Have the students and professionals of Strategy, War and International Politics ever wondered why Iran's pursuit of Nuclear capabilities (for civil or military purpose, the debate is irrelevant) scares the pants-off the contemporary western imperial powers?
Of course not, as according to the many studies conducted, lets take for example one conducted by The William and Mary College in US in 2004, at the department of International Relations Theory and Practices (TRIP, the study is called ''IR: One or Many Disciplines?''), the field of international studies (i.e. International Relations, Strategic Studies, International Security, etc) is generally dominated by white western men, in other words, the field commentators are western, and based on this logic/findings these commentators will not divulge far-away from the western interests and discourse, and thus the conclusion is simply this, the field is highly biased towards western representation of what the world is really like and not the truth (as Social Constructivists would argue, and as many critics had challenged the dominance of the field by ''realists'' who based their analysis and hypotheses on status quo defined concepts and abstracts).
In short, to understand why the west are really scared in seeing Iran with a Nuclear weapon is to understand first the western approach to international security and politics.
The poor West in the competitive World:
Armed Robbers Why do you, a reader, might think that of all the wars conducted in the world most of these can be accounted to have been undertaken by western states? The answer to this question is simple (which I answered in depth recently via my masters thesis), you see the western nations are a poor nations by geographical misfortune placed on them. The western nations posses no really competitive resources or advantage that is natural, unlike the Middle Eastern or Russia in terms of Oil or Gas, or Africa and the natural minerals, and so forth.
Thus, the west had learned from ever since the time of Alexander the Great, and more speedily during the era of Imperial Rome, Imperial Britain and Imperial France, to today's Imperial West under the leadership of the United States, that they can actually find a way in creating for themselves a competitive advantage (denied by nature) against the rest by literally robbing by force those nations blessed with competitive natural resources.
But how were they, i.e. the west, go about to achieve this goal of robbing the rest without putting themselves under threat of counter-attack from the self-defensive nations, the answer to this inquiry they found the in the self-created logic of the utility of military power, well elevated by Thucycdides that ''the might will always be able to take from the weak''.
In short, the west began creating a competitive military-security-industrial complex, significant to it's survival in every way imaginable; economically (accounts for a larger share of it's exports and overseas trade, from arms trade, which the west dominate, to the business of war), socially (paying for welfare etc), culturally (sustaining the ''culture of western military invincibility'') and politically (creating profits for corporations, maintaining power of the status quo etc), hence even during times of great economic crises the west always still find ways to pump more funds into their defense and security coffers.
In short, military power, that well trained and equipped armed forces, became the western states own competitive resources, and with it they were able to gain in other hand the much sought global competitive advantage against their rivals, or in other words, the west made wars a natural sector of business, essential for their survival, and it is because of this need to uphold their  military power dominance, in numbers and capabilities, as well as  their abilities to be able to conduct willy-nilly the wars of their choices any time or place that the west has always been scared and felt threatened by those who seek or appear to seek to make/challenge this competitive advantage [to a state of] void (to defeat it).
This is why Iranian attainment of nuclear weapon, or any other countries as such, especially those defiant against western imperialism and robbery, means it will make the western competitive advantage/resource null and no longer applicable especially in the region in supporting their local proxies, or conducting future wars; and this is why for this author Iran should make a nuclear bomb and all the capabilities for its delivery to far-away distances of the global and astro-spheres (outer space).
In short, to this author, the fact of the matter is simply this, Nuclear weapons are in general to their nature contrary to how these are presented by ''western commentators'' of international affairs are not a threat to peace but these weapon are actually weapons of peace, discouraging wars, i.e. making the abilities of western imperialists or any other aggressors who go around creating one war after another for own personal benefit rather than for self-defence no longer a logic, as the countries with similar possession of these weapons can now defend themselves, and threatened total annihilation.
This logic and truth is why the West fears Iranian attainment of a nuclear weapon, as in the past they feared the Soviet challenges to their military competitive advantage, or the Germans, or Napoleon, or Persians, Chinese etc.
In summary, any state or actor that can make western competitive resource, it's military power/armed forces, irrelevant means it has attained the ability to rob the west of it's global competitiveness in totality.
|Liveleak on Facebook|