The Concept of Rationality in International Relations

The concept of rationality often arises when discussing mutually assured destruction and the use of nuclear weapons. For class, we read two differing opinions on whether Iran should have weapons of mass destruction, and if Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East. I think that the possession of nuclear weapons has provided a peaceful situation in much of the world, but this is only because rational states are those that are in possession of the weapons. Recently, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted about the annihilation of the state of Israel (as published in the Jerusalem Post), an action that I think further proves that Iran is an irrational state and should therefore not be in possession of nuclear weapons.

An interesting phenomenon that has occurred is that there has been no nuclear war, regardless of the fact that there are nuclear weapons in the world. I think that it is possible for nuclear weapons to create peace, because they do act as a deterrent. While the Cold War was an unpleasant time in history, it did not actually lead to fighting or the death of thousands of people that is normally characteristic of war. However, I think that the present situation of nuclear weapons acting as a deterrent is only because rational states are in possession of the weapons of mass destruction. These states understand that the purpose of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrent, and not to be used as a weapon.

The argument that rational states can responsibly posses nuclear weapons also supports why Iran should not. Iran is not a rational state, as can be seen by the recent tweet by Iran’s Supreme Leader. On November 8^th, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated” (Jerusalem Post). As a highly ranked official in Iran, Khamenei’s actions represent the government and the irrationality that characterizes it. If Iran were to possess nuclear weapons, I believe that they would not use them as a deterrent as the rest of the world has done. Rather, I think they would actually use them as a weapon, specifically against Israel. Some may argue that there is currently no stability in the Middle East because Israel is a regional hegemon due to their sole possession of nuclear weapons. The same people would argue that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would therefore provide stability to the Middle East, because there would be two powerful states in the region to balance each other out. However, I think that this would not be the case, because Iran is not a rational state like Israel, as can be seen from Khamenei’s tweet.

The Jerusalem Post article also brings up another situation in which Iran’s rationality must be questioned. The article mentions that President Obama recently sent a letter to Khamenei to suggest cooperating in the fight against ISIS. After that, however, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated, “Iran should not be included in any coalition that is formed to fight Islamic State.” If Iran was a rational state that the United States could trust, I don’t think that Foreign Minister Lieberman would have made this comment. It is Iran’s rationality that calls into question how reliable they will be as an ally in the fight against ISIS. Ultimately, a country’s rationality does not only play into whether they should have nuclear weapons, but also whether or not they should be used as allies for a common goal.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Khamenei-on-Twitter-No-cure-for-barbaric-Israeli-regime-but-to-be-annihilated-381215