In the past few years, the Middle East has been a volatile region. The sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims and the power struggle between regional actors have made the region a potential powder keg. Iran, a major political and military actor in the region, has been at the centre of much of the conflict and speculation. By using the balance of power theory, this essay explores the likelihood of Iran engaging in a conventional war in the Middle East in the next two years, as well as analyzes the underlying reasons.
Conceptual theory
International relations theories provide a framework for understanding the complex dynamics between nations and societies across the globe. The four major theories of international relations are liberalism, realism, neorealism, and constructivism. Realism theory. This theory emphasizes the importance of power, security, and self-interest in international relations. Realists believe that the international system is anarchic and that states are primarily concerned with maintaining their autonomy and security. Liberalism theory. It emphasizes the importance of cooperation and interdependence among states. [1]. Liberals believe that states should pursue policies that promote peace, democracy, human rights, and economic prosperity. Constructivism theory. Constructivists argue that international relations are structured by shared understandings and norms. They argue that states are not passive actors in the international system but instead actively shape the international environment through their interactions. Neorealism theory builds on the concepts of realism but incorporates systemic factors such as the balance of power and the distribution of capabilities. Neorealism emphasizes the importance of international institutions and argues that they can be used to manage international relations and reduce the risk of conflict. Some of the neorealism theories include the following:
Balance of power theory
The Balance of Power Theory is one of the most influential theories in international relations. The theory suggests that states seek to maintain a balance of power to protect their interests and that the balance of power is maintained through the use of power to counter the power of other states. [2]. The Balance of Power Theory argues that states constantly compete for power and use power to gain an advantage over their rivals. According to the theory, states must maintain a balance of power so that no one state has too much power. This is done by forming alliances, building military capabilities, and engaging in diplomatic negotiations.
Assumptions of Balance of power theory
This theory is based on the assumption that the two countries involved in the competition will be evenly matched in terms of their capabilities and resources. It is also assumed that the two countries will be motivated to maintain the balance of power to avoid domination by one side over the other.
The Balance of Power theory assumes that states will act to maintain the equilibrium between them. This means that one state will not become too powerful and, thus, threaten the other state. To achieve this balance, states may engage in diplomatic negotiations, economic sanctions, or military conflict.
The Balance of Power theory also assumes that countries are rational actors, meaning they can decide based on their national interests. This means that states will consider their self-interest when deciding whether to take action to maintain the balance of power.
This theory also assumes that the two countries involved in the competition will be able to find a way to peacefully resolve their differences. [3]. This means that states will be willing to make compromises and concessions to reach a peaceful resolution. This is why states often engage in diplomatic negotiations or economic sanctions, rather than military conflict, to maintain the balance of power.
Balance of threat theory
Balance of threat theory is a prominent theory in international relations that proposes that states will act to protect their security by forming alliances with other states that are perceived as threatening. The theory suggests that states will form alliances to counter the capabilities of a perceived threat, thus creating a balance of power. This power balance is necessary to prevent any one state from becoming too powerful and dominating the international system.
Security dilemma theory
Security dilemma theory is a central concept in international relations theory. It states that despite the best efforts of states to increase their security, their attempts may lead to insecurity for other states. As a result, states may act defensively to protect themselves, resulting in a spiral of insecurity and mistrust between states.
The Offense-Defense Theory
This is based on the idea that defensive capabilities are easier to acquire than offensive capabilities. This is because defensive capabilities are seen as more reliable since they are less likely to be defeated by a surprise attack. On the other hand, offensive capabilities require a greater investment of resources, and their success is dependent on the element of surprise. Thus, offensive capabilities are seen as more uncertain and less reliable than defensive capabilities. The theory proposes that states will pursue offensive capabilities if they are in a position of advantage and defensive capabilities if they are at a disadvantage.
The Power Transition Theory
This theory suggests that the structure of international power is relatively stable and determined by the power distribution among states. It also suggests that power transitions, or shifts in power distribution, occur in cycles and that these changes tend to be accompanied by war. Several factors contribute to a power transition, such as economic growth, technological innovation, and military capability. The theory also suggests that the power transition process can be managed through diplomacy to prevent war.
The Hegemonic Stability Theory
This prominent theory in international relations seeks to explain the maintenance of a stable international system. This theory is often used to explain the role of a hegemon, or a dominant power, in maintaining peace and order in the international system. It posits that a hegemon’s position of dominance is necessary for the continued stability of the international system. The theory argues that the international system is more prone to instability and conflict when a hegemon is absent.
Balance of power theory in explaining Iran’s case
In the case of Iran, the balance of power theory is particularly relevant given the country’s history of antagonism towards its neighbours. Iran has a long-standing rivalry with Saudi Arabia, and the two countries have clashed over various issues. [4]. Iran has traditionally been a regional power in the Middle East and has sought to maintain a balance of power in the region. In recent years, however, Iran has become increasingly aggressive in its foreign policy and has sought to expand its regional influence. This has increased tensions with its neighbours, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United States. As a result, Iran will likely continue its aggressive foreign policy in the coming years.
In this section, I will explain why Iran will likely engage in a conventional war in the Middle East in the next two years, using the Balance of Power Theory. First, it is important to understand the current state of affairs in the Middle East. Iran is a major regional power, and its foreign policy has been characterized by an aggressive stance toward its neighbours, especially Israel. Iran has also been involved in various regional conflicts, such as in Syria and Yemen, and has supported militant groups such as Hezbollah. Iran’s regional ambitions and increasing clout have caused alarm in the region, particularly among its rivals, such as Saudi Arabia.
In addition, since the current Russia-Ukraine war has created a power vacuum in the region, Iran is likely to pursue a policy of “no-west-no-east” in order to prevent further destabilization and maintain its own balance of power. Iran is likely to use diplomatic and economic means rather than military means to influence events in the region and will attempt to contain the conflict and work towards a resolution.
Furthermore, Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapons program, which has caused further regional insecurity. In this context, the Balance of Power Theory suggests that Iran will likely engage in a conventional war in the Middle East in the next two years. [5]. Iran will likely seek to maintain its regional power by balancing against its rivals, such as Saudi Arabia. As a result, Iran could take military action to counterbalance the influence of its rivals and assert its power in the region. Furthermore, Iran’s nuclear ambitions could be a major factor in its decision to engage in a conventional war. Iran’s nuclear program has caused alarm in the region, and its rivals could attempt to contain Iran’s ambitions by engaging in a conventional war. This could escalate tensions in the region, which could result in a conventional war. Finally, Iran could also be motivated to engage in a conventional war to distract from its domestic problems. Iran has faced several internal issues, such as economic stagnation and popular discontent. Engaging in a conventional war could be a way for the Iranian government to rally the population around a common cause and divert attention away from its domestic issues.
USA intervention
To reduce the likelihood of regional war, the U.S. should adopt a policy of engagement with all countries in the region. This should include diplomatic negotiations, economic incentives, and other diplomatic measures to reduce tensions and create a more stable regional environment. The U.S. should also seek to increase its influence in the region to counterbalance the influence of Iran and other countries. the U.S. can also reduce the likelihood of regional war in the Middle East by engaging in direct negotiations with the countries involved. By talking to the Middle Eastern countries and taking their concerns and grievances into account, the U.S. can help ensure that all sides can have their voices heard and that their interests are considered. The U.S. can use economic incentives to help promote a sense of unity in the region. [6]. By providing economic aid and investment to countries in the region, the U.S. can help to foster a sense of interconnectedness and shared prosperity. This could help to reduce tensions and create a more cooperative atmosphere in the region, reducing the likelihood of regional war. In addition, the U.S. can use economic incentives to promote stability in the region. This can be done by providing economic assistance to countries in the region to help them build up their military capabilities and increase their security. This would help ensure that all sides in the region can adequately defend themselves, reducing the likelihood of a major conflict. The U.S. can also foster regional cooperation and collaboration, which can help reduce the risk of conflict and promote regional stability. By providing economic assistance and investment, the U.S. can help to foster a sense of mutual benefit, stability, and unity in the region, reducing the risk of conflict.
Conclusion
Ultimately, I find the balance of power theory to be the most convincing in explaining Iran’s behaviour thus far. Iran has a long history of hostility towards its neighbours, and its involvement in regional conflicts suggests that it is likely to view any action taken by its adversaries as a threat to its power. As such, I believe that there is a real possibility that Iran could engage in a conventional war in the next two years to protect its interests and restore the balance of power. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to help reduce the likelihood of regional war in the Middle East. By using its influence to maintain a balance of power in the region, economic incentives, engaging in diplomatic efforts to foster cooperation between states, and using its military power to deter potential aggressors, the U.S. can help to create a more stable and secure Middle East.
References
Amin, Zana Tofiq Kaka. “Analyze Iran’s behavior since the Revolution in 1979. Is its behaviour rational or that of a rogue state?.” Global Security Studies 6, no. 1 (2015).
Claude, Inis L. “The balance of power revisited.” Review of International Studies 15, no. 2 (1989): 77-85.
Cohen, Saul B. “Geopolitical realities and United States foreign policy.” Political geography 22, no. 1 (2003): 1-33.
Kang, William, and Jaechun Kim. “Turco-Iranian alignment: Balancing or bandwagoning with the U.S.?.” Journal of International and Area Studies (2016): 17-32.
Walt, Stephen M. “Alliance formation and the balance of world power.” In Realism Reader, pp. 145-149. Routledge, 2014.
[1] Kang, William, and Jaechun Kim. “Turco-Iranian alignment: Balancing or bandwagoning with the U.S.?.” Journal of International and Area Studies (2016): 17-32.
[2] Kang, William, and Jaechun Kim. “Turco-Iranian alignment: Balancing or bandwagoning with the U.S.?.” Journal of International and Area Studies (2016): 17-32.
[3] Claude, Inis L. “The balance of power revisited.” Review of International Studies 15, no. 2 (1989): 77-85.
[4] Walt, Stephen M. “Alliance formation and the balance of world power.” In Realism Reader, pp. 145-149. Routledge, 2014.
[5] Amin, Zana Tofiq Kaka. “Analyze Iran’s behaviour since the Revolution in 1979. Is its behaviour rational or that of a rogue state?.” Global Security Studies 6, no. 1 (2015).
[6] Cohen, Saul B. “Geopolitical realities and United States foreign policy.” Political geography 22, no. 1 (2003): 1-33.
write