Mediating Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Weapons in Iran

               Thankfully, the world has never known nuclear war, though eight sovereign states have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. These nations reside outside of the Middle East, but should Iran gain nuclear capabilities, the dynamic could shift dramatically. There are many potential problems with the Iran becoming nuclearized, especially regarding Iran’s oil stakes and vehement hatred of Israel and the United States. However, there is hope that the widely known theory of mutually assured destruction could help mitigate this threat. International relations scholar postulate that reciprocated nuclear weapons prevent any drastic action, as even ‘mad men’ in history have failed to detonate truly world ending weapons. Sadly, the threat of weapons in Iran oversteps the supposed benefits of mutually assured destruction, and any kind of nuclear weapons in this region will have negative repercussions for the United States.

                Iran, one of the strongest powers in the Middle East, is already a considerable source of conflict for the United States. In Henry Sokolski’s article Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran, he argues that should Iran develop nuclear weapons, they will encourage nuclear programs in neighboring countries, raise oil prices, and increase terrorism in the region. These results pose a variety of risks to the United States for obvious reasons, and Iran’s overt and passionate hatred of Israel is yet another cause for concern. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East, not just Iran, would severely upset the balance of power and influence of the United States, as well as escalate the numerous terrorist threats in the region. There are obvious concerns regarding nuclear weapons in Iran, and it is definitely an issue requiring delicacy and attentiveness.

                The theory of mutually assured destruction maintains that two nations with similar nuclear capabilities will be frozen in a state of inactivity, as any acts of aggression will be matched and the world may never be the same. Integrating this theory with nuclear weapons in Iran is interesting, as Iran currently does not have any nuclear weapons, let alone an arsenal similar in nature to the United States. Part of the MAD theory is having second strike capabilities, or the capacity for a nation to launch an offensive attack after being attacked itself. Iran is nowhere near close to having automatic second strike capabilities, which threatens the delicate balance of MAD. This puts the United States in an advantageous position, as our arsenal is incredibly impressive and definitely superior to any Iran could develop in the near future.

                Sadly, the negative repercussions of Iran’s potential nuclear arsenal greatly span beyond the physical damage of nuclear weapons. Iran has massive political influence in the Middle East, and acquiring nuclear weapons could be the catalyst for many Middle Eastern countries nuclearizing. Continually, Iran surpassing Saudi Arabia in weapons could upset the balance of OPEC and drive oil prices up, which would severely upset the US economy. Finally, terrorism, the perpetual threat to the west, would inevitably strengthen through nuclear weapons in this region. Overall, MAD may ensure that Iran will not physically attack the United States with nuclear weapons, but the economic and political repercussions of WMDs in Iran will have vast effects on international relations in the region.