Assignment:
Iran conducted Missile test on May 20. On May 22, Tony Karon published an essay entitled "Iran's Missile Test: A Message to Obama" in The Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900387,00.html). On the same day, the UPI reported that Israel conducted a regional war simulation (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/22/Israel-conducts-regional-war-simulation/UPI-73231243005772/).
Using one of theoretical approaches in International Relations (realism or neo-realism, liberalism or neo-liberal institutionalism, radicalism, constractivism, postmodernism, and feminism), analyze the impacts of Iran's missile test on the global and regional system. Keep in mind that you need to use an analitical view from the level of analysis of World Politics in addition to your theoretical analysis.
Post your comments within 300 words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
iran once again, is playing games. its okay though, Iseral is playing too. for this blog assignment i will be commenting through the "realism" approach. the 2 nations of iseral and iran are acting like any other bad neighbors, trying to win a prize that does not exist through chest pounding and saber raddling. i feel that the make up of the entire middle east is in a fairly static position, iseral and pakistan not with standing. this is not to say that their importance has not changed, iran has become a regional superpower and i don't think they know how to handle it. since their creation iran has been emerged in international conflict; CIA & post revolution iran, iran & iraq, iran & iseral, iran and the UN. i feel that the weakening of the US in the middle east and the distruction of saddam's iraq are leaving a power vacuum in the region and iran is being sucked in to a place of regional hiegimon. i think with in five years that iran will find its place in the international community and be as boring as south africa or vietnam. or maybe it was all just a schulding conflict, iran and iseral both haveing tests in the same week, like both of them wearing the same outfit to a UN summit. they have lived next to each other for a long while, they could possibly be becoming like an old married couple.
ReplyDeletejoe puleo
i made an error, i meant to say Israel and Palestine, not Pakistan. sorry.
ReplyDeletejoe puleo
From a realist propective,Iran and Isreal's conflict is one of ego,and Int'l positon or maybe lack thereof. Iran seems to be desperate to prove something to itself. Isreal through a strong military International ties and support seem genuinely unafraid of Iran's threats. Moreover Iran attempt at bullying Israel and vice versa will inevitably blow up in thier faces. However,With both launching weapons in a show of military strength this conflict as old as it is, could outlive everyone in this lifetime and the next. "An eye for an leaves both men blind"
ReplyDeleteJonas Holt
PS2810
Iran’s missile test seems like a huge problem. When the United States is giving a chance to diplomacy by promoting a possible use of civil nuclear power. The fact that the United States along with the European Union would possibly go along with Iran having nuclear power capabilities is a huge policy shift. The missile testing while intentionally meant to draw the attention to Iran serves to strain any diplomacy with the hostile state. The power potential of Iran is minimal. The state is not of great geographical size or in a great defensible position, decent natural recourses but 70 million people is marginalized in comparison with the United States 320 million people. The realist view of the state says that the US and Iran are independent actors and Iran is only constrained by the anarchy in the international system (the US as well). The only reason the US would consider diplomacy, according to the realist view, because it would be in their best interest as a sovereign state. It is understandable Iran would act in their best interest but fighting a war with Israel would only further fragment the Middle East. It is the US’s best interest to protect the investments made in the Middle East, if Iran wants to threaten these investments then the US (acting in their best interest) will turn Persia into a pancake.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to North Korea the constructivists view would be that the state views themselves as a socially constructed entity. Unquestionable authority over its people and a reckless disregard for the countries near by ever since the end of the Korean war. North Korea seemingly has been backed into a corner in which international norms of behavior don’t apply. They could have and possibly still will be shaped by national interests but if they keep acting in a way the United States deems aggressive then, the President Obama will act in the realist policies that are being hidden under a cloak of idealism.
ReplyDeleteThe actions of North Korea are extreme after repeated warnings from the international community just doesn’t fit the constructivists maybe the realist, but after repeated warnings the other nations that could be affected might take the realist view and dismantle the Korean Republic.
Iran's nuclear test can be regarded in two different ways, depending on what theoretical perspective you want to use. On the one hand, Iran claims that they are only developing nuclear power to use as electricity, in which case the people's intentions are good. They want electrical power, and there is nothing incredibly selfish about that. If the situation did escalate to nuclear arming of the nation, liberalists could attribute that to corrupt leaders, or a misunderstanding of the issue between President Obama and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, a realist would claim that Iran is acting in a selfish way to ensure their national security above everything else. As Hobbes would say, the leader must put his or her nation's safety first. This is the sense the international community seems to be taking the news.
Malati Vadapalli
Devvora Olalere
ReplyDeletePS 2810
05/23/09
Analyzing Iran’s May 20 Missile Test
Iran conducted a missile test on May20th.
Liberals posit that republican regimes (ones with representative government and separation of powers) are least likely to wage war; that is the basic position of the theory of the democratic peace. Therefore, a liberalist would agree that Iran’s nuclear intentions are confined to generating electricity, even though the concern of the U.S. and its allies is that the infrastructure of a civilian nuclear program — particularly uranium enrichment — puts a nuclear weapon within short-term reach should Iran decide to assemble one.
On the other hand, nuclear power has never been the friendliest mean of source of power for the environment; liberals have typically seen the environmental issue as appropriate to the international agenda for the twenty-first century, hence a group of liberals would not be very happy with Iran’s nuclear power. Furthermore, liberals welcome the interdependency and have faith in the technological ingenuity of individuals to be able to solve many of the natural resource dilemmas. Hence, they would agree with the U.S. that an end has to be put on Iran’s issue.
Interestingly, liberals pay attention to
leadership: good leaders can avoid resorting to war; bad leaders may not be able to prevent it. In other words, the military drill that simulated a war involving Israel and Arab states and terrorist groups, is seen as a bad leader’s move by a liberal’s view; and not important as President Obama stated that it revealed how well Israel could defend itself on multiple fronts should war break out with regional powers such as Iran and Syria.
From a realist point of view:
ReplyDeleteIran has every right to act in their own interest and produce nuclear energy; however they are threatening the multi polarity of the Middle East by producing nuclear weapons. If Iran continues their production of weapons they will be the most dominate player in the Middle East. All the countries around them will be threatened and have to comply with Iranian demand. This will also encourage other Middle Eastern nations to produce nuclear arms in order to protect themselves from Iran and again form a multi-polar Middle East. The trend of nuclear development in the Middle East will pose a substantial threat to United Statesà security and is already causing an immediate threat to their largest ally in the region (Israel). Many realists would argue that it is imperative that the United States and UN regulate IranÃs nuclear plants and place a ban on nuclear weapon development.
Brent Stapleton
From a realistic point of view, Iran is being selfish and power seeking because it "isn't about to be intimidated into backing off its nuclear development, and that is has the means to retaliate against any military strikes." It wants to be powerful with bad intentions.
ReplyDeleteIf Iran wants to keep making nuclear weapons or trying, other countries will be in fear and Iran wants that because that means they will win in seeking power. Iran wants to manage its security and wants other countries to know that they have the ability to destroy and make nuclear weapons that can help destroy.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900387,00.html
Iran is a regional power- both militarily and economically. It has political ties to Russia and China and has more influence with other Middle Eastern countries. Iran might be the biggest threat to Isreal and U.S interests in the Middle East. The timing of Israel's simulation shows that it sees Iran as a legitimate threat. Its not unrealistic to say that Iran could defeat Israel or at least fight to a stalemate if not for Israel's nuclear weapons. Its easy to see why the Israelis are troubled by a nuclear Iran. Israel is also surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. The liberalist perspective would encourage diplomacy and the negotiation process running its course. Israel can't afford to let Iran develop nukes but at it may have to give up a few inches by letting it enrich its own uranium.
ReplyDelete