sign in sign up
<<
Home , Nuclear weapon

Political Analysis

Volume 21 Political Analysis Article 2

2020

Why Do States Acquire Nuclear ? A Theoretical Framework in Assessing in Israel, Iran and

Marlene Da Cruz Seton Hall University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa

Part of the Political Commons

Recommended Citation Da Cruz, Marlene (2020) "Why Do States Acquire Nuclear Weapons? A Theoretical Framework in Assessing Nuclear Proliferation in Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia," Political Analysis: Vol. 21 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa/vol21/iss1/2 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

Why Do States Acquire Nuclear Weapons? A Theoretical Framework in Assessing Nuclear Proliferation in Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia

Marlene Da Cruz

Marlene Da Cruz is a senior at Seton Hall University with plans to graduate with a B.A. in Political Science in May . After graduation she plans on attending law school. The objective of her senior thesis was to analyze and explain nuclear proliferation in some Middle Eastern countries.

motivations behind a state’s decision to acquire ver the past few decades, nuclear nuclear weapons. A state’s commitment to weapons have been regarded as an proliferation should be seen less as a singular O intolerable threat to international decision and more as a process that may be security and humanity. A nuclear weapons influenced by national security reasons, attack has the ability to destroy entire cities and domestic political interests, and national kill billions of people, while also harming prestige. The comparative methodological future generations and jeopardizing the natural approach will be employed to understand the environment through its long-term catastrophic significance of nuclear proliferation in Israel, effects ( Office for Iran and Saudi Arabia. The case studies will Affairs). The spread of nuclear begin with a brief history of each state’s weapons and the risk of a nuclear attack has nuclear weapons program and will assess the alarmed the international community. As a motivations for pursuing and maintaining result, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapons. More importantly, the case (NPT) was established in 1968 to curtail the studies will focus on how the ’ spread of nuclear weapons by promoting presence and interests in the Middle East cooperation amongst international state actors. caused some Middle Eastern nations to obtain Despite the establishment of the NPT, the last nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the international decade has seen the addition of three new, relations theories of Liberalism and publicly acknowledged nuclear states, namely, Constructivism will be rejected as the , and (Kreiger 369). determining factors of nuclear proliferation. Iran has also publicly expressed high ambitions This paper will argue that Realism and United to create . However, there are States’ interests and alliances are the two states who have refrained from weaponizing determining factors to explain the acquisition their nuclear such as Saudi Arabia, of nuclear weapons by some countries in the Afghanistan, and Palestine. The question then Middle East. becomes: why do some states choose to pursue nuclear weapons and others do not? LITERATURE REVIEW In this paper, there will be an emphasis on Since the creation of the first nuclear why some nations in the Middle East by the United States in the , strategists weaponize their nuclear energy and why others and analysts have sought to explain why some decide not to. Theories regarding nuclear countries choose to militarize their nuclear proliferation act as a tool to help understand the power and why others choose to refrain. The

1 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

conventional view of proliferation is that a by gaining access to a nuclear deterrent (Sagan country, at some point, makes an explicit 57). Strong states pursue a form of internal decision to seek nuclear weapons. Next, the balancing by adopting a policy of developing country launches a secret program and finally their own nuclear weapons, while weak states achieves nuclear status by testing a device on join a balancing alliance with a nuclear power a particular date. In reality, the path to nuclear as a means of extended deterrence (Sagan 57). weapons capability requires many important Overall, Sagan’s theory on the Security Model and complex choices along the way (Davidson argues that states build nuclear weapons to 20). The complexity of nuclear proliferation increase national security against foreign cannot be summarized in one simple threats. international theory or model. Instead, existing , in his book Theory of literature revolves around the three International , argues that nuclear fundamental schools of power states are concerned with maintaining thought with a primary focus on the their position within the international system. perspective of nuclear weapons. Each theory States work harder to increase their strength, or and framework helps to provide an combine with others, if they are falling behind explanation of the causes and motivations of (Waltz 127). Waltz places high importance on some Middle Eastern nations desire to become the structure of the international system. He nuclear power states. states that the distinction between international The traditionally dominant theory and national realms of politics is not found in regarding the motivations for states to pursue the use or the nonuse of force, but in their nuclear weapons revolves around the security different structure (Waltz 104). Since the model or the international theory of Realism. structure of the international system is one , in his article Why Do States Build centered around the idea of self - help, security Nuclear Weapons? Three models in search of a subordinates economic gain to political interest bomb, outlines three theoretical frameworks to (Waltz 107). In fact, the structure of the help examine why states decide to build or international system forces states to become refrain from developing nuclear weapons. The self-reliant and power seekers. By creating first theoretical framework is called the nuclear weapons, that state becomes less reliant Security Model. This model has been the most on others. Additionally, the acquisition of supported theory to explain why some nations nuclear capability is a potent technique to choose to create nuclear weapons. The Realist prevent the rise of nuclear competition amongst theory in political science argues that states surrounding nations. Waltz highlights that exist in an anarchical international system and weaker states will create an alliance with must rely on self-help to protect their stronger nuclear power states as a form of sovereignty and national security (Sagan 57). protection. Nuclear weapons act as an This is based upon the idea that individuals are instrument by dominant states to safeguard and thirsty for power and act in accordance with legitimize their status in the international their own self-interests. A state will seek to community. More importantly, the acquisition develop nuclear weapons when faced with a of nuclear weapons was designed for nuclear significant threat to their security that power states to maintain their control over cannot be met through alternative means nuclear supplies by preventing and (Sagan 54). Due to ’s eliminating competition. destructive capabilities, a state that seeks to On a similar note, in The Spread of Nuclear maintain national security must balance against Weapons: A Debate Renewed, Kenneth Waltz any rival state that develops nuclear weapons argues that the growth of nuclear membership

2 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· will contribute to a safer world. He also states possible attack by another powerful state that despite nuclear proliferation efforts, further emphasizes the importance of being nuclear weapons will continue to spread. Waltz fearful of other nations. Political competition claims that each state has a responsibility to among states is a much more dangerous protect themselves by establishing a form of business than economic intercourse, because in security, that can be done by incorporating extreme cases, can lead to the destruction either the defensive ideal or . of states (Mearsheimer 33). Mearsheimer If war were to occur between two nuclear emphasizes that states in the international states, the of imminent escalation will system aim to assure their security and prevent these states from attacking due to the survival. More specifically, each state tends to uncertain realization of annihilation or survival see itself as vulnerable and alone, and therefore (Waltz 9). Furthermore, he uses a Realist it aims to provide for its own survival perspective saying that possession of nuclear (Mearsheimer 33). Additionally, Mearsheimer weapons may slow arms races down, rather mentions that states look for an opportunity to than speed them up. Additionally, less- alter the balance of power. States employ a developed governments do not have the variety of means to shift the balance of power monetary means nor intellectual knowledge to in their favor, even if doing so makes other formulate nuclear weapons. Lastly, highly states suspicious or even hostile (Mearsheimer unstable regimes are unlikely to initiate nuclear 34). By acquiring nuclear weapons, a state has due to domestic political turmoil the ability to change the balance of power and (Waltz 11). The spread of nuclear weapons will increase their own security while threatening enhance a states’ national security. This is all the security of surrounding nations. to say that the gradual spread of nuclear The origins of Liberal theory have roots in weapons should be more welcomed than feared the eighteenth- century period of (Waltz 45). enlightenment. Liberalism holds that human , in his book The Tragedy nature is basically good and that people can of Great Power Politics, argues that great- improve their moral and material conditions power rivalry is still present in the international (Mingst 83). More specifically, understanding system, which contributes to a dangerous laws allow people to improve their condition in security competition between powerful nations. society. Additionally, Liberalism views war as Great powers are always searching for a result of inadequate institutions and opportunities to gain power over their rivals, misunderstanding between world leaders. with hegemony as their final goal Liberals are strong proponents of democracies (Mearsheimer 29). Mearsheimer emphasizes and cooperation amongst state leaders. that the principle goal for great powers is to According to Liberal thinking, the expansion of achieve regional hegemony. The acquisition of human freedom is best achieved in nuclear weapons is one- way great power states democracies and through well-regulated market can maintain their security in an archaic capitalism (Mingst 83). international system as well as reach regional Scott Sagan proposes a second model of hegemony. Power states regard each other with nuclear proliferation that focuses on domestic suspicion and fear. The basis of this fear is that actors who encourage or discourage in a world where great powers have the governments from pursuing the bomb (Sagan capability to attack each other, any state bent 63). In his article Why Do States Build Nuclear on survival must at least be suspicious of other Weapons? Three models in search of a bomb, states and reluctant to trust them (Mearsheimer Sagan introduces the Domestic Politics Model 32). The consequences of falling victim to a to help explain nuclear proliferation. The

3 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

Domestic Politics model is similar to the believe that nuclear weapons can act as a international theory of Liberalism. Liberals powerful deterrent tool as well as a “tactical believe that injustice, war, and aggression are application against forces concentrated for land not inevitable but can be moderated through breakthroughs and amphibious landings” (Betts institutional agencies and cooperative measures 166). Paranoid States are concerned with (Mingst 83). Because individuals are rational national security however, this paranoia can beings who have the ability to improve their make them believe in an unrealistic security social conditions, an unjust society is thus threat. Lastly, Betts argues that Pariah States formed as a result of unjust government have the concerns of both Pygmy and Paranoid institutions. Adherents to the Domestic Politics States, therefore being the most dangerous Model argue that the decision to acquire nations. Pariah States tend to have paranoid nuclear weapons is based upon bureaucratic attitudes towards the international community interests and parochial priorities. Additionally, thereby having the clearest incentives to domestic leaders create the conditions that increase their military power (Betts 167). This favor weapons acquisition by encouraging paranoid attitude is commonly recognized in an extreme perceptions of foreign threats, authoritarian regime where political power is promoting supportive politicians, and actively centralized in one ruling force. Because there is lobbying for increased defense spending minimal political mobilization in Pariah States, (Sagan 64). In fact, initial ideas for the domestic political leaders hold a tremendous development of nuclear weapons is caused by amount of influence in the nations’ military the formation of domestic coalitions within the decision. scientific-military-industrial complex that favor Scott Sagan introduces a third model that weaponization due to the influx of money and can help explain why some states choose prestige flowing into the laboratories (Sagan nuclear weapons acquisition. This model 64). In order to gain political and social focuses on non-material factors such as status support, scientific domestic coalitions persuade and prestige. According to the Norms Model, politicians within the executive and legislative state behavior is determined not by leaders’ branches to shape social perceptions regarding cold calculations regarding national security the benefits of nuclear weapons. The Domestic interests or their parochial bureaucratic Politics Model views international security interests, but rather spearheaded by deeper threats as being more malleable and merely as norms and shared beliefs about what actions windows of opportunity through which are legitimate and appropriate in international parochial interests can jump (Sagan 65). relations (Sagan 73). Within the realm of Betts, in his article Paranoids, Sociology, new institutionalism refers to Pygmies, Pariahs, and Nonproliferation, modern organizations and institutions coming explains how the domestic political structure of to resemble each other not because of a state has the ability to exert influence on the competition or rational learning but because decision - making process regarding nuclear institutions mimic each other (Sagan 74). New weapons. Betts argues that national security institutionalism emphasizes the importance of and status are the two fundamental motives to a the roles, routines, and rituals of individuals nation acquiring nuclear weapons. However, he and organizations. Such interests are shaped by highlights the pivotal role that domestic the social roles actors are asked to play and political leaders have in the creation of nuclear thus are embedded in a social environment that weapons by analyzing Pygmy States, Paranoid promotes certain structures and behaviors as States, and Pariah States. Pygmy States are rational and legitimate and others as irrational concerned with national security and strongly and primitive (Sagan 74). Nuclear weapons are

4 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· viewed as a tool of modern society where states is constantly at stake. Israel’s survival as a believe that they must possess them in order to civilization surrounded by a hostile and look legitimate to surrounding states and the populous Muslim world has contributed to an international community. Although the inner feeling of absolute fragility (Cohen). establishment of nuclear weapons may not be Israel viewed the establishment of nuclear logical or cost efficient for some states, it is a weapons as a fundamental and critical symbol of modernity that possesses an necessity in order to preserve their security as abundance of power. a nation. In fact, nuclear weapons were seen The international relations theory of as an important element of military power. Constructivism is similar to the Norms Model. The fear of a military attack by a hostile It focuses on the power of ideas, norms, values Arabian nation, it’s geographic location and and principles of a particular state in the the security protection of a major power such embracement or refrainment of nuclear as the United States, were all contributing proliferation. Domestic political actors shape factors that led to Israel becoming a nuclear and influence a states’ decision in becoming a weapon state. nuclear power state. According to political Israel’s nuclear weapons program was scientists, literature regarding the development conducted in secrecy with the help of and escalation of nuclear weapons is a result of during the mid 1950s. Israel and France norms within the international community. The formed a cooperative relationship due to norms perspective emphasizes the importance shared commercial and strategic interests in of power and coercion in influencing states to the formation of nuclear weapons. At the time, see the value of acquiring nuclear weapons. In both France and Israel viewed this as an fact, normative pressures may begin with the opportunity to maintain a degree of autonomy actions of entrepreneurial non-state actors, but in foreign policy in the bipolar environment of their beliefs only have a significant influence the (Bahgat 91). Additionally, by once powerful state actors join the cause helping Israel produce nuclear weapons, it (Sagan, 75). Similarly, normative beliefs helped France’s nuclear industry establish regarding nuclear weapons contributed to the credibility in the international community. creation of legal restrictions that prohibited More importantly, what created such a their use during war. Additionally, nations who powerful alliance between these two nations possess nuclear weapons use them as a fear was a common enemy, Egyptian President tactic to deter other nations from acquiring Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein. In 1956, nuclear armaments. Hussein nationalized the Suez that was controlled by France and Britain. Due to this, CASE STUIDES ON NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION the United States and Britain agreed to stop IN THE MIDDLE EAST financing the construction of Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. This led to the “Suez Crisis” A. ISRAEL where Nasser declared martial law in the canal Established in 1948, the state of Israel can zone, seizing all operations of the Suez Canal be classified as a success story. A transition Company (The Suez Crisis, Britannica). Israel from Holocaust to revival, Israel has become decided to invade the canal while British and the region’s most formidable military power French troops withdrew. The Suez Crisis by turning a small, service economy into one ended with Egypt being the victor contributing of the world’s greatest centers for to more aggression towards Nasser by the technological innovation (Cohen). Despite French and the Israelis. For these reasons, Israel’s success as a nation, it continues to be France helped Israel achieve nuclearization. haunted by its past and the country’s survival

5 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

The primary reason as to why Israel chose proliferation. In order for amimut to work, to nuclearize was due to national security, there should be enough credible evidence to more specifically the Arab-Israeli conflict. deter enemies, but sufficient ambiguity and Tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors lack of acknowledgement to allow friends to began after the birth of in 1948. The look the other way (Cohen 46). Firm conflict involves issues relating to ethnic and knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal religious differences as well as disputes over much larger than needed would encourage territorial claims and national integrity Arab states to acquire nuclear weapons (Bickerton 18). Essentially, the struggle is (Barnaby 46). Mutual nuclear deterrence between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews would destabilize the Middle East, so by over territory that each nation claims is theirs. adopting the amimut bargain, Israel created a For Israel, the most important issue is that of code of conduct by not recognizing itself as a national security. In 2006, the terrorist nuclear weapon state. However, Israel was in organization Hezbollah, launched an attack favor of an effective Non Proliferation Treaty against Israel in order to pressure the country as a nuclear-weapons state, but as long as it into releasing Lebanese prisoners. The war faced existential threats, it was not willing to ended after thirty-four days and left over a relinquish it (Cohen 40). Although national thousand of Lebanese dead or displaced security was the primary force that (Arab- Israel , Britannica). Additionally, spearheaded Israel’s decision to become a Israel’s geographical location and close nuclear weapons state, United States toleration proximity to Palestine has made them a target of Israel becoming a nuclear was for attacks. With an increase of military a secondary factor to the nation’s success in presence on the West Bank, Israel has not only proliferation. become immune to the violence but has also Since Israel’s founding in 1948, successive increased conventional military power. Due U.S. Presidents and many Members of to the possibility of being attacked by its Arab Congress have demonstrated a commitment to neighbors, Israel’s primary motivation for Israel’s security and to a close U.S. - Israel establishing nuclear weapons was to enhance cooperation (Zanotti). More importantly, the their national security. United States became tolerant of Israel’s The fundamental question that Israel now nuclear weapons program because the two faces regarding nuclear weapons is whether nations share common democratic values, their possession would serve or harm the economic partnerships, and security interests. nation’s national security (Cohen 34). Over time, U.S. -Israeli relations have evolved The primary reason Israel established nuclear to incorporate legislation, bilateral weapons was for national security reasons agreements, and trade (Zanotti 1). because the bomb acts as a deterrence for The United States was willing to tolerate other nations. Israel established a unique style Israel’s nuclear pursuit due to shared of proliferation and a code of nuclear conduct democratic values. In the first decades that set it apart from other nuclear-weapons following its founding, Israeli society sought states (Cohen 35). Israel adopted an amimut to build a country dedicated to Western liberal bargain where the nation does not ideas and values (Zanotti 5). The United acknowledge its possession of the bomb States and Israel share the same values of despite the international community being tolerance, freedom, and democracy to all aware that it does. Secrecy and non- persons regardless of race, religion or acknowledgement became the key ingredients ethnicity. Both democratic nations hold the for Israel’s amimut bargain with nuclear concept of liberty and freedom to the highest

6 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· regard. Israel’s deep and extensive relationship regarding military aid, arms sales, commitment to democracy was a result of and information sharing (Zanotti 16). More their admiration towards American culture and importantly, the United States helped society. Israel’s government structure and transform Israel’s military through money and political system is based upon free and fair information sharing. In fact, Israel has elections, a mirror of the United generally been the largest annual recipient of States. The U.S. - Israeli relationship was built U.S. foreign assistance by providing $3 billion upon similar fundamental democratic in grants (Zanotti 18). Additionally, Congress principles and values, which contributed to the continues to provide hundreds of millions of United States becoming tolerant of Israeli dollars in annual assistance beyond nuclear weapons. Administration-requested amounts for Israel’s A second factor that contributed to the Iron Dome anti-rocket system and joint U.S. - United States acceptance of Israeli nuclear Israel defense programs (Zanotti 20). proliferation is economic interests. Economic United States aid was designed to maintain aid from the United States to Israel began after Israel’s “qualitative military edge” over Israel’s victory in the Six Day War in 1967. neighboring (Zanotti 16). By The Six Day War was a bloody conflict helping to reinforce Israel’s national security between Israel and the Arab nations of , through military equipment and monetary aid, Egypt and Jordan. Israel’s success in the Six the United States is establishing regional Day War was largely due to its military stability in the Middle East. Due to similar strategic planning. By launching preemptive democratic values and economic interests, air strikes and coordinating ground offense Israel’s national security is of great strategies, Israeli victory completely altered importance to the United States. Essentially, the geographical landscape of the Middle East. the United States is aware that re-enforcing This altercation greatly benefited the United Israel’s national security will help in States and Israel with regards to economic stabilizing the Middle East. More importantly, trade. In 1985, the two nations signed the Free Israel’s national security is of equal benefit to Trade Agreement (FTA), which became the the United States because it helps decrease cornerstone of a vibrant U.S. - Israel economic traditional security threats from the relationship (Oren 128). Since then, Israel surrounding Arab nations. became one of the largest trading partners to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is the United States. This mutual economic largely influenced by the Realist theory where relationship is primarily due to shared gaining nuclear weapons is the only way to common values of a free and competitive guarantee the nation’s security. In fact, market economy. The constant dialogue nuclear weapons were seen as insurance between the governments of Israel and the against the day when Israel loses its United States to upgrade their economic conventional military technological partnership and to ensure continued prosperity superiority over the Arabs and needs a has resulted in a strong alliance between these deterrent against an Arab chemical attack two nations (Oren 128). (Barnaby 50). More importantly, a state will The most significant factor that led to the decide to go nuclear depending on the level United States acknowledging and accepting and type of security threats that it faces and Israel’s nuclear weapons program is largely the nature of the interactions with its due to security interests. Strong bilateral adversaries and its geo-strategic environment relations regarding security interests in the (Bahgat 8). Additionally, the realist approach Middle East reinforced U.S. - Israel

7 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· can be implemented to describe Iran’s nuclear leaders looked the other way during Iran’s ambitions. early nuclear foray (Mayer 7). After the 1979 Islamic Revolution that B. IRAN overthrew the Shah of Iran, Ayatollah For more than two decades, Iran has Khomeini seized power and halted the aggressively invested time, money and country’s nuclear weapons program. resources into nuclear weapon capabilities. An Khomeini strongly believed that nuclear examination into Iran’s motivations to acquire weapons were a complete contradiction of nuclear weapons requires a close evaluation what Islam stood for. However, despite on each analytical level. Each analytical level damages to Iran’s nuclear energy facilities by can offer specific insight into the reasons why the United States and the Iraqi government, Iran has chosen to proliferate. Taken together, Iran restarted its nuclear weapons program in system, state and individual level motivations the . Iran argued that their development can provide a fairly complete picture of Iran’s of nuclear energy is motivated by the desire to nuclear proliferation process (Mayer 1). Three generate electricity and to master the factors that largely motivated Iran’s ambition cycle in order to become a supplier of nuclear to acquire nuclear weapons were domestic fuel in the future (Chubin 24). Iran’s political interests, national prestige, and acquisition of fuel cycle includes facilities for national security. reprocessing and highly enriched Iran’s nuclear energy program was initiated , the two essential components needed when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was still to create nuclear weapons. Ultimately, Iran’s in power. The Shah was determined to create focus on super-enrichment, its history of an ambitious nuclear energy program in order concealment, and its virtually limitless supply to help Iran modernize as a nation. With the of oil leaves most experts convinced that it is expertise of Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. in fact seeking nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran Abdul Qadeer Kahn and with the aid of some strengthened their nuclear energy program by nuclear weapon states, Iran embarked on an creating the Organization impressive scheme to evade export controls on responsible for operating nuclear energy and dual use of (Greenblum 62). cycle installations. A closer Additionally, Western countries like the analysis of Iran’s nuclear weapons program United States supported Iran’s quest for reveals that the nation chose to proliferate due nuclear energy after the country signed the domestic political interests, national prestige Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. and national security issues. This was a period where the Shah enjoyed Iran’s nuclear ambitions are shaped by good relations with the United States and domestic political interests. Iranian policy is other Western countries (Greenblum 61). In driven less by a rigid ideological revolutionary the early stages of developing nuclear energy, to one that encompasses different national the United States provided support and aid to interests in order to be more receptive to Iran’s nuclear energy program. Enriched fuel global norms and rules. Looking at the was supplied by an American company, AMF, individual , Iranian leaders are where Iran agreed to purchase eight reactors locked onto particular interests of which they (Bahgat 20). This purchase was used to create will be very reluctant to let go (Mayer 4). a uranium enrichment plant in order to These domestic political actors have generate nuclear energy which in turn had the persuaded government leaders and societal potential to generate nuclear weapons. Since elites that nuclear weapons are needed for the United States wanted the Shah to rise to political power and military strength. As a the role of Gulf protectorate, United States

8 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· result, Iranian President Akbar Hashemi other nuclear weapon states. The choice to be Rafsanjani began improving economic and self-reliant in creating nuclear weapons was diplomatic relations with other world leaders. largely motivated by Iran’s inability to trust Internal political forces are utilized to foreign countries, more specifically the United persuade individuals that nuclear weapons States. In fact, Iranians accuse the United programs are needed and essential for the States of pursuing a policy of “Selective nations’ national security, regardless if these Proliferation” that permits some countries to weapons serve the states interest. In this enrich fuel and others not to (Bahgat 37). This realm, bureaucratic actors from double standard of “selective proliferation” is scientific institutions, special military units, evidently seen through the United States and political arms form coalitions strong reaction of discovering Israel’s nuclear enough to control the governmental decision- weapons capabilities and later accepting it. making process, through controlling The primary motivating factor for Iran’s information or by direct political power nuclear ambitions is national security issues. (Mayer 60). Iran’s nuclear weapons program The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran was facilitated by active participants that would act as a deterrence strategy from create conditions which favor proliferation to conventional and existential threats by , counter perceived national security threats Israel and the United States. The potential (Mayer 60). Domestic political interests threat from Iraq is the most persuasive reason enticed Iran to expand their nuclear energy for Iran to consider acquiring nuclear deterrent program and to establish nuclear weapons. (Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Options: Issues and Despite the influence of domestic actors in Analysis). Because Iraq is known to have establishing nuclear weapons, the nuclear sought nuclear, chemical and biological issue is a metaphor for Iran’s quest for greater weapons of mass destruction, Iran’s national respect and a wider regional and global role security is threatened by the possibility of (Chubin 28). such an attack. In fact, Iraq continues to A deeper analysis into Iran’s motivations to remain determined in creating nuclear and acquire nuclear weapons reveals a desire to chemical capabilities despite the International gain national prestige. Most Iranians perceive community’s condemnation of these actions. their nation as a great civilization that has The fear of an Iraqi chemical attack became a been deprived of its “rightful” status as a reality in 1988 during the Iran- when regional superpower by foreign intervention Iraqi Kurds used chemical weapons against from the Russians, the British, and the Iranian troops. International inaction Americans (Bahgat 36). This intense feeling reinforced Iran’s view that arming themselves of victimization has strengthened Iran’s desire with nuclear weapons will be for defense and to build nuclear weapons. Establishing an deterrence purposes. The only way to ensure Iranian nuclear weapon facility would the nation’s national security and safety is to establish respect as well as fear to the acquire the bomb. surrounding Arab nations, Israel and the Israel is often depicted by Iranians either as United States. Driven by popular sentiments, a direct threat or as a state with imperial Iranians insist that they have an “inalienable motivations (Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Options: right” to produce nuclear fuel and to be self- Issues and Analysis). More specifically, Iran sufficient in their nuclear program (Bahgat views Israel as a regional competitor that was 36). More specifically, Iran has chosen to be created by the United States to balance the self-dependent in acquiring nuclear weapons power in the Middle East. Despite the current by refusing to ask for aid and assistance from animosity between Iran and Israel, these two

9 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· nations were not always rivals. It was not until Since the 1979 revolution, the United the defeat of Iraq in 1991 and the United States has consistently identified Iran’s States military intervention in 2003 that support for militant Middle Eastern groups as hostile tension between Iran and Israel a significant threat to U.S. interests and allies surmounted. To make worse, the (U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications). Since differing ideological perspectives and Iran’s 2002, the United States has attempted to nuclear ambitions only heightened tensions constrain Iran’s nuclear weapons program between these two nations. Additionally, Iran through the implementation of diplomatic views Israel as a military and geopolitical rival agreements, economic sanctions and military due to Israel’s strong relationship with the deployments. In 2015, Iran and the six world United States. With Israel as the only regional powers met to establish a deal that would limit state considering military action against Iran Iran’s nuclear program by increasing as its nuclear efforts move forward, the rivalry surveillance in exchange for uplifting between Israel and Iran has emerged as a economic sanctions imposed by the United defining feature of the current regional States. However, in May 2018, the Trump environment (Israel and Iran: A Dangerous Administration withdrew the United States Rivalry). Gaining nuclear weapons will only from the 2015 nuclear agreement, formally help reinforce Iran’s security and decrease known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of conventional military threats from Israel and Action (JCPOA) (U.S.-Iran Tensions and the United States. The ability to acquire Implications). The Trump Administration nuclear weapons is strongly motivated by argued that the agreement did not address the Iran’s national security as opposed to broad range of U.S. concerns about Iranian domestic political interests and national behavior and would not permanently preclude prestige. Although national security is one Iran from developing nuclear weapons (U.S.- factor that has contributed to Iran seeking Iran Tensions and Implications). As a result, nuclear weapons, the United States hostile the United States turned to economic and response is what contributed to their lack of military pressure in order to deter Iran from success. advancing their nuclear weapons program. The United States continues to be Ever since the Trump Administration intolerant towards Iran’s motivations to withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran in acquire nuclear weapons. United States 2018, the administration has pursued a policy hostility towards Iran’s nuclear ambitions is of Maximum Pressure in the hopes of largely due to the unstable relationship these negotiating a better agreement with Iran. The two nations have with each other. More policy of Maximum Pressure includes specifically, the establishment of nuclear economic sanctions and military action by weapons by Iran would threaten United States United States Armed Forces. For example, in interests in the region. U.S. - Iran relations May 2019, the Trump Administration ended a have been adversarial since the 1979 Islamic U.S. sanctions exception for any country Revolution in Iran where Mohammad Reza purchasing Iranian oil (U.S.-Iran Tensions and Shah, who was known to have ties to the Implications). This course of action was taken United States, was overthrown. Orchestrated to drive Iranian oil exports down, thus dealing by Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolution led to a devastating blow to their economy. the establishment of an Islamic republic in Additionally, the United States ended waivers Iran, contributing to even more tension under the Iran Freedom and Counter- between these two nations. Proliferation Act, that allowed countries to help Iran remain within stockpile limits (U.S.-

10 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

Iran Tensions and Implications). The Trump ambitions to nuclearize and become a nuclear Administration responded militarily by weapon state to defend itself from the United planning to deploy the USS Abraham Lincoln States and its allies. Iran’s efforts to nuclearize Carrier Strike Group to the region and sending is primarily due to national security reasons as a task force to the Persian Gulf in the well as the intense feeling of victimization it hopes of cultivating fear amongst the Iranian has towards the United States. government (U.S.-Iran Tensions and Implications). Unfortunately, this tactic by the C. SAUDI ARABIA Trump Administration was unsuccessful. The Very little attention is given to Saudi Administration responded by allocating Arabia’s capabilities to create nuclear immediate foreign military sales exceeding weapons in the Middle East. Being the third over $8 billion to Saudi Arabia in an effort to giant state on the Persian Gulf, the question “deter further Iranian adventurism in the Gulf must be asked: Is Saudi Arabia seeking and throughout the Middle East” (U.S.-Iran nuclear weapons capability? No concrete Tensions and Implications). evidence has been found to suggest Saudi Despite the Trump Administrations acquisition of nuclear weapons. Although Maximum Pressure policy efforts, Iran Saudi Arabia has the financial capability to responded by demonstrating its ability to harm create nuclear weapons, the nation does not global commerce and United States interests experience a severe national security threat while raising concerns regarding nuclear unlike Israel and Iran. More importantly, close activities. In June 2019, Iran shot down an security cooperation with the United States unmanned aerial surveillance , has left Saudi Arabia with little incentive to claiming that it had entered Iranian airspace acquire nuclear weapons (Bahgat 65). Even over the Gulf of Oman (U.S.-Iran Tensions more so, the United States commitment to the and Implications). The downing of the survival of the Saudi regime and the country’s American drone was a clear message to the territorial integrity has contributed to no United States that Iran will defend its borders security threats and is the best guarantee that against any foreign aggressor. Iran’s the nation will not seek nuclear weapons retaliation against the United States economic (Bahgat 66). Saudi Arabia’s geostrategic sanctions and military deployment efforts did placement and close alliance with the United not stop there. In September 2019, Iran States are the two significant factors to help launched a large and sophisticated attack on explain why such a wealthy nation has chosen Saudi oil facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais. nuclear restraint. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated Saudi Arabia’s geostrategic characteristics that Iran has now launched an unprecedented has significantly shaped the nation’s security attack on the world’s energy supply (U.S.-Iran environment. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is Tensions and Implications). As a result, the the largest and most powerful state in the attack contributed to a significant portion of Arabian Peninsula as well as an important the Saudi oil fields being shut down. The actor in oil affairs (Peterson 7). Saudi Arabia attack on the Saudi oil field primarily has the smallest population in comparison to devastated United States interest with oil. its rivals in the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia’s Despite United States efforts to punish Iran’s national security was of major concern during decades-long history of destructive tactics and the Cold War when the nuclear ambitions, their efforts have only pressured the nation to become Communist. contributed to more hostility between the two The Soviet Union and surrounding Arab nations. This hostility further exceeds Iran’s nationalist regimes presented a major security threat to the survival of the nation.

11 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

Additionally, like most of the Arab nations, States as an important factor for the nations’ the Saudis resented the establishment of the security. To demonstrate the nation’s Israeli nation. In an effort to create peace, a commitment to nuclear restraint, Saudi Arabia meeting took place between U.S. President signed a memorandum of understanding on Franklin Roosevelt and Saudi King Saud ibn Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation in 2008 Abd al-Aziz where two agreements were (Squassoni, 8). No credible evidence suggests established. Despite this agreement between that Saudi Arabia has ever pursued nuclear the two nations, Saudi Arabia continued to weapons or has the ambition to do so. Shortly view Israel as a contributor to the high thereafter the signing of the Civil Nuclear instability in the Middle East. But, instead of Energy Cooperation, the U.S. Department of relying on the Soviet Union in the struggle State released a statement stating, “Saudi against Israel, Saudi Arabia sought the help Arabia has stated its intent to rely on and alliance of western countries, particularly international markets for nuclear fuel and to the United States, to exert pressure on the not pursue sensitive nuclear ” Jewish state (Bahgat 69). A comprehensive (Squassoni, 8). Additionally, being a non- solution to regain back stability in the region nuclear state member of the Nuclear Non- can only be accomplished if Israel gives back Proliferation Treaty, Saudi Arabia has Arab territories that was acquired after the Six welcomed comprehensive safeguards in order Day War. Over time, Saudi Arabia has joined to further the objective of a weapons free United States peace negotiations with Israel in zone. Because Saudi Arabia does not suffer an effort to decrease hostility between the two any security threats, the acquisition of nuclear nations. Although Saudi Arabia blamed the weapons is not needed to deter potential creation of Israel for the instability in the attackers. Middle East, it never planned to confront One factor as to why Saudi Arabia Israel with a conventional or unconventional continues to be a non-nuclear weapon state is military attack. This is all to say, due to Saudi its close alliance with the United States. For Arabia's geostrategic location, the nation did more than seven decades, Saudi Arabia’s not gain any hostile enemies, therefore not relationship with the United States centered having any security reasons to establish around trade, technical cooperation and nuclear weapons. military and civilian contracts (Safran, 210). The nature of the relationship between More specifically, these interests centered Saudi Arabia and Iran did not contribute to around oil supplies, security and the any national security risks for either country. of militant Islam. Unlike Israel In fact, both nations share important and the United States who share similar similarities such as foreign policy democratic values, the United States orientations, Islam, oil, regional security and relationship with Saudi Arabia is the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has shaped predominantly shaped by economic and their relationship. Iran and Saudi Arabia share security interests for both countries. Saudi similar foreign policy and security orientations Arabia is the second leading source of primarily throughout the Cold War. Both imported oil to the United States, providing nations sought to contain and resist the spread just under one million barrels per day of oil to of Communism to their country. Despite their the U.S market (U.S. Relations with Saudi close relationship in containing communism, Arabia). In fact, Saudi trade with the United Saudi Arabia continued to act suspiciously States grew tremendously from $2.6 billion in towards the Shah of Iran. As a result, Saudi 1974 to $10.2 billion in 1978 (Safran, 215). Arabia viewed its alliance with the United Saudi Arabia’s ability to quickly ramp up oil

12 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· production has made the United States the American -Saudi alliance is built on shared dependent on Saudi oil. However, an Iranian interests, not common values. Despite nuclear weapons program would trigger Saudi growing security uncertainties in the Middle Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons of their East, Saudi Arabia should not be considered a own. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings serious nuclear proliferation threat (Bahgat Institution suggested in 2016 that Saudi 86). Arabia is less concerned about Iranian nuclear weapons that Iran’s quest for regional THE DETERMINING FACTORS TO NUCLEAR hegemony because it believes it is covered by PROLIFERATION the U.S. nuclear umbrella (Squassoni, 12). As National security and United States a result, Saudi Arabia benefits from the United interests are the two determining factors States nuclear umbrella, a guarantee that the regarding nuclear proliferation in the Middle nation will prevent and defend Saudi Arabia East. The Security Model is one theoretical from any potential nuclear attacks. framework that provides insight into the A second factor which led to a strong motivations of nuclear acquisition by Israel alliance between the United States and Saudi and Iran. The security model, similar to the Arabia is largely due to security reasons. After international theory of Realism, argues that the , President Bush states will seek to develop nuclear weapons informed the world that “either you are with when they face a significant military threat to us, or you are with the terrorists (Bahgat 80). their security that cannot be met through Saudi Arabia publicly condemned the alternative means (Sagan 54). Israel chose to terrorists’ attacks and supported the United proliferate due to national security reasons. States position to go to war. The Bush Specifically, the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Administration was content with Saudi efforts Persian Gulf motivated Israel to seek nuclear in cooperation with the War on Terror. This capabilities. The creation of the Jewish state mutual alliance regarding security only after II and the acquisition of strengthened the United States - Saudi nuclear weapons by Israel significantly altered relationship. The unofficial alliance between the balance of power in the region. The the United States and Saudi Arabia is likely to possibility of a nuclear attack by Israel endure for decades to come. Allying with the contributed to Iran’s quest for nuclear United States has contributed significantly to weapons. Additionally, Iran viewed the United an increase in Saudi security within the States military involvement as a threat to the region. Saudi oil has greatly benefited the states’ sovereignty and national security. After United States. Additionally, heightened funding both sides of the Iran-Iraq War, the military action by the United States has United States intervened when Iraq invaded contributed significantly to advancing Saudi Kuwait resulting in the 1991 . After Arabia’s national security. The extensive the September 11 attacks, the Bush economic and military ties between Riyadh Administration invaded Afghanistan in hopes and offers no reason as to why of capturing Osama Bin Laden. Two years Saudi Arabia should acquire nuclear weapons. later, the United States intervened in Iraq Since Saudi Arabia benefits greatly from an because American intelligence believed economic and military relationship with the had weapons of mass United States, by creating nuclear weapons, destruction. Iraq’s ambition to attain nuclear this mutually beneficial relationship will weapons capabilities was an additional threat tremendously impact the security and the to Iran’s national security. Ongoing American economy of Saudi Arabia. More importantly, military presence in the Middle East left Iran feeling vulnerable and powerless, which

13 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

increased their interest in gaining nuclear national security purposes. An Iranian nuclear weapons for security purposes. weapons program would be a threat to the According to Realist theory, every time United States and United States interests. More one state develops nuclear weapons to balance specifically, nuclear weapons in the hands of against its main rival, it also creates a nuclear an Iranian regime would endanger Israel’s threat to another state in the region (Sagan 58). security and destabilize the balance of power in Saudi Arabia’s commitment to refrain from the region. developing nuclear weapons can be explained by the security model. Saudi Arabia is a CONCLUSION wealthy nation that has the capability to The proliferation of nuclear weapons acquire nuclear weapons. However, Saudi states in the Middle East poses a significant Arabia does not have the incentive to threat to United States’ interests, international proliferate because the nation does not have a security and the stability of the region. Efforts significant security threat. Despite Israel’s by the international community to halt the creation of nuclear weapons and Iran’s spread of nuclear weapons, especially by rogue aspiration to proliferate, these two nations are regimes, have been conducted through not a security threat to Saudi Arabia. diplomatic negotiations and military A secondary factor that helps to explain intervention. In order to contain the nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is proliferation of nuclear weapons, the United United States’ interests. Israel and Saudi States has expanded its security presence by Arabia share a mutually beneficial partnership forming alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia with the United States. Because of this, Saudi to maintain the balance of power in the Middle Arabia is protected under the United States East. Longstanding security alliance between nuclear umbrella. United States interests in the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia has providing military aid to Israel and Saudi helped the U.S. contain certain rogue regimes Arabia will contribute to stabilization and the from acquiring nuclear weapons. The two balance of power in the Middle East. United determining factors to explain nuclear States alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia proliferation and nuclear restrain in the Middle are motivated by the ability to dominate and East are national security and United States control foreign policy efforts in the region. By interests and alliances. having the United States as a close ally, Israel The foreign policy theories of Liberalism and Saudi Arabia benefit from economic and and Constructivism fail to answer a critical military aid that strengthens each nations’ question: why do some states choose to acquire national security. The United States is highly nuclear weapons and others choose not to? invested in maintaining the close relationship Although domestic political interests and that it has with Israel and Saudi Arabia because national prestige are two factors that can of its ability to maintain the balance of power explain Iran’s motivations to acquire nuclear in the Middle East. In contrast, Iran does not weapons, national security was the overarching share in a mutually beneficial alliance with the reason why this nation wants weapons. United States, primarily due to U.S. military Similarly, national security was the primary involvement in the region. Ever since the 1979 force that spearheaded Israel’s decision to Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah, the become a nuclear weapon state due to its United States relationship with Iran has been strategic geographical location. Saudi Arabia hostile. Tension escalated between these two has little incentive to build nuclear weapons nations after the United States discovered Iran capabilities largely because the nation does not revamped its nuclear weapons program for face a direct security threat. Nuclear proliferation in Israel and Iran’s ambition to

14 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI· acquire nuclear weapons aligns significantly this thesis conclude that national security and with the realist perspective and the Security United States’ interests and alliances are the Model outlined by Scott Sagan. A state will two determining factors to explain why some seek to develop nuclear weapons when faced nations in the Middle East choose to pursue with a significant military or security threat nuclear weapons and why others have not. (Sagan 54). The United States has been and continues to REFERENCES be a powerful actor in international foreign policy. The U.S. interests and alliances with a Bahgat, G. (2007). Proliferation of Nuclear nation dominates international foreign policy Weapons in the Middle East. Gainesville: and is a second factor in explaining nuclear University Press of Florida. Retrived from proliferation in the Middle East. Due to shared https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d democratic values, economic and military irect=true&AuthType=sso&db=e000xna&A interests, the United States was tolerant N=373475&site=ehost-live towards Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Additionally, the United States continues to Barnaby, F. (1989). The Invisible Bomb. The provide military assistance in the form of in the Middle East. weapons, monetary aid, and military I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd. knowledge in order to help Israel’s national security. The U.S. is invested in Israel’s Betts, R. (1977). Paranoids, Pygmies, national security because the Israeli military Pariahs, and NonProliferation. Foreign has prevented radical nationalist movements Policy., No.26. Slate Group, LLC. that would alter regional stability and security in the region. A similar comparison is drawn to Bickerton, I. (2012). The Arab -Israeli Saudi Arabia’s decision to refrain from Conflict: A Guide for the Perplexed. acquiring nuclear weapons. Because the Continuum, 2012. nations do not have a perceived security threat, EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? acquiring nuclear weapons would be more direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=e900xww& costly than helpful. Additionally, Saudi Arabia AN=836635&site=eds-live continues to enjoy and benefit from United States economic and security resources. Chubin, S. (2006). Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions. Therefore, if Saudi Arabia was to initiate a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. nuclear weapons program, it would negatively impact the nation’s relationship with the United Cohen, A. (2010). Introduction. The Worst States. Since Saudi Arabia has continued to Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb refrain from creating nuclear weapons, despite Press, New York. the resources and monetary means to create a Davidson, K. (2012). Contemporary program, the nation continues to benefit from Perspectives on Nuclear Proliferation. UNE the protection of the United States nuclear Business School, University of New England. umbrella. On the other hand, Iran’s hostile relationship with the United States has posed Greenblum, B. (2006). The Iranian Nuclear severe security issues for the nation, thereby Threat: Israel’s Options Under International seeking nuclear weapons as a tool for security Law. Greenblum EIC Edits. and deterrence. Overall, the United States will continue to be a dominant force in international Katzman, K (2019). U.S. -Iran Tensions and relations and foreign policy. The findings of Implications for U.S. Policy. Congressional

15 POLITICAL ANALYSIS · VOLUME XXI·

Research Service. The MIT Press, International Security, Vol. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R45795.pdf 21, No. 3.

Kaye, D. (2011). Israel and Iran: A Sagan, S and Waltz, K. (2012). The Spread of Dangerous Rivalry. National Defense Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate. Research Institute. W.W. Norton & Company. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/ monographs/2011/RAND_MG1143.pdf Safran, N. (1988). The Ceaseless Quest for Security. Cornell University Press. Kempf, G. (2001). Iran’s Nuclear Options: Issues and Analysis. The Nixon Center. Squassoni, S. (2018). The Implications of Nuclear Cooperation With Saudi Arabia. Krieger, Z. (2007). Nuclear Weapons in Neo- Elliott School of International Affairs, George Realist Theory. International Studies Review, Washington University. Vol.9, No.3. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Mayer, C. (2004). National Security to “Suez Crisis.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Nationalist Myth: Why Iran Wants Nuclear Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 19 July 2019, Weapons. Department of National Security www.britannica.com/event/Suez-Crisis. Affairs, . The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Meer, S. (2016). States’ Motivations to “Arab-Israeli Wars.” Encyclopædia Acquire or Forgo Nuclear Weapons: Four Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 17 Factors of Influence. Journal of Military and Jan. 2019, www.britannica.com/event/Arab- Strategic Studies. Israeli-wars.

Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great “U.S. Relations With Saudi Arabia - United Power Politics. The University of Chicago., States Department of State.” U.S. Department W.W. Norton & Company. of State, U.S. Department of State, www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-saudi- Mingst, K. (2008). Essentials of International arabia/. Relations. W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. , Berkeley. Oren, M. (2008). Israel and the United States: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. The Special Bond Between Two Nations and Two Peoples. The Wall Street Journal. Zanotti, J. (2018). Israel: Background and https://mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20G U.S. Relations. Congressional Research allery/Israel60/ch10.pdf Service.

Petersen, J.(2002). Saudi Arabia and the Illusion for Security. The International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Sagan, S. (1996). Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models of the Bomb.

16 POLITICAL ANALYSIS – VOLUME XX - 2020

POLITICAL ANALYSIS – VOLUME XX - 2020