Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A Nuclear Iran: Promoting Stability or Courting Disaster?

2007; Columbia University; Volume: 60; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

0022-197X

Scott D. Sagan, Kenneth N. Waltz, Richard K. Betts,

Economic Sanctions and International Relations

ON 8 FEBRUARY 2007, at the Kellogg Conference Center at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), the Journal of International Affairs and the Middle East Institute hosted a live debate between Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz. The two political scientists revisited their classic debate on nuclear weapons, addressing recent developments in Iran and possible global responses. Richard K. Betts moderated the event. Dean Lisa Anderson delivered opening remarks. Lisa Anderson: I'm delighted to welcome you here and to congratulate the Journal of International Affairs for having put together such a distinguished and, as it turns out, popular program. It is a tribute to the Journal that for sixty years it has addressed questions in ways both timely and timeless. Some of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs' most renowned faculty and distinguished students have been associated with the Journal. Among these faculty is one who has agreed to serve as moderator tonight. Professor Richard Betts could make the case for either of our contestants nearly as well as they do, and, in their absence, often does. Now he will help us to pursue the question of whether Iran should go nuclear. Dick, the arena is yours. Richard Betts: Thank you, Dean Anderson. We are fortunate to have Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan here tonight. Their company here is appropriate for two special reasons. First, to help answer the general question of whether the acquisition of nuclear weapons by middle-powers like Iran is bad, good or indifferent in its implications. Many of you have read their book, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, which explores the question in very provocative detail. The question tonight is how the particular case of Iran fits into this debate. Second, focusing on Iran brings us to the question--in the air at this very moment--of whether the United States will soon attack Iran in an attempt to set back its nuclear program. The United States has recently dispatched the [USS John C. Stennis] aircraft carrier battle group to patrol the waters of Iran's vicinity. It isn't clear why, unless President Bush is at least considering the option of an air attack. If this action is simply coercive muscle-flexing, it could prove embarrassing in the event Tehran doesn't back down and the United States does not in fact attack Iran. Exposing this gesture as a bluff would be reminiscent of [President Richard Nixon] sending the carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal in 1971 to intimidate India during the invasion of East Pakistan--a gesture that was revealed as an empty tacit threat. So, should the United States attack Iran to destroy its nuclear capabilities? If not, does that mean that prospective Iranian nuclear weapons will not be a grave danger? Can instruments other than military attack effectively impair Iranian progress toward the development of nuclear weapons? With us tonight are two of the most thoughtful and provocative observers of international relations to answer the questions raised by Iran's nuclear program. Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan will present their basic arguments, and then I will pose a few questions to them, after which time we'll open the forum to audience participation. Kenneth Waltz: Thank you very much, Dick, for that kind introduction. I'll begin with a few things about nuclear weapons, and then I'll say a few things about Iran. First, nuclear proliferation is not a problem because nuclear weapons have not proliferated. Proliferation means to spread like wildfire. We have had nuclear military capability for over fifty years, and we have a total of nine militarily capable nuclear states. That's hardly proliferation; that is, indeed, glacial spread. If another country gets nuclear weapons, and if it does so for good reasons, then that isn't an object of great worry. Every once in a while, some prominent person says something that's obviously true. …