To add to Ira Stoll’s post criticizing Kenneth Waltz’s op-ed reassuring us that Iranian nukes are not worrisome, it’s important to put Waltz’s remarks in context. Specifically, they must be understood within the neorealist school of international relations which he – a highly respected academic – effectively founded.
Neorealism, or Structural Realism, considers the actions of states to be conditioned by the structure of the international system, which is fundamentally anarchic. The struggle against anarchy determines the policy of states, which all ultimately seek security. That means that when one state rises in power, others will seek to balance that power. Hence Waltz’s view that the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons is motivated by concern about Israel’s alleged nuclear capability, and that, upon achieving parity, there will be balance and stability.
The problem with structural realism – its limited analytic value notwithstanding – (as with all structural theories) is that it largely evacuates notions of ideas and agency from world affairs: facts such as Israel’s democratic politics as compared with Iranian theocracy, or the caprices of dictators, or domestic politics, and so forth, do not drastically change a state’s aspirations and behavior. Yet these facts are so critical to any reasonable observer – and, in the case of the Middle East, that includes all the Arab regimes, who have never shown the sort of alarm toward Israel’s supposed nuclear capability that they have toward Iran’s. This reality fatally undermines Waltz’s thesis.
Incidentally, the case of Israel has also undermined the approach of another structural realist, John Mearsheimer. Though his perspective differs slightly from Waltz’s, his obsession with the power of the ‘‘Israel lobby’’ in the United States is inconsistent with his theory that domestic politics are largely irrelevant to the actions of states.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that Israel, anomalous in so many ways, has ruptured the theories of both of these leading IR theorists. In Mearsheimer’s case, he has in effect abandoned his entire life’s work by indulging his prejudice; in Waltz’s case, he has illustrated the poverty of his theory by presenting such an outlandish analysis and offering policy prescriptions so disconnected from reality.
This is important to remember when encountering academics who are unsympathetic or hostile to Israel: sometimes the scholar’s view is simply the product of a broader theoretical perspective. That of course doesn’t make the theory correct – after all, these scholars do work in ivory towers – but it does mitigate the nefariousness of their intentions. That said, sometimes they really are just haters.
Well it's consistent with my theory on Institutional Entropy. The Ivory Tower begins with a significant degree of mission and integrity. As specific individuals achieve normal human goals like recognition, wealth, and power, their ideas become models for their mediocre peers. Ultimately, the mediocre end up repeating the ostensible successes of others until it crowds out competing ideas and academic intolerance becomes the norm. n nNot only is there no keeping small and petty minds out of the Ivory Tower, there's no way of stopping them from lowering it to their level. n nYes, theoretical antisemitism can only come from a small and petty mind reaching not for the truth but for self validation.
Sorry, pal: conflict in the Middle East doesn't "rupture" Waltz' theory. Neo-realism doesn't tell us everything we need to know, but it does provide us with an important insight to what's really going on. For instance, it explains why the Saudis would likely go nuclear if Iran did, that they'd likely move closer to Israel (though quietly) and so forth. I'm pro-Israel, but, come on. I Israel isn't particularly "special", despite the fervent wishes of most commentary readers for it to be so. I'm pro-Israel, but, come on.
James: nOne needs to distinguish Realism from Neo-Realism (Structuralism Realism). Everything you wrote concerning the inevitable quest by the Saudis to obtain their own nuclear weapons as well "moving closer to Israel" should Iran be successful in developing it's own nuclear weapons can be better explained using traditional Realist analysis. Why would the Saudis "go nuclear" if Iran developed nuclear weapons? If you think that it might have something to do with the Sunni/Shia rivalry or anything to do with Islam then Neo-Realists is incapable of providing an answer. If the Saudis "move closer to Israel" then that too falls under traditional Realist theory of "Balance of Power". And what if they didn't? nMy advice: Skip Waltz and read Morgenthau. nFurther advice: Skip Walt and Mearsheimer and read Organski.
Again, I didn't say the structural realists provided the answers to every important (or even the most important questions). But Waltz isn't "wrong". A nuclear Saudi might have something to do with Sunni/Shia rivarly, or Islam, or any one of dozens of reasons — personalities etc etc(and those may be the most important things to know); but it will definitely also will be a result of state" seeking balance in newly unbalanced system (I last read Theory of International Politics 11 years ago, but doesn't he also argue that units pursue interests narrowly defined as existence?).
Because Israel is not treated normally, she does not fit into neat 'structural' theories of how nations behave, are perceived, and responded to. n nIt seems when it comes to Israel, the world (Israel's intellectual enemies and detractors, and practitioners of 'statecraft') wants it both ways – to treat Israel as a one off pariah, to whom normal patterns of defense and international convention are denied, yet at the same time, want her to behave or accept actions on the part of her enemies that fit into the larger theories of how states can and should behave, held by these same parties.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts". nAlbert Einstein n n