Raphaël Dosson
Going back to the core motive behind U.S. military campaigns against Iran—intensifying from 2025 into full-scale war in 2026—and, more broadly, to the enduring regional confrontations involving Israel, the central objective has been to prevent nuclear proliferation, as a nuclear Iran would emerge as a dominant regional power, threaten U.S. allies, and exert control over critical energy routes, thereby undermining the regional balance of power. In 2012, Kenneth Waltz argued that “more may be better,” suggesting that a nuclear Iran could, in fact, enhance regional stability by restoring the balance of power, counterbalancing Israel’s nuclear monopoly, keeping conflicts limited below the threshold of escalation, and inducing greater strategic caution. In this view, nuclearization could ultimately accomplish Iran’s security imperatives, reducing incentives for revisionist behavior. Can the same argument still be made – and could Iranian nuclear proliferation contribute to stabilizing the region by addressing the underlying imbalance of power and security dilemma?
No comments:
Post a Comment