Introduction
The end of the Cold War and the fall of the Communist Block have led to a complete change in the balance of power in the international arena. The change was from a bi-polar world (or as some might argue from a multi-polar power exercised by the United States, Europe, Japan and USSR) to a single power with the dominance of the United States becoming the sole political and economic hegemonic power. However, the United States was provided the required balance on hegemony by the European Community, China and Japan. This change in power, in turn, has resulted in a change in the nature of international relations throughout the world. Although some might argue that uni-polar power distribution would lead to a more balanced world, it had a significant impact on the inter-relationship of countries. This study seeks to provide the theoretical basis for the analysis of the characteristics and application of a bipolar system and the balance of power theory through the Cold War period from a political perspective.
Historical Background
During the period between the end of the Second World War (1945) and the acquisition of nuclear capabilities by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1948, there existed a continuous conflict in the international arena. These conflicts were the repercussions of the competition for power, influence and dominance by two sets of countries opposing each other. On one side were the Soviet Union and its satellite states including North Korea, Vietnam, and the German Democratic Republic and for some time China among other countries. On the other side, there was the greater powers of the West with the United States and its allies and client states, which included Great Britain, Western Germany, South Korea, Israel and others. The competition for power and supremacy was politically termed as the “Cold War”. This name was derived because of the relative ambiguity in the conflict as against any direct military conflict between the superpowers involved.
There were no official clashes between the military powers of the primary participants – the United States and the USSR. Nevertheless, they displayed the conflict by undertaking several actions such as “military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive foreign aid to allies, proxy wars (as in the case of Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan), espionage, propaganda, a nuclear arms race, and economic and technological competitions, such as the Space Race and the economic development of their allies,” (Scribd.com).
The Soviet Union worked towards creating an Eastern Block with Eastern European countries, which were in its occupation. In this process, USSR annexed some of the countries and continued to maintain other countries as its satellite states. The United States and some other Western states adopted defensive policies in the form of containment of communism, establishing in the process alliances such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) to support the defensive policies. The countries also shared military resources and encouraged diplomatic and economic cooperation among them.
The weakening of the Soviet government and the failure of communism in the country led to a series of events, which finally witnessed the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This process was a gradual one that continued from January 19, 1990, until December 31, 1991. The dissolution of the USSR enabled many of the constituent countries of the Soviet Socialist Republics to declare their independence. These countries were recognized as separate sovereign states in their own power and constitution. By December 1991 all the official Soviet Unions, ceased to exist with the individual states taking the central government’s role.
This change in the international political arena was something new as compared to the Bi-polar system that existed during the Cold War period, with its main powers being USA and the USSR respectively. This new paradigm gave rise to a new “Unipolar” status quo with United States as the sole dominant power in the spheres of military power, influence, economic and financial strength as well as possessing immense “soft” power. Even with the severe impact of the 2008, financial crisis, which affected the US economy significantly the country, continues to hold the position of power.
Theoretical Tools
The analysis will be based on the state level of analysis, with the examination of whole states as individual actors in the international global system. The emphasis will be studying the political impact of the application of a bipolar system through the Cold War period on different countries. The thesis will follow ideas from the schools of neorealism – for example Kissinger, Robert Kagan among others – an approach characterized by the importance of hegemonies (dominant powers capable of forcing lesser, weaker states/actors to acquiesce = power).
Hegemony is defined as “the holding by one state of a preponderance of power in the international system, so that it can single-handedly dominate the rules and arrangements by which international political and economic relations are conducted” (Phillips, 2000). A “superpower” in a system can be said to be equivalent to a hegemon, which is in accordance with the accepted parlance.
The thesis will also examine the balance of power between various great powers from a realism centric approach and will rely on the theoretical concepts of American power – both hard and soft. As an offshoot from the discussion on “balance of power,” in the global system, the thesis will argue that the system shifted from a bipolar to a unipolar one. The thesis will approach the concept of balance of power under the theory of bandwagoning. The study will focus on the impact of the application of the balance of power theory to the Middle Eastern region, especially, on the country of Egypt. The study will follow a case study approach to study the impact of bipolar system on Egypt.
Objectives
Studying in-depth the characteristics and application of a bipolar system and the balance of power theory through the Cold War period from a political perspective is the main aim of this study. In achieving this main aim, the study seeks to achieve the following objectives.
- To study the origin, process and effect of Cold War on different regions of the world and the resultant development of bipolar system
- To study in-depth the theory of balance of power and its implications during the Cold War period
- To examine the balance of power between various great powers from a realism-centric approach relying on the theoretical concepts of American power – both hard and soft.
- To study the application of balance of power theory on the Middle Eastern economies especially, to the economy of Egypt
Purpose
With the changed international political environment after the ending of the Cold War and the cooperation developed among different countries of the world because of economic, cultural and financial globalization, there are changes even in the uni-polaristic position of the United States. With the emerging economies such as China and India, backed by their soft power compete with other world powers. This leads to the development of a multi-polar political situation which makes the study of international politics at the present scenario from the purviews of balance of power theory interesting. The enhanced cooperation among world economies because of financial reforms and economic globalization was expected to take the international relations to a higher echelon. Nevertheless the financial turmoil of 2008 somewhat reversed this trend creating the necessity for a relook at the protectionism even by United States to ensure its economic well-being. This is another reason, that the study of international political situation in the light of balance of power theory becomes meaningful and significant. This study explores the likely impact of the balance of power theory in the present international political context, which throws light on several political and policy implications, that can be assessed based on the historical facts.
Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation is structured to have five chapters. This chapter introduces the subject matter of the study and lays down the objectives of the study. Second chapter presents a review of the available literature on the balance of power theory and bi-polar system existed during the Cold War. Chapter Three contains different theoretical contributions relating to the evolution of bi-polar system in the international political arena and the implications to different geographical regions. Chapter Four presents a case study of nuclear program of Iran covering the political implications of the bi-polar system and its impact of realist theory on the nuclear program of Iran. Chapter Five presents the concluding remarks on the study and policy implications.
Definition and Characteristics of Balance of Power
The prevalence of or violence in the early 19th Century led to the coining of the term “balance of power.” Balance of power has been viewed as the stabilizing factor during different periods, especially, when the World War I, World War II and the Cold War began. The purpose of balance of power is to stabilize states from entering into a war. The role of balance of power in international relations was strengthened by the formation of nuclear bombs, which further precipitated the threat of world annihilation. Each of the country, particularly the United States and USSR understood the power of the other countries and therefore would prevent a war. The balance of power assumed prominence during the post-Cold War era. The theory of balance of power has extended its domain into the economic and political sphere from the traditional military and nuclear power.
Power can be defined as the ability to influence the outcomes desired by one and if necessary to influence the behavior of other people to shape the desired outcomes. The ability to shape the outcomes in the desired way usually depends on the possession of certain resources. Based on this premise, power is also defined as possession of relatively large amounts of different elements such as population, territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force and political stability. Waltz (1979) finds the “strength for war” is assumed as the test of a great power. War was the ultimate game in which countries play their cards in international politics. With the evolution and advancement of technology, the sources of power have changed over the centuries. With the proliferation of information and communication technology power has become less tangible and less coercive, particularly among the industrially advanced countries. However, most of the countries have not converted themselves into industrial nations and this has limited the transformation of power to other countries (Chace, and Rizopoulos, 1999).
The realist paradigm, which is a system-level approach that incorporates several distinct theories dominate the traditional literature on the causes of war (Nye, 2004). According to these theories, all the key actors are sovereign states and these states act in a rational way to advance their security, power and wealth in the anarchic system. This anarchic system is characterized by the lack of a legitimate authority to mediate the disputes in between them and enforce the agreements entered among different states. In other words, the objective of anarchy is to define the “socio/political framework in which international relations occur” (Evans and Newnham, 1998, p. 18).
In normal parlance, the term “anarchy” would mean chaos or rampant disorder. However, in the field of international politics, the term is used to denote the situation that there is no central authority, which is capable of making and enforcing rules of behavior on the states comprised in the international system. Levy remarks that this anarchy along with “uncertainties regarding the
present and future intentions of the adversary, induces political leaders to focus on short-term security needs and on their relative position in the system, adopt worst-case thinking, build up their military strength, and utilize coercive threats to advance their interest, influence the adversary, and maintain their reputation.” (Levy, 2003, p. 7)
In the international environment, which is anarchic, national states are afraid of each other. This is because the states have the ability to take actions, which might affect the interest of other nations. Therefore, security of the nations becomes the top priority. Nations often seek to gain better security by increasing their military expenditure budgets. Because of the fact that different nations will always try to equal or surpass the military build-up efforts of other nation, the arms race tend to become a perpetual possibility. Increased dependence on military force makes absolute security almost impossible. Therefore, all the countries are forced to face a “Security Dilemma” (Hertz, 1950).
According to Levy (2003), the distribution of power between two or more states determines the international outcomes or at least such distribution acts as a significant constraint on determining the international outcomes. However, different conceptions of power and nature of systems have led to different theories and predictions about the specific international outcomes. Two structural theories have been developed in the realm of international politics – one is the hegemonic theory and the other the balance of power theory. The purpose of these theories is to “explain, predict, and describe the characteristics of the international system.” These theories also explain the behavior of states. Description of great power behavior is the central focus of these theories of international politics, because of the assumption that great powers of the contemporary system largely rule the international relations.
In international political studies, it is important to understand the meaning of “hegemony.” “Hegemony is a contentious notion in the study of international relations, particularly in the security realm” (Pina, 1987). Hegemony in the international relations represents the ability to provide a collective good, which in turn means providing peaceful interstate relations. A state that has the capability to impose constraints on the use of force by regional states becomes a regional hegemon. Only United States was considered having the power to exercise such hegemony. However, Mares (2001) has a different opinion. He argues, “Though the U.S. is uniquely powerful, it is not a hegemon that provides the collective good of peace among nations of the region in which they have their own interest” (Mares, 2001, p.83). Therefore, the theory of balance of power has more application in the Andean region, where all the states hope to become the hegemon by competing with each other.
The central focus of this paper is to discuss “balance of power” because the balance of power theory states “the avoidance of hegemony is the primary goal of states and that the maintenance of an equilibrium power in the system is an essential means to that end,” (Levy, 2002, p. 254). In addition, “hegemonic theories share realist assumptions but deemphasize the importance of anarchy, while emphasizing system management within a hierarchical order,” (Levy, 2002, p. 355). The balance of power theory emanating from international anarchy, still plays a significant role in international relations.
The balance of power theory assumes that the states are
“Unitary actors, who at minimum seek their own preservation and, at maximum, drive for universal domination. States, or those who act for them, try in more or less sensible ways to use the means available in order to achieve the ends in view,” (Waltz, 1979, p. 118).
The simple explanation of balance of power theory proposes that an international equilibrium in terms of power will exist, when there exists an equal distribution of power among the states. Under this circumstance, peace is more likely to result. The notion of balance of power in its generic form originated from the philosophers of India, China and ancient Greece. Eminent political scholars like Machiavelli and Hobbes developed the theory. Such developments guided the actions of great statesmen, like Cromwell and Bismarck. The work of Hans Morgenthau popularized balance of power theory in the United States.
“Hans Morgenthau believed that “Balance of Power” referred to the reality in which power was shared equally by a group of countries “(Morgenthau, 1973, p. 211 quoted in Benjian, 2001). Traditional realists believe that acquiring power is the mainly primary objective of the international strategy of a state. This assumption holds true, because the policy of a “balance of power” alone can prevent any single state from becoming strong enough to threaten the independence of other nations.
The balance of power has many meanings and interpretations. However, this paper considers balance of power as a situation and as a policy during the continuance of Cold War. As a situation, the balance of power means equilibrium. Donadio and Tibeiletti (1998) state, “it is a purely descriptive term, designed to indicate the character of a situation in which the power relationship between states or groups of states is one of rough or precise equality” (p. 95). Claude (1967) considers balance of power becomes a policy under certain occasions for “promoting the creation or preservation of equilibrium,” (p. 13). Claude (1967) states,
“In a multistate system, the only policy which promises to prevent such behavior (stronger power with the temptation to dominate, to oppress, to conquer) is that of confronting power with a countervailing power; stability, survival, protection of national rights and interest demand that power be neutralized by equivalent power. In these terms balance of power is a policy of prudence.”
The concept of balance of power becomes useful as a tool in explaining the behavior of different states, because the concept is based on the assumption that all the states act in the interest of preserving their own interests. Therefore, in the international arena, there exists many independent actors, seeking to maintain their own interests and at the same time focusing on their security.
Bi-Polar System
The realist scholars are of particular interest in the polarity of international system. The realist scholars maintain that polarity is at the root of the international relations and it decides the fundamental characteristic features of interstate relations. Most of the realists have come to a consensus that the bipolar regime has come to an end. However, the scholars have not agreed the time and the manner in which bipolarity ended in the international political system. Analysts like Mearsheimer are of the opinion that bipolarity came to an end, when the Soviet Union executed its military and political move back from the region of Eastern Europe (Mearsheimer, 1990). Some other realists are of the opinion that bipolarity ended with the breaking up of the Soviet Union as an independent state. Although originally agreed with Mearsheimer, Waltz argues now that still the bipolar system exists in international arena (Waltz, 1993). These differences in the viewpoints of realists indicate the inability of realism to nurture an “operational measure of polarity.” In the absence of such a measure, the realists will not be able to differentiate causes and effects. While some of the realists argue that the retreat from Eastern Europe or disintegration of the Soviet Union led to the end of bipolarity, others argue that bipolarity came to an end because of the decline of the Soviet Union. However, both of the assertions appear to be problematic in any case.
Those scholars, who contend that withdrawal from Eastern Europe or the disintegration of the Soviet Union has led to the end of bipolarity, find it difficult to explain the cause of these triggering events. According to the viewpoints of the realists states will have to maintain their power relative to the power of other states. Kenneth Waltz remarks that “it is axiomatic that states “try to arrest or reverse their decline”” (Waltz, 1990). “The Soviet Union’s willingness to give up what had been regarded until then as a vital sphere of influence and allow constituent Soviet republics to secede appears to contradict realism’s core assumption that leaders are highly motivated to preserve their states and their states’ power.”
Some of the realists have attempted to attribute the reason for this problem by depicting both the withdrawal from Eastern Europe and disintegration as “unintended and unforeseen” outcomes of the inappropriate policy decisions of Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze. Nevertheless, if the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union could have been preserved by pursuing wiser policies, the international system would have remained bipolar by the sheer definition of the term.
“The argument of unintended consequences in effect divorces polarity from the international distribution of capabilities by which it is supposed to be determined. Moreover, the suggestion that Gorbachev’s policies were ill-considered and counterproductive compels scholars to look outside realism–to ideas, domestic politics, or decision making–to explain Gorbachev’s foreign policy and the resulting transformation of the international system it brought about” (Lebow & Risse-Kappen, 1996).
Realists, who attribute the reason of the breaking up of Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union for the decline of Soviet Union, do not consider these conceptual problems. However, they are unable to present a theoretical basis supporting their claims. “Without operational definitions of polarity, there are no criteria for establishing the decline of bipolarity independent of its consequences,” (Lebow & Risse-Kappen, 1996).
Regional Powers in International Politics
Power hierarchies represent the system of regional powers in the international politics scene. The vantage point at which the states are located and the pre-selected indicators make the assessment of the power distribution. Although, the status of United States has been considered as the only remaining superpower by the scientific literature and the press, consensus could not be reached on the further characteristics of the international power hierarchy. Consensus could not be reached even with regard to terminology. Terminology like “secondary powers, second-tier states, great powers, intermediate states, middle powers, middle-tier states, regional (great) powers” are in use to denote power hierarchies.
Wight (1978) has differentiated between dominant powers, great powers and minor powers. He has categorized the power hierarchy into “regional great powers and middle powers.” Regional great powers focus their interests on a limited region and in these regions they could act on their own deals. Wight (1978) considers regional powers as the potential candidates to become middle powers in the international political system. Middle powers are categorized as such based on their military power in comparison with great powers.
“Power Transition Theory,” formulated by Organski (1958) is the recent approach to analyze the power hierarchical theories in the international political arena (Tammen et al. 2000; Lemke 2002).
As against realist approach to balance of power theory, Power Transition Theory puts forward a hierarchical international system, in which a great power dominates at the top, with regional and middle powers subordinating. “The hierarchy reflects the distribution of power resources and is based on political and economic resource allocation patterns which serve the dominant power” (Nolte, 2007).
Lemke (2002) developed the “multiple hierarchy model,” based on the Power Transition Theory. In this theory, in the place of one international hierarchy of power, a series of “parallel and superposed” power hierarchies constitute the international political system. The functioning of the subsystems follow the same logic as that of the overall power hierarchy. Regional and sub-regional power systems are under subordination to the global power hierarchy.
“The dominant power in the global hierarchy, but also other great powers, can interfere in the sub-systems, especially if the local status quo is at odds with the global dominant power’s preferences or the global patterns of political and economic resource allocation. Other issues – like the delimitation of boundaries and territorial control in the region/sub-region – can be resolved in the framework of the regional/sub-regional power hierarchy. They are part of the regional/sub-regional status quo,” (Lemke, 2002: 54-55).
The End of Cold War
This section of this report seeks to present a brief discussion on the end of the Cold
War, which was assumed to have begun in 1947. There are peak periods of this conflict with first peak emerging between 1948 and 1954. During this period, acute confrontation was noticed in Central Europe, Korea and the Taiwan straits. The second peak appeared between 1958 and 1963 with renewed confrontations in the region of Central Europe and Taiwan straits in addition to significant crisis in Cuba (Northrop, 1959). Discussion on the ending of the Cold War needs the development of conceptualization of critical structures and processes.
Both realists and non-realists are interested in ascertaining the reasons for the end of the Cold War. In order to find the reasons, both the theorists had to have a clear understanding of the nature of the conflict and the stages through which the Cold War developed. Most of the analysts consider the policies of Michael Gorbachev responsible for ending the Cold War. “This is understandable because his liberalization of the Soviet system, sponsorship of political change in Eastern Europe, and commitment to disarmament were the catalysts of accommodation” (Lebow & Risse-Kappen, 1996).
Theoretical Contributions explaining Transformation from Conflict to Peace
While studying balance of power, it is necessary to understand the factors, which make the world change from bipolarity. While this understanding is one of the most pertinent issues in studying international political system a number of different perspectives and theoretical explanations has been evolved addressing this issue. This chapter seeks to present arguments of some of schools of thought focusing on international political realm and explore their boundaries and contributions in explaining the ending of the cold war and arrive at a balance of power.
As observed in the earlier chapter, realists and neo-realists use a major explanatory variable represented by the concept of the power of nation state. There are various explanations addressing the desire of nation states to pursue power. Despite these explanations, the concept of the power of nation state and the resultant balance of power among different states are critical factors in maintaining peace among nations.
We observed that Mogenthau (1993), the most popular modern realist, considers international politics as a struggle for power among nation states. His political realism looks at all political phenomena as the efforts to keep, increase, or demonstrate power. According to him, power is the control over man. Based on this premise, political power can be construed as mutual relations of control among those people who hold public authority and between the latter and the public at large. National power on the other hand is represented by stable and unstable or changing elements. These elements cover phenomena such as “geography, natural resources, industrial capacity, military preparedness, population, national character, national morale, quality of a nation’s diplomacy, and quality of government.” The difference in his contention as compared to the viewpoints of other neo-realists is that, Mogenthau (1993) states that no change has taken place in the struggle for power from time immemorial, which is a basic human nature. Therefore, considering this ‘rational’ feature of human nature, the main cause for peace is a restraint on power by power. This concept is described as the “balance of power”.
In the concluding part of his work, the Politics of Nations, Mogenthau (1993) argues that transformation of the state system into a world state is the only way to ensure a permanent peace (Morgenthau, 1993, 333-347). Nevertheless, one cannot disregard the fact that he based his underlying idea on the world state argument on Hobbes’ Leviathan state. Leviathan state controls the “war of every man against every man” by power. However, Morgenthau has not offered any explanation as to how the power of hegemony could be overcome in the realm of rational human being, where no changes have taken place during past thousands of years.
Morgenthau stresses the importance of diplomacy for transforming and creating the conditions essential for the emergence of a world society and the formation of a world state merging the threat of force (Morgenthau, 517-519). However, this argument appears to contradict his key assumption about human nature and the nature of nation states in pursuing their own interests. Thus there appears no reason for a ‘rational’ super power to disregard their national interest in pursuing a world state.
Structural-realist analysis put forth by Waltz highlights the anarchic or disorderly nature of international system contributing to international conflict and war as against the argument of Mogenthau based on human nature. Based on his analysis of the approaches focusing on human nature and internal structure of states as a potential reason for the evolution of conflict and war, Waltz argues that the main cause for war and conflict to arise is the lack of authority to prevent sovereign states from using force to achieve their ends (Waltz, 1954). He categorizes the concepts based on human nature and internal constitutions of nation states as reductionist approaches. He argues that such theories attribute the cause of system level as a factor influencing the interaction among the states. The problem associated with the concepts based on human nature is that both different and similar states have been found to produce similar or different outcome without any distinction. Also, the same causes lead to varying effect and vice versa (Waltz, 1979). While Waltz found the cause of conflict and war to contribute to changes at the system level, his main argument is that power forms the basis for the transformation of system. According to Waltz, the first intention of the states under the order of anarchy is not to maximize power but to keep their position within the system. The difference between the approaches of Morgenthau and Waltz is that Waltz relies more on the balance of power by fewer states as the key to maintain peace among the nations. Waltz finally concludes that bipolarity is the most balanced and stable system that could function under anarchy. In attributing the factors that lead to transformation, Waltz’s approach finds a limitation in explaining the ways to transform anarchy to more stable and peaceful system. Although he supports the idea of the stability of the balance of power by fewer states, he highlights that stability by the balance of power can only be temporary.
Balance of power is most likely to create tensions at all times, as we experienced during Cold war period (Mearsheimer, 2001). Moreover, one cannot rule out the chances of potential conflict and war by those states who are not satisfied with their state quo. According to Mearsheimer (2001) offensive realism is one of extremist views in the matter of transformation to a peaceful system. To Mearsheimer, the inherent fear in the states to survive in the arena of international politics is the original source of pursuing power. This inherent fear is persistent even among the major powers. Such fear leads the states to act aggressively toward each other until such time they could enhance their respective chances of survival. Thus, the world politics represent a state of perennial struggle for advancing their interest and power by the state actors. Therefore, Mearsheimer predicts that the post Cold-War peace may not last long because of the challenges faced by peer competitors who remain dissatisfied with their status quo. He regards continued anarchy as a given structure of international political system. Consequently Mearsheimer does not heed attention to the factors, which could influence the existing anarchic nature of system.
Eventually, it has not been possible for the realists and neo-realists to explain successfully the factors that have the ability to transform Hobbesian international system to a peaceful one. According to Wendt (1999), there does not exist a theory of institutional evolution and the state. Similarly Adler argues that neo-realism suggests that “states must choose to survive or be marked for destruction by powerful systemic constraints drawing on an analogy between organism and states and insisting that material power is the single arbiter of the selection of states” (Adler, 1997). Moreover, only few scholars support the realist theory of hegemonic stability and others cast doubt on its general validity (Keohane, 1984). Therefore, while the concepts of national interest and power as the major factors, which enable explanations for the states’ desire for power in many areas, it is subjected to a limitation in analyzing the politics of international transformation. “They just explain a factor that maintains relatively more stable status under the anarchic system, or they explain the power transformation from one hegemon to another hegomen in the existing system suggesting only temporal peace,” (Yoon).
Most of neo-liberal theorists, base their arguments in international relations on the assumption of individuals centering their self-interest.
“Although their assumption that human being inherently behave based on self interest has shared ground with realist assumption of rational human being, neo-liberalists argue that self-interested individuals and nation states can cooperate through mutual interests and rewards with retaliations in case of their violating mutually agreed rules. Therefore, many of their analysis use rational choice theories” (Yoon).
Creation of institutions is a critical explanatory factor for the analysis of neo-liberal theorists. According to neo-liberal theorists, the world could transform itself to a peaceful era by the influence of institutional factors such as “international institution, law, and the spread of democracy” (Keohane; 1984, Axelord; 1980, Russet and Oneal; 2001). Neo-liberalism also cites the transnational activities such as economic interdependency among states as a factor contributing to the sharing of their mutual interests by nation states. Through the analysis of game situation, Axelord (1980) analyzed game situation and presented his theory that individuals and states can cooperate on consideration of a long-term perspectives. According to Axelord (1980) use “TIT FOR TAT” strategy could be engaged for not being a first detector. Reciprocity for both cooperation and defection is yet another strategy suggested by Axelord (1980).
The theoretical contribution of Axelord (1980) focusing on the evolution of cooperation by adopting long-term perspective provides strong support for the condition of cooperation. However, it appears that his assumption of having equal power among the nation states in the game is vulnerable and cannot be applied to international political system. Based on the factor of uneven share of power and domination of super power in Realpolitik, Axelord’s assumption is represented by the methodological issue of external validity. Keohane, however argues that such an approach has the character of being naïve about power and conflict. Keohane, admits ‘supplicated institutionalists,’ which considers institutions as ‘recognized patterns of practice around which expectations converge’ are more persuasive. Keohane postulates his theory of international regime around the assumption of existing mutual interests. He argues that because international regime provides legitimacy and effectiveness in the process of cooperation to the nation states, it plays a role as an injunction for mutual adjustment among the states. While considering the influence of uneven power among states, Keohane argues that egoistic states attempt to form international regimes based on shared interests. This is because “rational calculation for the benefit, obligation of international law, social pressure, retaliatory action, and device of reputation can prevents each state from violating and not complying to regime rules” (Keohane; 1984 quoted in Yoon). Keohane’s argument appears to be more plausible as compared to the naïve institutional approach, because he incorporates the realist perspectives of uneven power development into his analysis. However, Keohane’s argument is weak in his assumption that there is no hegemonic power and leadership. According to Keohane, it is unlikely that U.S. or any other country could revive hegemonic leadership. The analysis and argument of Keohane can be applied to multi-polar situation, which doesn’t have any hegemony. However it cannot be applied to a situation, where there is the presence of global hegemony.
“Although, he considers the different power of nation states, those differences are not such a big one that Keohane’s prescription like social pressure, retaliatory action, and device of reputation can regulate. But, under the situation of unipolar hegemonic dominance, there are great possibilities that those regulating power of international regime can be threatened by the super power undermining the legitimacy of international regime” (Yoon).
Russet and Oneal (2001) add another factor into the neo-liberalist arguments about power and international political scenario. According to Russet and Oneal (2001), the development of democratic system, strengthening of national economies and economic interdependence among state nations, and the evolution of strong international organization are the three factors that could lead to the changing of anarchic system to uninterrupted peaceful states. They make a distinction between the vicious and virtuous circles. “One extreme form of vicious circle is a Hobbesian anarchic system and less severe form is Lockean system that respects other state’s sovereignty. Virtuous circle is mutually beneficial Kantian system. With Kantian circle, Democracy, economic interdependence, and international organization reinforce each other leading to perpetual peace because of participant’s shared interests, people’s greater control of their foreign policy that might harm their interests, coerce and restraints of international institutions” (Yoon).
Russet and Oneal (2001) argue that virtuous circle have the potential of contributing to the transformation of international system to peaceful system. In the same way as other neo-liberalists, Russet and Oneal (2001) assume the role of self-interested rational individuals; “peace does not depend on people bring transformed into angles, but on constructing a system of incentives whereby even self-seeking devils would well behave so long as they possess understanding” (Kant, 1970 from Russet and Oneal, 2001, 302). Therefore, material incentives to self-interested people form the basis for the argument of Russet and Oneal (2001).
Russet and Oneal’s factors for transformation can be considered more reasonable as compared to earlier previous theories. This is because even for the strongest nation, it might not be an easy affair to wage war against the countries, in the economies of which the economic interests of their own people are dependent. Democratic peace thesis is another concept in the field of international politics, which is well proved. International organization can play a large role in designing and introducing norms and principles leading to peace, by depending on the economic interdependence among nations and democratic peace. However, the situation of those countries, which are neither democratic nor dependent on other nations economically as well as the international organizations that are not interested in participating need to be assessed. The authors suggest that Western countries are interested in extending economic and political assistance to nations, which are willing to improve their political and economic systems (Russet and Oneal, 2001, 303). Although Russet and Oneal argues that it is important for the wealthy nations to help poor countries develop towards a better democracy in a smooth and rapid way, the authors have not provide any concrete ideas in their analysis, which could deter military intervention by powerful countries. Their theory does not contain any factor, which would prevent the invasion from global hegemon, unless they stress international norms and idea.
“If they want to argue spreading democracy and free market economy in peaceful way, then it means that they assume the importance of the role of norms and ideas. The peaceful way of action is a norm that regulates human or national behavior to achieve their object.” In this respect, argument of Russet and Oneal appears to be ambiguous as compared to that of other neo-liberal theorists. Just the way some other neo-liberal theorists stress the part of norms, ideas and leadership (Finnemore, 1993), Russet and Oneal focus on the role of ideas as well as stressing materialistic incentives to individuals and nations, who are self-interested and egoistic. In spite of assuming the factor of individuals and nations, which are self-interested egoistic, Russet and Oneal mix the contribution of idea with the factors of material incentives. This contradiction is made more obvious by their argument of international institutions, with their contentions that the international organizations have a function of shaping norms and welfare of the nation states (Russet and Oneal, 2001, 165).
“Therefore, while neo-liberalists concentrate on institutional efficiency in providing material benefits assuming self-interested egoists, they disregard uneven power relationship for cooperation (Axelord), the emergency of global hegemon (Keohane) or they mix the role of ideas and norms with their basic assumption of egoistic actors.” The combined use of material incentives and idea is seen more as idealist theory rather than a materialist theory by Wendt (Wendt, 1999, 113-138). Similarly, Adler (1977) is of the opinion that the arguments of neo-liberal theorists on transformative factors do not focus much on institutional selection and ideas (Adler, 1997). According to Wendt, neither neo-realist nor neo-liberalist undertook to introduce a factor, which would help to understand the ways in which actors are socially constructed. He argues “neo-realists see the structure of the international system as a distribution of material capabilities because they approach their subject with a materialist lens. Neo-liberals see it as capabilities plus institutions because they have added to the material base an institutional superstructure; and constructivists see it as a distribution of ideas because they have idealist ontology”. (Wendt, 2001, 4) Thus Wendt looks at institution as “manifestations of collective idea, not just material efficiency and incentives,” (Yoon). Therefore it can be stated that ideas are a priori variable in this approach and the institutions represent the distribution of ideas to develop collective identity, and interest by cognitive evolution and social learning. Therefore, Wendt’s approach and Adler’s the theory of cognitive evolution can be integrated to explain transformative politics and we can also integrate the possibility of regional differences for explaining balance of power.
Nuclear Program of Iran
Nuclear program of Iran “is one of the most polarizing issues in one of the world’s most polarized regions.” (The New York Times, 2010) American and European political leaders and observers believe that Iran is planning to build its nuclear weaponry capabilities. However, Iran’s leadership claims that its nuclear program aims at the generation of electricity to conserve the oil resources of the country, which Iran can sell to the foreign countries. Iran’s nuclear program poses a major challenge to international relations. The nuclear program of Iran is under attack by the Western states as a threat for international peace. States have expressed their apprehension that Iran would become another major military power with all its current nuclear weapons and their capabilities. However, the current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vehemently argued that the nuclear program of Iran is peaceful and is not meant to augment its military capabilities. Nuclear program of Iran can be explained in the background of political theories of international relationship that covers the choice of people, states and international systems.
Theories of liberalism, realism and radicalism can be applied in explaining the stand of Iran in creating its nuclear capabilities. Realism is an academic theory, which holds that states should devise and implement their foreign policies taking into account their interest than their values. Realism also explains that good sense and experience can be considered as better practical guides for action than using theoretical concepts to decide the courses of action. This paper considers a realist explanation for Iran’s nuclear program and attempts to bring out the weaknesses in a realist approach to Iran’s actions, with respect to its accumulation of nuclear capabilities.
In order to examine the realist view of the nuclear program of Iran, it is important to present a background note on the nuclear program of Iran. Iran started with the proliferation of its nuclear program after a continued war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988. The war with Iraq was devastating for Iran, as the country has lost more than 2.5 million people. The interference of Iranian Revolution affected the position of Iran against Iraq.
After the prolonged war with Iraq, because of its weaker position, Iran re-evaluated its military strengths and weaknesses and decided it has to increase its military capabilities drastically to defend the country successfully. The country could not immediately start making nuclear weapons as the country has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty entered in the year 1968. “The absence of weapon inspectors in Iraq since December 1988 is undoubtedly a key Iranian security concern. A nuclear-armed Iraq could drive Iran toward withdrawing from the [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and declaring an openly nuclear stance,” (Cirincione, Wolfsthal, & Rajkumar, 2002). Therefore, Iran decided that it would rather achieve more nuclear capabilities for self-defense even antagonizing other countries, if it has to face the attack of Iran.
However, Iran did not proceed seriously with the increase of its nuclear power and it came back to the negotiation table with other countries of the world. With the decrease in the attack from Iraq, after the First Persian Gulf War during 1990, where the United States led international coalition trimmed Iraq. The Gulf War along with the continued dialogues on peaceful nuclear program at the meeting of the members of Non-Proliferation Treaty ensured that Iran goes slow in its creation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) involving nuclear technology and chemical weapons.
Iran could feel less threatened of its sovereignty and thought nuclear energy could be used for peaceful purposes. The country tried to use the built up nuclear infrastructure for producing power. Roger Howard provides an example of the ways in which Iran contributed to the international peace process. “The absence of weapon inspectors in Iraq since December 1988 is undoubtedly a key Iranian security concern. A nuclear-armed Iraq could drive Iran toward withdrawing from the [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and declaring an openly nuclear stance,” (Cirincione, Wolfsthal, & Rajkumar, 2002). However, it is to be mentioned that Iran decided to cooperate only after increased pressure from the IAEA and other member nations.
The non-cooperation of Iran is evident from the statement of Graham Allison. He states, “Distrust over Iran’s stated nuclear intentions intensified in February 2003, when the IAEA uncovered a pilot centrifuge plant in Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor fuel plant in Arak, and neither had been disclosed by Iran as required by its Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations,” (Allison, 2005). Many other nuclear sites have been found in Iran and with the presence of all these secret sites, Iran could not claim that its nuclear program is peaceful and all these sites of uranium enrichment clearly shows the intention of Iran to augment its military capabilities.
After the uncovering of the clandestine nuclear programs of the country in 2003, Iran suspended the operation of the program. The country even allowed international inspectors to visit its nuclear installations. It also began negotiations with major powers like Britain, France and Germany for possible retreating on nuclear development. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when elected and came to power in August 2005 took a confrontational line and restarted its enrichment programs. After five months, the country announced that it resumed work on turning uranium into a gaseous form, which is the first step in the fuel cycle. Soon after Iran announced the uranium enrichment work, which led to the breaking of talks by UK, France and Germany in connection with the future nuclear programs. “The United Nations Security Council voted in December 2006 to impose sanctions on Iran for failing to heed calls for a suspension. Iranian scientists continued the work of building a series of centrifuges that concentrate uranium by spinning the gas at very high speeds.” (The New York Times, 2010)Thus, the country ignored the demands of the United Nations Security Council to stop the programs.
American officials and international observers are concerned with the progress of Iran in the nuclear field with the acquisition by the country of certain important technologies necessary to make and use any nuclear weapon.. “And in late September 2009, Iran said that its Revolutionary Guards test-fired missiles with sufficient range to strike Israel, parts of Europe and American bases in the Persian Gulf.” (The new York Times, 2010)
Concerns about Iran’s Nuclear Program
The nuclear program of Iran has started almost 50 years back with a research reactor procured by the country in the year 1959. Later the country branched out to the production of nuclear power in the 1970s. The concerns for the United States about the development of nuclear programs by Iran have many dimensions.
First, the nuclear program of Iran is advanced in nature. There is escalation in this anxiety during the last ten years with the increase in the expert knowledge obtained through Bushehr nuclear operations in which Russia’s contribution in terms of technical knowhow is more. The project focuses on ‘laser uranium enrichment technology’. Despite the attempts by the United States for imposing an international embargo on nuclear cooperation with Iran since the year 1980, Iran has crossed a biggest hurdle in developing nuclear weapons with the installation of Bushehr project and the Russian technological support. Although Iran is claiming that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, it remains highly questionable whether the country has crossed the threshold of uranium enrichment for developing peaceful nuclear programs (Squassoni, 2003).
The second area of concern was the identification by Bush administration of the refocused attention of the three “axis of evil” states – Iraq, Iran and North Korea – on the manufacture of WMD. Some observers are of the view that Iran and North Korea have enlarged their WMD capabilities are worrisome, specifically in the nuclear area. “It is fairly evident that Iran’s uranium centrifuge enrichment capability – a key technology that is difficult to detect and quite efficient for producing highly enriched uranium for simple gun-type assembly nuclear weapons – is more advanced than Iraq’s and, possibly, North Korea’s” (Squassoni, 2003).
Thirdly, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCR) was found to be vigorous in revealing the nuclear settings of Iran. NCR has been placed in the list of foreign terrorist organization of the State Department of the US. This organization held several press conferences to reveal the alleged covert nuclear weapon-related sites of Iran.
The inspection by IAEA and the subsequent report identified three major areas of concern with respect to the nuclear programs of Iran. “The IAEA report identified three major areas of concern for implementing nuclear safeguards: Iran ‘s failure to report uranium imported from China in 1991; questions about the centrifuge enrichment program ; and questions about the heavy water program,” (Squassoni, 2003).
Realism and Iran’s Nuclear Program
Sagan & Waltz, (2003) has justified the nuclear proliferation on the realist approach to the international system. According to realist theory, states continue to exist in a state of anarchy. The theory assumes that states do not want to have any government ruling over them and the statesmen and policymakers think and act only in terms of self-interest, which is defined, as power of the state. Political realism thus considers a rational international policy to be good, because rational policy reduces risks and increases benefits. Hans Morgenthau a renowned international relations theorist explains “Realism considers prudence—the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions—to be the supreme virtue of politics.” (Morgenthau, 1985)
The concept of interest defined in terms of power is the main signpost that helps political realism to steer its way through the realm of international politics. The concept of power facilitates the understanding international politics and the facts behind possessing such power. In the words of Morgenthau (1985)
“It sets politics as an autonomous sphere of action and understanding apart from other spheres, such as economics (understood in terms of interest defined as wealth), ethics, aesthetics, or religion. Without such a concept a theory of politics, international or domestic, would be altogether impossible, for without it we could not distinguish between political and nonpolitical facts, nor could we bring at least a measure of systematic order to the political sphere.” (Morgenthau, 1985)
Realism is one of the theories of international relations. Mingst, (2004) provides a description of realism. “Realism is based on the view of the individual as primarily selfish and power seeking. Individuals are organized into states, each of which acts in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national interest, defined in terms of power,” (Mingst 2004). According to Realists, the countries in the world exist in a chaotic state. However, this does not mean that the states themselves are chaotic but they can interact with each other in the absence of a powerful international system to keep them in order. Realists believe that power and wealth are the only phenomena through which the success of the countries can be measured and when a country possesses more power and wealth the likelihood of that state is invaded by its enemies or other powerful states is negligible.
From the realist’s perspective, the state is the unitary and central actor. While liberals focus on the state but views individuals and international system as influential, realist focus more on state. Realism is of the view that although individuals make up the state, since individuals are selfish in nature, the state becomes duty-bound to enhance its power and wealth. For a Realist, Since the decisions of the state concerning its internal governance and external relations affect the citizens and the way in which the rest of the states of the world sees the country, its unique strength and power does make a difference. With the state becoming the primary actor, it is entrusted with the controlling of power and wealth in the best interests of its citizens.
With respect to the nuclear programs of Iran, Realism would put forth the argument that the country is trying to become stronger by enhancing its nuclear power, even when the nuclear programs support peace. Realists are not in favor of the operation of any international treaty or system, since according to them states live in a state of chaos. When IAEA checks the nuclear installations of Iran and certifies that Iran is using the nuclear programs for peaceful purposes only, then it becomes a victory for Iran. Based on the realist zero-sum model, in this case, if Iran wins then rest of the world nations fail. This becomes true since the nuclear program will elevate the position of the country among other countries. Iran will become a super power not only against those states that do not possess nuclear power but also against those states, which possess nuclear power (as these countries will lost the advantage of their nuclear power against the new nuclear power of Iran). On the other hand, if the IAEA finds that the nuclear programs of Iran are not to meant to promote peace, but to enhance its military strength against other nations, then Iran will pull out of the international system to continue its nuclear programs. In that case, Iran may receive economic sanctions from other major countries of the world.
Realist approach towards Iran’s nuclear program appears to be more meaningful than liberalist approach. Iran seems to be a unitary actor with respect to the creation of its nuclear capabilities. This is evident from the fact that despite the changes in its leadership, the country has not changed its policies on its nuclear programs. The country also seems to be a rational actor, as it has switched its stand in nuclear programs from the creation of WMD to nuclear energy. However, as against the fundamental premise of realist theory, Iran gives up its sovereignty when it allows IAEA to conduct an inspection of its nuclear installations. It cannot be said that such an allowance completely undermines the realist theory.
It may be so that Iran might lose some of its political power when it promises to deviate from its nuclear policies to develop peaceful nuclear programs; nevertheless, the country has in its possession the entire infrastructure to build WMD in the form of nuclear bombs, as stated by the United States Defense Department. Therefore, even though other countries may hear the promises of Iran, the Western Powers especially United States will prepare itself to meet the other side of the promises of Iran in respect of its nuclear capabilities.
Weaknesses of Realist Theories
From the realist point of view, the proliferation of nuclear weapons should be welcomed rather than feared. “Waltz has argued that the controlled spread of nuclear weapons to other societies could have stabilizing effect,” (Linklater, 1995). However, the major concern of United States is that the proliferation of nuclear weapons should not strengthen the terrorist outfits; but the blacklisting of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard by including them in the list of terrorist, US has made the scenario of terrorists having possession of nuclear weapons probable. Therefore, United States would be keen in destroying the nuclear installations of Iran to combat cross-border terrorism. This is not in conformity with a realist approach.
The presumption of realists is that state thinks and acts rationally. If a state thinks and acts rationally it should realize that nuclear war is destructive and no political goal would be achieved by acts of destruction due to which other nation would suffer. If one considers the rhetoric of Ahamedinejad to extinguish Israeli regime, such an act cannot be considered rational from a realist point of view. If at all the Iranian president has to act rationally, he would not decide to wage a war against Israel and its powerful allies. If the current behavior of the Iranian president in inviting Israel for war is considered as rational, then he is doing this to ‘rally his nation around the flag’. Perhaps the president of Iran is provoking United States to start an assault against Iran so that the Iranian leadership can get a support from the public in the event of a war. This model can be seen in Iran even with the famous revolutionary leader Ayotollah Chomeini. He claimed undisputed leadership in the country because of the war of Iran with Iraq during 1980 to 1988. In a realist sense, “war can be rational if both sides have positive expected utilities for fighting-the expected utility of war (expected benefits minus costs) is greater than the expected utility of remaining at peace.” (Viotti & Kauppi, 1999) If one imagines the costs for Iran in case the country is attacked by Israel or the United States, it would be devastating for Iran. Such an eventuality may happen if other countries think that it is in their best interests to relieve Iran of its nuclear capabilities and they have to use force to accomplish this. This is what realists advocate. Although such a decision may be considered as strategic and wise from a realist point of view; the real consequences of the situation are not only frightening but also would cause unimaginable miseries to humanity.
From the realist point of view there is no reason that the religious state of Iran should be assaulted for the development of suspicious nuclear programs, where with the development of nuclear weapons the world would become stable. It is difficult to decide which action is wiser under a realist approach; whether to allow Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities to make the world more stable or to destruct Iran on grounds of balance of power. To this extend the realist argument favoring nuclear programs of Iran remains weak.
Another weakness of realist theory is its assumption regarding balance of power. Realist politics is based on power politics. For the realists, the balance of power is of prime concern and the use of war is considered as the main political instrument. This realist view cannot be aligned with a common understanding of sensibility. In the present day political conflicts that exist in many parts of the world, for example in the Balkan conflict, global balance of power considerations have a very little to role to play. It is to be recognized that this European conflict, which involved the world community was about identity and ethnicity (Nye, 2004). The same position with respect to global power can be found in other conflicts of Chechnya, Kurdistan, Sri Lanka and others. There is no way that realist theories explain these conflicts.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the application of realist approach to the nuclear program of Iran could be viewed as lacking in some material aspects and it is highly debatable from a common understanding of sensibility. Nevertheless, there are certain points in which rise of realism theories fit together with some other points of the definition of wisdom. It must be recognized that the realist theories find their origin on the grounds of the experiences of the World War II and the Cold War, which have sufficiently influenced the viewpoints of realist advocates. For instance, realism may be viewed as appropriate when one considers the fact that at the state level, Iran is worried about its safety amidst the conditions like war with Iraq; a hostile United States; and countries like India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. Under such circumstances, Iran needs a stronger support than its standing army to protect its borders from infiltration by other nations. “Realism acknowledges that people and states are selfish and that Iran has vast land area and is rich in oil and gas deposits. A realist would be concerned that with Iran being an easy target” (Gerner, 2005).
Conclusion
Based on the discussions in the previous chapters two important points emerge in respect of the balance of power and bipolarity after the Cold War ended. First there is the role of international organizations in shaping the norms and practices for peace. In the case of Europe and Asia, after their experiences with the two World Wars, they have focused more on the significant role of international organizations in developing peace. On the other hand, the situation in Africa and Middle East was different, which was evident from the discussion on the nuclear programs of Iran. In these regions, the world witnessed most of significant disputes, after the end of Cold War. This implies that time period has a significant impact on the development of social learning and cognitive evolution. It also proves the balance of power theory.
More than six decades have passed after Europe and Asia experienced the impact of World Wars and the countries in these regions have developed their peace initiatives, while Middle East and Africa are the regions, which have forgotten the evils of war and the result is that most of violent conflicts take place in these regions. Considering the time needed for the evolution of shared identities, and interests, one can understand this difference as natural. This research thus finds a different level of cognitive evolution in these two regions through social learning and the experiences of war and conflict.
While analyzing the theory of balance of power and bipolarity in the context of international politics, the research found a different trend of the relationship between international organization and the conflict and war. This finding gives rise to the point that international organizations are not the only form of institution. When one looks at shared ideas and externalization of shared identities as a means of developing a balance of power and thus to arrive at peace, non-governmental organization can play a large role in the endeavor of nations to continue to exist peacefully. This finding reiterates that transformation politics can be greatly aided by a more decisive role of non-governmental organizations. The approach of cognitive evolution to avoid wars implies an enhanced role of non-governmental organizations. This research undertook a review of neo-realist and neo-liberalist assumption of self-interested egoist and it was observed that these theories do not provide any theoretical explanation for using non-governmental organization in transformative politics to bring peace.
As a concluding remark, it can be argued that the evolution of human consciousness has positive role in the transformation of conflict era of international politics to more peaceful era. This transformation calls for achieving the balance of power, through externalization and shared ideas of collective actors, in the process of which the role of international institutions does matter. We can find regional differences in the approaches depending on the level of cognitive evolution. These differences are bound to exist because of differences in encounters with conflict, war and interactions between actors. This research might have implications to the field of international politics in two ways. First, this research attempted to study the theory of balance of power from the perspective of international actors based on a theoretical review of different approaches to the theory. Considering endless conflicts and lack of empirical studies covering these approaches, this research has made a meaningful attempt in explaining the theoretical perspective of the balance of power. Second, this paper attempted to exemplify the expanded role of international organization to non-governmental organization, although there is no certain theoretical support for this approach. Nevertheless, the research attempted to provide as much theoretical evidence as possible for this approach. One major limitation of this study is that it needed to strengthen more theoretical elaboration including extended literature review, which dealt with the different variables in international political economies.
References
Adler, Emanuel. Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics, European Journal of International Relations. Vol. (3): 319-369, 1997.
Allison, G. Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. New York: Owl: 2005.
Axelord, Robert M. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books: 1985.
Benjian, X, Security Dilemma, Balance of Power vs. US Policy towards China in the Post Cold War Era Online, 2001.Web.
Chase, J & Rizopoulos, N.X. “Toward a New Concert of Nations an American Perspective“, World Policy Journal, no. 3, 1999
Cirincione, J., Wolfsthal, J. B., & Rajkumar, M. Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Washington D C: The Brookings Institution Press. 2002.
Donadio, M. and Tibiletti, L. ‘Strategic Balance and Regional Security in the Southern Cone’, in Tulchin, J. and Rojas Aravena, F. (eds) Strategic Balance and Confidence Building Measures in the Americas, Washington DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press. 1998.
Evans, G., & Newnham, J. Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. Ringwood: Penguin Books. 1998.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, International Organization 52, 4, 1998, pp. 887-917.
Gerner, J.. The Public and the Issue of the Emergent Iranian Nuclear Program. 2005. Web.
Hertz, John. Idealist Internationalism and Security Dilemma”, World Politics, Vol. 2, 1950.
Keohane, Robert M. After Hegemony. Princeton University Press. 1985.
Lebow R.N. & Risse-Kappen, T, International Relations Theory and the End of Cold War Columbia University Press Online. 2011.
Lemke, Douglas. Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 2002.
Levy, Jack. War and Peace. Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2002.
Levy, Jack. War and Peace. Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2003.
Linklater, A. Neo-realism in Theory and Practice′,in Booth, K., & Smith, S., (eds) International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press. 1959.
Mares, David. Violent Peace: Military Interstate Bargaining in Latin America. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, “International Security 15 (1990): 5-56
Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton. 2001.
Mingst, A. K. Essentials of International Relations. New York: W W Norton. 2004
Morgenthau, Hans. Politics among Nations-The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred Knopf INC, 1973.
Morganthau, Hans J. Politics among Nations (Brief Edition). McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. 1993.
Morgenthau, H. J. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf. 1985.
Nolte Detlef, How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research Topics, Paper presented for Delivery at the ECPR Joint Session of Workshops. 2007. Web.
Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences and Humanities, New York: World, 1959.
Nye, J. S. Power In The Global Information Age. From Realism To Globalisation. London: Routledge. 2004.
Organski, A.F.K. World Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1958.
Phillips L A, Power and influence after the Cold War: Germany in East-Central Europe, Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.
Pina, O J. Plan Columbia: How U.S. Military Assistance Affects Regional Balances of Power, Thesis submitted to Naval Postgraduate School. 2011. Web.
Russet, B. M., and Oneal J.R. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. W.W. Norton. 2001.
Sagan, S. D., & Waltz, K. N. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed. New York: New Edition. 2003.
Scribd.com How did the fall of the USSR affect the global balance of power in regards to the USA as a super power. 2011. Web.
Squassoni, S. CRS Report for Congress: Iran’s Nuclear Program: Recent Developments. 2003. Web.
Tammen, Ronald L. et al. Power Transitions Strategies for the 21st Century, New York: Chatham House Publishers. 2000.
The New York Times. Iran’s Nuclear Program. 2010. Web.
Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond, 3rd ed. Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon. 1999.
Waltz, K.N. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics, “International Security 18 (1993): 44-79
Waltz, K. N. Man, the State and War. Columbia University Press. 1959.
Waltz, K.N. Theory of International Politics, New York: Random House, 1979.
Waltz, K.N. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” Third Draft of a Paper Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Society, San Francisco, 1990, pp. 7-8
Wendt, A. Social Theory of International Relations. Cambridge University Press. 1999.
Wendt, A. Why a World State is Inevitable: Teleology and the Logic of Anarchy. Working Paper. 2001.
Wight, M. Power Politics. Edited by Hedley Bull et al., London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. 1978.
Yoon, J.H. Research Topic for International Relations. 2011. Web.