on this issue have the potential to create chaos, or further
stabilize the Middle Eastern region. I will be analyzing this issue through the lens of the
international relations theories of neorealism and neoliberalism. I will first give a brief
history of US-Iran relations to put this topic into perspective. I will then explain each
theory and apply them to the current issue. Finally, I will critically analyze the potential
consequences of each, and come to a conclusion based on which application is more
logical and why. Without further ado I present, What Should the United States Do
About Iran? A Perspective Analysis of neorealists and neoliberals.
US-Iran relations were not always as rocky as they seem today. Back in the Cold
War era, Iran was an important ally to the United States. The fear of the rising Soviet

Kaiser 2

Union caused the United States to build up Iran; providing them with increased
economic and military assistance. The US needed allies in the Middle East, and Irans
economic and national security progress would benefit from this endorsement. Iran
considered the US one of its greatest allies.
Successful covert operations furnished by the CIA and SIS took place in 1953 to
replace Irans popular Prime Minister with a more Western favorable one. The Prime
Minister sought to nationalize the oil industry which would cut out current British profits
in the industry. This breech in national sovereignty is still remembered by Iranians
today. Years later in 1979, the power structure of Iran changed dramatically as the
Iranian Revolution unfolded. This is what you could call the breaking point in US-Iran
relations. Irans power structure was overthrown and replaced by a heavily anti-western
Islamic Republic; at which point US military and economic support was abolished.
Revolutionaries seized control of the American Embassy in Iran and took American
hostages. This situation eventually led to the controversial arms sale by the Reagan
administration to Iran, in hopes to free the American hostages. In 1988 USS Vincennes
shot down an Iranian commercial flight over Iranian waters killing all 290 aboard (15).
Currently there are no diplomatic relations between the two states as the nuclear storm
continues to grow. Why do the Iranians want a nuclear bomb? What would they do if

Kaiser 3

they had one? What should the US do about it? These questions may be better
answered by international relations theories.
Realism is the original theory of world politics one could say. Often accredited
to Thucydides positivist account of the Peloponnesian War, it is a theory with its roots in
relative power. The founder of neorealism (new-realism), Kenneth Walt, sprouted his
theory out of this classic. Other prominent neorealist scholars featured in this essay
include John Mearsheimer and Stephen Waltz. Neorealism can be defined by the
assumptions it makes about our international political world, and the strategies it says
states use. The assumptions are as followed:
The anarchic (lack of central authority) international system is the primary cause
of international conflict. The state is the most important actor in world politics.
The state is a unitary and rational actor. A conviction that international relations
are conflictual, and conflicts are ultimately solved resolved by war. A basic
skepticism that there can be progress in international life that is comparable to
that in domestic life. Economics is less relevant to national security than is
military might. States will seek power to provide for security. A balance of power
will eventually be created. The most stable international system is the one with
the fewest Great-Powers (IR 335 notes).

Kaiser 4

Along with these assumptions comes strategies states use in the international system.
According to neorealism states have three strategies; to bandwagon, balance, or buck
pass. Bandwagoning occurs when weaker states decide that the cost of opposing a
more powerful state is too great. This strategy is uncommon because bandwagoning
allows the greater power to grow and can lead to absorption of the weaker state.
Balancing, according to neorealist, is the most common strategy states use to feel
secure. States build up their own power and form alliances with one another to match
or balance more powerful entities. Buck passing is when states leave the responsibility
up to other states to balance power, until it is absolutely necessary to contribute to the
balance of power themselves (10). To apply these assumptions and strategies to the
Nuclear Iran conflict, we must first understand the United States role in the
international system.
After WWII and the Cold War, the United States emerged as the most powerful
state in the international system, and the hegemon of its region. Power can be defined
and measured by a states offensive and defensive capabilities, and regional hegemony
is defined as a state whose power and influence goes unmatched in its region.
Neorealist suggest that once a state has reached regional hegemony it strives to
undermine other states seeking regional hegemony to maintain the current balance of

Kaiser 5

power in the international system. Is Iran an aspiring regional hegemon? What are
Irans intentions in acquiring a nuclear bomb?
Nuclear weapons are a useful way of measuring relative power among states.
Inherently, states with nuclear weapons possess more relative power than states that do
not. In the Middle East, both Israel and Turkey possess nuclear weapons, yet the
concern is pushed on Iran who may be developing nuclear capabilities (3). According
to neorealism it would be logical for the US to push for involvement in Iran if it were
aspiring for regional hegemony, yet Iran is no where near this aspiration, even if it were
to acquire a nuclear weapon. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, said, From 1953 to 1979, the U.S. recognized Iran as
the hegemon in the region. We recognized that, considering all the factors of power,
from demography to military, from geography to national cohesiveness, Iran was the
leader in the Gulf. Now, today, we seek to deny that realitylargely because our tyrant
no longer rules (9). By our tyrant he is implying that Iran was only the regional
hegemon because of US support.
Neorealism would suggest that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon to provide for its
own security. Other non nuclear states in the region (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Yemen) have been undermined by Western powers, and now the focus shifts on Iran.
Tough economic sanctions are currently being enforced on the state by the US, making

Kaiser 6

the state feel even less secure. Iran sees the nuclear bomb as a way to balance the
playing field, provide for national security, and maintain national sovereignty. Kenneth
Waltz, the father of neorealism, wrote an article entitled, Why Iran Should Get the
Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability. In this article Waltz states, If Tehran
determines that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are
unlikely to change its mind. In fact, adding still more sanctions now could make Iran feel
even more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection of the ultimate
deterrent (14). In this sense, both states concerns are building off of one another. As
the US implements more sanctions on Iran, Irans quest for nuclear weapons increases
and ultimately causes more fear for the US. Determining each states intentions is the
core of this problem. Popular neorealist John Mearsheimer stated in his book The
Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Offensive and defensive capabilities are distinguished
by the intent of their holder. States cannot determine other states intentions, therefore
they are always fearing the worse, and always seeking more power. Do neorealists
believe nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US?
If Iran were to successfully create a nuclear bomb neorealists believe this would
not pose any threat to the US. The value of nuclear weapons lies in their non usage
and ability to deter conflict, not to employ them. Neorealists believe states are rational
actors and seek power to provide for their security. The notion that Iran would use a

Kaiser 7

nuclear weapon on the US or its allies is outlandish to neorealist. The US and its allies
in the region, such as Israel, have the capability to wipe Iran off the map before it could
even take its finger off the button. Douglas MacGregor, a retired US army colonel,
stated, Going to war with Iran isnt very challenging to be perfectly blunt. If the United
States is 12 feet tall, Iran, in comparative terms, is maybe 6 inches high (12). Iran
wouldnt risk extinction on the possibility of inflicting a non fatal wound to its enemies. If
nuclear Iran does not pose a threat to the US, what do neorealists suggest the US
should do about this situation?
Neorealists would suggest that the US should not get involved with Iran. That the
US should withdraw militarily to buck pass the burden on other states in the region and
allow them to balance the power themselves. By doing so the US would be better able
to build up its power internally and act only when absolutely necessary, i.e. a rising
regional hegemon (China). The 2012 US presidential candidate Ron Paul had very
similar beliefs on foreign policy. Stephen Walt commented on his policy and wrote,
Given the nuclear revolution, America's favorable geographic location, and the nature
of the modern global economy, in fact, there's a pretty good case to be made for a much
more limited global posture that shifts more of the burden for regional security onto
others and focuses on fixing problems here at home (13). Although neorealism is a

Kaiser 8

prominent theory in the field, other theories such as neoliberalism offer different
perspectives on this issue.
Neoliberalism is another prominent theory of international relations and offers a
much different perspective on world politics than neorealism. The founders and
prominent scholars of neoliberalism are Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Like
neorealists, neoliberals also state that the international system is anarchic, states are
unitary and rational actors, and states are self interested. Where the theories differ is
that neoliberals believe states are not the only important actors in international relations,
and that long term interests and cooperation among states can be achieved.
Comparatively, neorealist believe we are stuck in a win-lose world, while neoliberals
believe in the possibility of win-win world. This win-win world can be achieved by
changing independent decision making among states, to joint decision making by
use of international institutions. Joint decision making provides a collective good
where each state benefits from the decision made. These international institutions
come in the form of physical organizations, and regimes (rules and norms) (1). An
example of an organization is the United Nations and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty is a regime. According to neoliberals, international institutions increase
communication, transparency, and trust between states. What can neoliberals offer for
the US-Iran conflict?

Kaiser 9

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was created to deter states from acquiring
nuclear weapons. The purpose of this treaty is to prevent the production of nuclear
arms and nuclear security dilemmas (11). To assist this regime the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) was implemented to conduct inspections in states which abide
by the treaty. If violations are found, states that recognize the treaty can apply
economic sanctions and political pressure on the state in violation. Currently the US
has put economic sanctions on Iran to pressure cooperation with the IAEA and
international community. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for civilian energy
purposes only. However the IAEA has said it cannot verify whether the intent of the
program is for peaceful means (2). For neoliberals, it would be in Irans best interest to
cooperate with the IAEA to ensure the international community that it does not intend on
producing nuclear weapons. Irans economy and national security are at risk by not
doing so. By being transparent and cooperating with the IAEA, Iran would build a sense
of trust in the international system which would allow the US and Iran to overcome their
current security dilemma. The US should continue to implement sanctions on Iran
whilst encouraging the international system to do the same.
Another worry concerning the gain of a nuclear arsenal is the possibility of Iran
being a rogue state. States in the international community are worried that if Iran
were to acquire a nuclear weapon it would give it to other terrorist organizations (8).

Kaiser 10

This concern provides even more incentive for states to push for transparency in Irans
nuclear program. Neoliberalism and neorealism provide two different perspectives on
this issue. I will now examine each theories perspective and determine which one I
believe would be a better choice.
The approaches each theory provides for the US on the Iranian conflict are very
different. Neorealists suggest an approach of non intervention and buck passing the
burden to other states in Irans region. Neoliberals suggest the US continue economic
and political pressures to make cooperation Irans best interest. When examining both
theories I see many more flaws with the neoliberal approach than the neorealist.
Neoliberals fail to see this conflict through the eyes of the Iranians. They suggest Iran
cooperate with the international institutions and everything will be okay for them. How
can Iran trust these international institutions? How does Iran know its country wont be
invaded after it reveals it has no nuclear weapons? Iran is in a great deal of fear and is
acting out of its own perceived best interest. Iran has observed how other non nuclear
countries in its region have been undermined by the West. Historically, the US does not
invade countries that have nuclear weapons. Iran may view the nuclear bomb as the
solution to its problems.
Neoliberals also fail to recognize the hypocrisy which is international regimes.
Regimes are suppose to apply to all states in the international system, yet states like the

Kaiser 11

US, who support these regimes, are the ones who violate them most often. Illegal wars,
torture, assassinations, and the murder of innocent foreign peoples are at the top of this
list. In Thucydides Melian Dialog he wrote, The strong do what they have the power
to do and the weak accept what they have to accept (5). This fear in the US that the
Iranians would actually use this weapon or give it to terrorist organizations is completely
propagated. States are rational actors and it would not be in Irans best interest to use
the bomb. The use of this bomb would lead to Iranian extinction by Western powers.
The notion that Iran is a rogue state and would give the bomb to terrorist organizations
is utterly preposterous. Again, it would not be in Irans best interest to do so.
I believe it would be in the US best interest to back away from this situation and
allow states in the region to deal with this conflict. The US is driving itself bankrupt by
overspending on unnecessary military resources and actions, when there is a rising
regional hegemon knocking on its door. The US would be better off dealing with the
economic problems on its own soil and building up its power internally so it may have
the resources it needs to deal with a rapidly growing China.
At the end of the Cold War the US emerged as the worlds only super power. The
attacks of September 11, 2001 brought a shift to this balance of power. Though still a
regional hegemon and the worlds only super power, the US lost relative power. To
reestablish the balance of power and sense of security it once had, the US decided to

Kaiser 12

begin its War on Terror. This aggressive foreign policy caused the US to enter
unnecessary and unprecedented wars without legitimate cause. Some of the
consequences of these wars was the creation of high potential long-term instability in
the region, an increase in terrorism, and a decrease of security and US power by over
expansion and spending (7). Diluted by the illusion that these actions are making them
more secure, the US is now pushing for involvement in Iran. I side with neorealist when
it comes to this issue. The US needs to cut back its military spending and presence in
the Middle East. It must buck pass the burden and allow the states to balance the
power in the region amongst themselves. As Douglas MacGregor stated, I think if we
could exercise some patience and restraint, over time we could see the conditions in the
region change dramatically. The Turks are the most powerful military force in the region.
Turkey has interest in Iraq as well as Iran, and they are increasingly in conflict with each
other. We dont need to become involved in these things (12). Though I align with
neorealist strategies on the issue, both theories imply non-waring solutions. Yet in
United States politics and news media we often see a push for military involvement in
Iran. Why would this be if both theories clearly outline that military involvement is not in
our best interest? Leading international relations scholars and neorealists John
Meirshiemer and Steven Walt wrote a book titled The Israel Lobby, which states that
there is a powerful pro Israel group that has integrated itself in US domestic politics and

Kaiser 13

has a great influence on its foreign policy. Douglas MacGregor had this to say on the
Iranian conflict, This tension is artificial... We dont need to engage them, theres
nothing to be gained mutually. All of this sadly I think is connected to Israel, and the
Israeli fear of Iran (12).

Works Cited
1) Baldwin, David A. "Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics." (1993): n. pag.
EBSCO. Web. 12 Dec. 2012.
2) Carter, Chelsea J., Saskya Vandoorne Reported from London, and Chelsea J. Carter
from Atlanta. "Official: Iran, Nuclear Watchdog Group Deal Close." CNN. Cable
News Network, 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/meast/iran-us-sanctions/index.html>.
3) "CNN.com." CNN.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/13/lol.07.html>.
4) "EHUD BARAK, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU." EBSCO. UWEC, n.d. Web. 12 Dec.
2012.<http://http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=bf7143eb-d06b-4a6ab593cb697059aa52%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Q
tbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=83705758>.

Kaiser 14

5) Kemos, Alexander. "Thucydides in the Modern World." Thucydides in the Modern

World. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. <http://www.hri.org/por/thucydides.html>.
6) Mousavian, Seyed. "Obama Must Offer a 'grand Deal' with Iran on Its Nuclear
Program." EBSCO. UWEC, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012.
<http://http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=a7e83b97-1bd0-4278-9e469d7cdd2299e6%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Q
tbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=83804049>.
7) Nau, Henry R. "Page 33." Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions,
and Ideas. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2007. N. pag. Print.
8) Nau, Henry R. "Page 58." Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions,
and Ideas. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2007. N. pag. Print.
9) Padukone, Neil. "Would It Be So Bad If Iran Got Nuclear Weapons?" The Daily Beast.
Newsweek/Daily Beast, 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/23/would-it-be-so-bad-if-iran-gotnuclear-weapons0.html>.
10) Scheuer, Michael. "Foreign Policy Magazine." Foreign Policy. N.p., n.d. Web. 11
Dec. 2012. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/03/president_paul>.
11) "UNODA - Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)." UN News Center. UN, n.d.
Web. 14 Dec. 2012. <http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml>.

Kaiser 15

12) "US/Iran Tension Artificial?" YouTube. Russia Today, 05 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Dec.
2012. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oWP0HBxXc>.
13) Walt, Stephen M. "Why Ron Paul May Actually Have Something Right." Foreign
Policy. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
<http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/06/why_ron_paul_may_actually_hav
e_something_right>.
14) Waltz, Kenneth. "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb." Global. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec.
2012.<http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iranshould-get-the-bomb>.
15) Wolfe, Lisa R. "COLD WAR IRAN: CEMENTING THE US-IRANIAN ALLIANCE."
The Cold War RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.coldwarstudies.com/2011/05/24/cold-war-iran-cementing-the-usiranian-alliance/>.