Nuclear Bomb for Iran; Yes or No?

The atomic bomb, a nuclear weapon, is the most terrifying weapon humanity has ever developed, a weapon whose mere mention is alarming. Among all the countries in the world, only a few officially possess atomic bombs. Some countries are accused of trying to acquire nuclear weapons. But do countries really need atomic bombs? What purpose does an atomic bomb serve in a world already filled with war, insecurity, and bloodshed? Can nuclear weapons lead to peace? In such a world, should Iran have a nuclear bomb? Does Iran need nuclear weapons? Amirhossein Ganjbakhsh, a plasma physics graduate from the University of Grenoble, France, says no. However, Hossein Ghazian, a sociologist, argues that Iran needs nuclear weapons to maintain its national security in a world where power dynamics are determined by force. Ganjbakhsh states that the issue of acquiring nuclear weapons or being part of the club of nuclear-armed countries is an exception, not the rule. Out of 193 countries that are members of the United Nations, only 9 possess nuclear weapons. Five of these are superpowers. The other four—Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea—have nuclear weapons regardless of the desires of these superpowers. In other words, we should ask ourselves why the 184 countries that do not have nuclear weapons have chosen not to pursue them. If we look at these four countries, we see that their main reason for having nuclear weapons is a strategic enemy. India decided to acquire nuclear weapons after its defeats in the 1962 war with China and later in 1971. Pakistan, due to its territorial disputes with India over Kashmir and Punjab, has a clear strategic enemy. Israel's nuclear weapons are also a response to the threats posed by Arab countries and certain terrorist-communist movements that aim to eliminate Israel. North Korea's primary reason for possessing nuclear weapons is to maintain its regime, regardless of its national security. From this perspective, Iran, lacking a strategic enemy, has no need for nuclear weapons. There is no significant country in the region that has territorial disputes with us. We do not need nuclear weapons. Ghazian argues that the possession of nuclear weapons is an exception, not a rule, and raises the question of why countries without nuclear weapons choose not to pursue them. He concludes that Iran's situation is not one that necessitates pursuing nuclear weapons or that nuclear weapons would serve its interests. Ghazian emphasizes that our discussion is about a hypothetical Iran. We all acknowledge that war is one of humanity's greatest disasters, and it would be ideal if there were no wars, especially those involving the use of horrific nuclear weapons. However, the ideal of peace is just that—an ideal. The second point is that when I talk about nuclear weapons, I am not addressing the means of acquiring them, the costs of acquisition, maintenance, and use. It may turn out that while we might need nuclear weapons, it may not be worth it to pursue such a course. These two preliminary points must be considered. Regarding your discussion, we must first ask which Iran we are talking about: Iran under the Islamic Republic, Iran after the Islamic Republic, or even the Iran that existed before the Islamic Republic? I want to say that contrary to the initial assumption many of us might have, the answer to your question cannot be given without answering my question. In fact, the answer is almost the same regardless of which regime is in power. This is due to several points: First, we know that nuclear disarmament has not occurred globally. We do not live in a world free of nuclear weapons. Therefore, those who possess nuclear weapons can always threaten others with them. Second, as long as the international order is based on the existence of nation-states and these countries have interests, their power will determine their position in international interactions. Unfortunately, international law has failed to prevent the element of force from dominating international relations in reality. Thus, we accept that any regime in any region, including any regime in Iran, must have military power to defend its interests. The possession of nuclear weapons is significant, particularly due to its deterrent role. Mao's statement that peace comes from the barrel of a gun can be interpreted in this context. We see that since nuclear weapons have been in the hands of several countries, they have never been used; they have had a deterrent role and have guaranteed peace among the countries that possess them. The only time these weapons were used was when the U.S. dropped them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and no other power had them. However, once other powers acquired these weapons, despite all the conflicts during the Cold War, none of the countries used them, even with all the disputes among the nuclear-armed parties. The points raised by Ghazian are valid. He argues that since nuclear disarmament has not occurred globally, all countries should pursue nuclear weapons to defend themselves against potential attacks. We must consider Iran's geopolitical situation and examine which countries around us intend to attack Iran, prompting us to believe we need nuclear weapons for self-defense. In my opinion, we do not have such enemies. Due to our power and the geopolitical factors I mentioned, we can establish the best relations with neighboring countries and the world, and there is no need for any country to attack us that would require us to use nuclear weapons. Additionally, the point that Ghazian rightly made about costs is significant because membership in the nuclear club is not a simple choice for any country. It brings heavy economic costs and political sanctions. If you are a country that shows an aggressive spirit, even the mere appearance of developing nuclear weapons will be interpreted as an act of aggression. This is the situation that contemporary Iran finds itself in. In other words, the reaction and response of the international community to even the thought of Iran possessing nuclear weapons is extremely severe. Ghazian states that regardless of the regime in power, possessing nuclear weapons is a deterrent factor and can ensure national security. I believe that currently, possessing nuclear weapons poses numerous costs and security risks for Iran. Ghazian, I now ask you this: Ganjbakhsh argues that contrary to your view that Iran needs nuclear weapons to maintain its security in a world that is not free of nuclear weapons, he believes that even the mere notion of Iran wanting to acquire nuclear weapons endangers Iran's security. This is completely opposite to your perspective. Ghazian: Look, the points I made were not time-bound, which is why I said that regardless of which regime has been in power, this discussion should be pursued. When you refer to the costs of this issue, you are speaking in a time-bound manner. Costs today are one thing; ten years from now, they will be different. Ten years ago, they were different. Keep in mind that Ganjbakhsh says we currently have no enemies. But this is a static view of politics. We never have eternal friends or enemies. We have eternal interests. It has not been half a century since one of Iran's best regional friends became one of its greatest enemies, and one of Iran's greatest enemies in the region, namely Russia, became one of its biggest friends. Therefore, how can we talk about having friends or enemies in a region where some of these countries possess nuclear weapons? From this perspective, we should talk about national interests, not current or potential enemies. Furthermore, I explained that several factors exist regarding this issue. The first and most important is that we do not have nuclear disarmament, and there is no prospect for it. All countries, covertly or overtly, have pursued this weapon and continue to strive to acquire it. Those who possess nuclear weapons oppose disarmament and have turned it into international norms. However, we see that countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, such as Israel, can completely resist these regulations. North Korea can also resist these regulations. The reality of the international scene is based on force. If someone has more force, they have more power. Of course, military power is just one aspect of this force, and nuclear weapons are just one aspect of military power. As long as the regional or global realities remain as we know them, we see that, unfortunately, all countries, willingly or unwillingly, must pursue these terrible weapons as a deterrent for peace. Ghazian, before I return to Ganjbakhsh, I will briefly ask you: You stated that for a country to have power in global equations or to defend itself, or to be part of these equations, it unfortunately needs nuclear weapons. But for example, look at Pakistan, Iran's neighbor. It has been a nuclear power for years. Where does it stand in global equations? India, too, if it has any role, is perhaps in the field of modern economy or technology. Ghazian: It is true that nuclear weapons can provide a deterrent power for a country's national interests, but no country has become a regional power solely by possessing nuclear weapons, let alone a global power. Even India and Pakistan, and even China and the Soviet Union, did not become global powers relying solely on nuclear power. China had nuclear weapons decades before it became an economic power, but it was not a global power. It became a global power when it gained economic strength. The Soviet Union, even after its collapse, had nuclear weapons but was not a global power as it was before its collapse or as it is now that it has rebuilt itself. Therefore, possessing nuclear weapons does not make a country a global power unless there is political stability, economic prosperity, and a level of equality and citizen satisfaction—essentially, the legitimacy of the government. Unfortunately, countries that possess nuclear weapons, especially superpowers, have contributed to pushing you toward acquiring nuclear weapons. For example, look at the treatment that North Korea or Pakistan receives from the U.S. North Korea, by possessing nuclear weapons, forces the U.S. to sit at the negotiating table, while Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons, is forced to sit at the table of sanctions and come out of negotiations, while the U.S. is willing to negotiate with North Korea or tolerate Pakistan, which was home to Osama bin Laden, because it is a power that cannot be joked with. Ganjbakhsh: Returning to the element of force in international relations with the discussions that Ghazian has raised, I would like you to respond to this part. You believe that Iran currently has no enemies, while Ghazian argues that there are no eternal friends or enemies, and from this perspective, nuclear weapons cannot be dismissed.