بين قنبلة إسرائيل وقنبلة إيران المرتقبة.. أين يكمن الاستقرار؟

The title of my article raises many questions, the rational answers to which contradict the title of an article by the American political scientist Professor Kenneth Waltz (June 8, 1924 – May 12, 2013), titled: "Why Iran Should Get The Bomb?", published in 2012 in the prestigious American magazine "Foreign Affairs." This article by Waltz originally stemmed from the general idea in his book published in 1981, titled:

“The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better,” which translates to: “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More of Them May Mean Better.”

I still remember, and today more than any other day, that lecture in late 2012 that I attended at the

Centre Européen de Recherches Internationales & Stratégiques - the European Centre for International and Strategic Studies (CERIS), which I currently head regionally in the Middle East and Africa - one of the most important think tanks and academic centers in Europe and the world. The guest speaker was Kenneth Waltz (who, by the way, was Obama’s professor at the University of Chicago when he was a student there). The lecture revolved around his aforementioned article, where he summarized his geopolitical perspective based on his theory of "neorealism," stating that Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb would necessarily mean balancing the threat of the Israeli nuclear arsenal and deterring Israel's bullying in the region, thus averting the chaos that would result from Israel's nuclear dominance in the region.

As I listened to him that day, questions were boiling inside me, such as... Does balancing Iran against Israel with nuclear weapons really push the specter of wars and chaos away from the region? Whether one agrees or disagrees with Waltz, he built this geopolitical perspective on a pragmatic realism called Realpolitik, which strips away emotions and looks at the means—whatever they may be—that achieve the ends. It is noted that Kenneth Waltz published his aforementioned article just a few months before his death (he passed away in 2013), and the article served as a "testament" to his student, then-President Barack Obama, who seemed to have sought to achieve it. During his presidency, the Iranian nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council + Germany) were born, flourished, and advanced in favor of Iran, in what became known as the "Iran Deal"!

Of course, I personally completely disagree with Waltz's proposition, and I have the advantage of being, first and foremost, a son of the region and having known and witnessed the dynamics of conflicts there and their nature up close, unlike Waltz, who contented himself with theorizing from thousands of miles away without living in the Middle East and understanding the precursors and repercussions of conflicts and the agendas of powers there. For example, Waltz's proposition ignores the ideological motivations of the Iranian regime and overlooks the unpredictable nature of nuclear weapons proliferation.

In contrast to Waltz's theory, a nuclear Iran would escalate conflicts and push the region into a dangerous arms race. Hence, Waltz's idea that "more bombs mean more peace" is a dangerously naive notion, especially in a region where non-state actors (militias) and ideological motivations undermine the principle of deterrence based on rationality, as was the case during the Cold War. Waltz's immersion in academic theorizing, far removed from the realities of the Middle East, led him to overlook a fundamental truth: that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, and even Israel, which already possesses a nuclear arsenal, do not bring stability but lead to chaos. There is no clearer example of the chaos currently engulfing the region than the Israeli-Iranian war, which was initiated by Israel, followed by missile and drone attacks from Iran, Israel's response, and America's recent military interventions alongside it targeting nuclear facilities, which was followed by Iran's latest response of missile strikes against a Gulf state... our sister Qatar.

All this chaos has brought the region to the brink of explosion, and some countries within it remain exposed to existential threats, specifically the Gulf Arab states... these six countries... gardens amidst fires!

Not to mention that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would necessarily mean an arms race, as countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey would then seek to acquire their own nuclear weapons. This would also lead to a paralysis of the already-stalled diplomatic process! The idea of deterrence (meaning Iran as a nuclear deterrent force against Israel) will not succeed, because Israel's ideology is based on occupation and expansion under the slogan "Greater Israel... from the river to the sea."

In conclusion, the solution for stability in the Middle East does not lie in the proliferation of nuclear bombs, whether those anticipated from Iran or the existing Israeli ones. Establishing a nuclear-free zone, while being an idealistic and long-term goal, should remain a continuous regional aspiration. In the short term, the most effective logical, realistic, and feasible solution that leads to building trust and mutual recognition is to accept the principle of coexistence without succumbing to ideological hegemony, within an arrangement known as "modus vivendi," which is a principle in international relations based on temporary coexistence as a reality between conflicting parties (Iran-Israel) without a final agreement, and certainly, that final agreement will not be achieved without first resolving the Palestinian issue, the central issue in the Middle East and the foundation or "shirt of Osman" of its conflicts, through Israel's acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

Niccolò Machiavelli said:

“Wars begin when you want them to, but they do not end when you wish.”

And I would add to Machiavelli's statement that wars do not end when you wish, and also... wherever you wish, as they are not usually confined thereafter to two parties but extend geopolitically, widening their human and material damage.

A closing message through this Saudi platform on the land of the elder sister to the rest of the Gulf Arab states, in the voice of a poet from the land of the elder sister:

Your brother is your brother, for he who has no brother

Is like a seeker in the fray without a weapon.

And your understanding is sufficient!