Much of international affairs focuses on conflicts between and among actors in the international system. The earliest scholars of International Affairs were people who focused on the conflicts occurring in the world around them.

Classical scholars we study in International Affairs include:

• Thucydides: who wrote "The History of the Peloponnesian War" about the conflict between Athens and Sparta in Ancient Greece)

• Machiavelli: who wrote "The Prince" a guide to staying in power as the leader of an Italian city-state, while they warred with one another in the 16th century

• Hobbes: who wrote "The Leviathan" as a justification for an autocracy given that people were inherently evil and thus prone to war

• And Hans Morgenthau: widely considered to be the founder of modern International Affairs, Morgenthau was an Ashkenazi Jew who fled Germany on the eve of World War II and called for scholars of politics to see the world as it is and not how they wished it to be.

Want to understand conflict? Try to design your own board game. All you need is to create x number of teams and y amount of resources. Then, before starting the game, explain to all teams that the resources are essential to each team’s power and that there may not be enough to go around. Finally, and this is key, distribute the resources unevenly. Now sit back and enjoy the drama that will inevitably unfold.

When trying to understand why humans engage in conflict, there are several different explanations offered by International Affairs scholarship. Most, I would argue boil down to the setup mentioned above. The international system is a board, divided into x number of teams with y amount of resources. These resources (e.g. water, food, oil, etc.) are important to the basic survival of people and collectively states. These resources, however, are not divided evenly. Why do states go to war? States do so to have power over resources they believe are central to survival.

People throughout history have fought with each other to maintain or gain control over resources. The oldest resources states wanted was over land. After all, if you enter a territory once to gain its resources, that can get you some resources. However, if you gain the territory for yourself, you get steady access to those resources.

Territorial acquisition for resources explains a significant portion of the conflicts among states throughout human history. The issue for many states today is that most of the territory has been divided. As a result, there is a perception that the only resources left to be taken must be taken from other states, who understandably do not wish to give them up.

Most fascinatingly, there is an entire group of scholars in International Affairs, specifically within International Relations (called Neorealists), who examine conflict among states to predict when conflict is more or less likely. And these scholars claim they can predict when the board will get ugly by looking only at one factor: the distribution of resources across states. Before explaining what this factor means, let’s take a moment to explain what they don’t examine. They argue there is no need to mention names of states, the history these states have with one another, the nations within or across those states, whether they are democratic or autocratic, etc. To them, these characteristics are irrelevant.

Instead, these scholars claim they can predict most of the conflicts that occur in the international system by giving a ranking of who has what proportion of resources relative to the other states.

Here’s what they predict: If there are a lot of states with similar resources, a situation they call a multipolar world, this could be most problematic. Why? Well, there are a lot of moving parts. If one state chooses to try to acquire the resources of another state, perhaps a third and fourth state will join one side or the other. What happens if too many states join a side and then have to split the winnings? This could lead to defection, and perhaps the defector surprises everyone and joins the initial loser, creating a new and even more desperate alliance. These scholars are not saying they can predict every move made, but they can predict conflict will occur and it will be fast-moving with shifting alliances and a lot of drama.

In contrast, which situation do you think they would argue would be most peaceful? If you said a standoff, you are right. Though many would see two equally-matched teams as a potential bloodbath, these scholars call this bipolar world a “well-armed peace.” After all, states who do not think they can win a war tend to flex their muscles, talk smack, but ultimately avoid going to war over resources they are unsure they can win. Want to know when this has any base in history? From 1945 to 1991, the U.S. and U.S.S.R flexed and talked, but the war never got “hot” (thus, the name Cold War).

These scholars are mixed when it comes to having just one team with most of the resources (i.e. a unipolar world). Some argue this would lead to piling-on efforts by the other states, while others think that if a state gets so far ahead of the other states, then the other states may begin joining the leader with hopes that the state in the first place will share its riches. Those in the latter camp do agree that, once that leader begins to lose a clear lead, the other states may begin to pile on. This is called power transition theory.

Though Neorealists feel pretty confident that they can explain how conflictual the board is overall simply by looking at the distribution of resources, there is some disagreement about when a particular state will choose a particular conflict and when it will not. Some Neorealist scholars argue that states regularly choose an offensive strategy (focus on constant increasing of power), while others argue they choose a defensive strategy (focus on constant increasing of security). Some scholars are so sure that most states are offensive, they call themselves Offensive Neorealists, while their counterparts refer to themselves as Defensive Neorealists. What do you think?

Other scholars argue that you must know more details about a state than its resource distribution to be able to explain when it chooses to act against other states or not. The real trouble is knowing what additional information is most important. And there are a lot of ideas. As noted above, some argue that you do need to know the history of a state, whether it is a democracy or autocracy, even details about whether it is an election year, who are its neighbors, and on and on and on. Though the list is long, I would argue all factors point back to the questions: who has resources and who wants them? The more detailed answers you can give to these questions (e.g. "I have resources, and my neighbor wants them"), the more detailed predictions you can make about conflicts.

Let me explain. We have described the differences between democracies and autocracies in Module V as being based on the size of a winning coalition. Leaders in democracies have a larger winning coalition (e.g. 51% of the popular vote), while autocratic leaders have a much smaller winning coalition (e.g. the military, royal family, oligarchs, etc.). As a result, the issues that rise within states have to do with who has resources (i.e. the leader and its winning coalition) and who wants them (i.e. those outside of the winning coalition).

Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are weapons that are intended to result in widespread death or destruction through the release of an explosion and/or the dissemination of a toxic or poisonous chemical.

There are four types of weapons of mass destruction: biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear. Each of these weapons can be similarly delivered via missiles with the specific explosive or chemical encompassed in the warhead of the missile.

Biological weapons contain biological agents (e.g. bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) in the warhead of a missile. The purpose of these weapons is to deliberately infect humans, animals, and/or plants with these toxic agents to cause disease and death.

Chemical weapons include a broad variety of toxic chemicals that's dissemination via a missile would result in the absorption, inhalation, or ingestion of the toxic agent, causing death and disease. World War I saw the introduction of chemical weapons in the war with the use of chlorine bombs, mustard gas, and hydrogen cyanide. The U.S. used a toxic defoliant called "Agent Orange" in the Vietnam War, and Saddam Hussein used various chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War and to suppress Kurdish populations. The ability to weaponize household chemicals makes these weapons most attractive to terrorists. According to The Atlantic, one of the most deadly chemical weapons agents, sarin, was first discovered in an attempt to develop a pesticide that targeted an insect’s nervous system. Two attacks using sarin gas occurred on three subway lines in Tokyo in the 1990s by a terrorist group, Aum Shinrikyo (also known as Aum and Aleph) in an attempt to bring about the beginning of an apocalypse in which only its members would survive.

The third type of weapon of mass destruction is radiological weapons. The purpose of radiological weapons is to spread radioactive material (or material that is comprised of unstable atoms). Unstable atoms emit this excess energy or mass in a process known as radiation. Radioactive material is harmful if it touches the external surface of the body and/or gets inside the body through the lungs, gut, or wounds, leading to extreme injury, disease, and death.

The fourth and final type of weapon of mass destruction is nuclear weapons. Briefly, nuclear weapons use radioactive material, such as uranium, to create a huge explosion with severe destructive power. Thus, whereas radiological weapons are meant to spread radioactive material, nuclear weapons use radiological material to create a mass explosion (and the spread of radioactive material is a byproduct). These will be the focus of our topic this module and, thus, are discussed in greater detail below.

Early Empires

As we discussed previously, by the sixteen century, the Middle East was divided under the control of two powerful empires. The Ottomans successfully aligned with secular groups on the Arabian Peninsula throughout the next eight centuries and consolidated control under Sunnism, a sect of Islam that initially was distinguished based on its emphasis on choosing a successor of the Prophet Muhammad from leaders within the burgeoning religion, as opposed to those in the Prophet's familial line.

While the Ottomans dominated the coastal regions on the Arabian Peninsula, the Persians would begin to consolidate control to the east of the Peninsula and across the Zagreb mountains beginning in the 16th century. Unlike the Ottomans, the Persians chose to consolidate their belief system around Shiism, the sect of Islam that initially wished to see the successors of the Prophet chosen from the Prophet's familial line. These empires were each dissolved in the 20th century, but the effect of this division of the Muslim world is still seen today. Today, those on the Arabian Peninsula speak Arabic, while those in the area once ruled by the Persian empire (present-day Iran) speak Farsi.

Newly "Independent" States

During World War I, the Ottoman Empire fought on the side of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. When the war ended, the defeated Ottoman Empire was destroyed. Control of the Ottoman homeland was transferred to the Republic of Turkey in 1923 and all of the territories once controlled by the Ottoman Empire on the Arabain peninsula were divided into mandates, or territories controlled and administered under another state. Both France and Great Britain were victors of WWI who had historical interests in the region and were keen to begin the extraction and transportation of oil from these regions to help revivify their ailing post-war economies. Great Britain gained territory that is now present-day Israel, Jordan, and Iraq, and France took control over territory that is present-day Lebanon and Syria. These states would remain under the administrative control of these two European powers until after World War II.

The Persian Empire is best understood as a series of dynasties. By the 20th century, the empire was led by the Qajar dynasty and was in decline. Beginning in the prior century, Great Britain and Russia had been locked in a great power struggle throughout Central Asia, battling for territory, influence, and trade routes. This great power conflict led to an agreement on spheres of influence in 1907, called the Anglo-Russian Convention, which divided Iran, Afghanistan, and Tibet. Britain's interest in Persia only increased after a British expedition found oil in 1908 and the British made an agreement with the Shah (or king) at the time to share oil profits (by giving the Shah around 16% and Britain keeping the rest in their newly-established Anglo-Persian Oil Company). Though the Shah benefitted from the profit-sharing with Britain, the Persian people grew increasingly frustrated with British involvement in their economy with little profits to be seen for the average person.

In the mid-1920s, an internal coup resulted in the ousting of the Qajar Shah and the installation of a military official, Reza Kahn, who crowned himself Reza Shah, and ushered in the final Persian dynasty, the Pahlavi Dynasty, though he acquiesced to a constitutional, rather than absolute, monarchy. It was soon after that the country was renamed the Republic of Iran. One of the changes Reza Kahn made during this time was to request the name Iran be used (which is closer to the Farsi term for the region) than Persia (which comes from the Greek term).

During World War II, Reza Shah chose to align with Nazy Germany (to counter British interests in his state). This strategy had the opposite effect, however. In 1941, the Soviets and British chose to collectively invade the country, and the Shah was forced to abdicate and the Allies placed his young son on the throne instead. While the Soviets were forced out in 1946, the British continued their hold on the state throughout the latter Shah's reign, largely interested in the large oil reserves.

After World War II, as the winds of nationalism and anti-colonialism blew through the region, the Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, chose to nationalize the now Anglo-Iranian oil company, effectively keeping all of the profits from Iranian oil in Iran. Framing the challenge as a communist takeover of Iran, the British appealed for U.S. assistance. In 1953 the U.S. and UK intelligence services, CIA and MI6, respectively, collaborated to successfully depose Prime Minister Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah as an absolute monarch (thus, suspending a flawed-democratic government and imposing an autocratic one in its place). In retrospect, it was this act which ended democracy in Iran. It was the first time the CIA took part in a coup d'état to overthrow a democratically elected leader of a foreign government. The Shah returned and enacted increasingly repressive policies.

Finally, in 1979, the Iranian Revolution, which was led by a loose coalition of Shia clerics, Communists, and others who opposed the Shah and his Western backers successfully deposed the Shah and brought to power the Iranian government structure we know today. This government is an autocratic structure known as a theocracy. A theocracy bases its rule of law on a religious text (in this case the Quran), often has religious leaders in power, and their judicial system is based on these leaders' religious interpretations of the laws in place.

In Iran, though there is both a constitution and three branches of government, all the functions of these branches and their elections are dominated by the clergy. Specifically, at the top of Iran's power structure, is the aptly named Supreme Leader, called the Ayatollah. Iran's Supreme Leader, or Ayatollah, is responsible for overseeing all policies in the country, he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he controls both the intelligence and security apparatuses in the country, and he has the power to appoint all judges, he is in control of all of the radio and television networks, and he appoints the members of the Council of Guardians, experts in Shia Islamic law (usually clergy) who determine which candidates run for public office throughout all branches and levels of the Iranian government.

As mentioned in the video above, "Nuclear Weapons 101," Iran is one of the four states to be found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - the others being South Korea, North Korea, and Libya. This section will explain: (1) the timeline of Iran's nuclear program; (2) some of the possible reasons why Iran has pursued a nuclear weapons program (even as it is found in violation of the NPT); (3) details of the Iran Nuclear Deal, known as the JCPOA, signed by President Obama in 2015; (4) why President Trump was opposed to the deal and chose to withdraw the U.S. in 2018; and (5) the subsequent events that have occurred.

Iran's Pursues Nuclear Weapons

Iran began a nuclear program for civilian purposes in 1957 under the Shah. During this time, the United States shared nuclear technology with Iran through its "Atoms for Peace" program, which promised nuclear technology to allies during the Cold War as a means for drawing states closer to the U.S. and away from the Soviet Union. Though the program explicitly limited sharing of information when it comes to civilian nuclear power, as noted in the video, much of the infrastructure, technology, and materials can be used for both civilian power and weapons (i.e. this is known as dual-use technology). Iran signed the NPT in 1970 as a non-nuclear weapons state.

After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the United States ended its nuclear cooperation with Iran. Instead of ending its program, Iran began requesting assistance from other nuclear states, including Pakistan, China, and the Soviet Union (later Russia). Beginning in the mid-1980s, Pakistani nuclear physicist, AQ Khan sold Iran drawings of centrifuges needed for high-enriched uranium and by the 1990s was selling the state centrifuges directly. These centrifuges are still used in Iran's largest weapons facilities today.

In the 1990s, China began supplying Iran yellowcake (a form of uranium best used in the enrichment process) as well as nuclear reactors (which help add a neutron to uranium 238, turning it into an even more destructive element, plutonium), as well as the material to create and separate plutonium once formed. Around the same time, Russia began to supply Iran with necessary parts for its reactors, though it has since stopped supplying Iran's nuclear program.

By the early 2000s, Iran was suspected to have come close to an operable nuclear weapons program. Evidence of this program was uncovered in the expanded surveillance of enemy states by the United States following the September 11th attaches, and the United States turned the evidence over to the IAEA. In turn, the IAEA formally rebukes Iran and commands it to cease all enrichment of uranium in 2003-2004. However, the following year, Iran revitalizes its nuclear weapons program. In 2006, the IAEA refers Iran to the UN Security Council, which votes to impose full sanctions on Iran forbidding the trade of any nuclear or missile-related materials or technology to Iran by all UN members (i.e., all states). As missile materials include metals such as aluminum and titanium, an embargo on these materials drastically impacted Iran's economy. Nonetheless, Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, likely gaining materials through black-market trading. After evidence of a second weapons facility comes to light in 2009, the UN Security Council increases the materials being embargoed, including general armaments and bans Iran from launching even non-nuclear missiles. That same year, the U.S. launches a cyberattack against one of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran continued its nuclear weapons program, and Russia helped it construct a new nuclear plant for its weapons program. In 2012, the United States Congress passes sweeping legislation, called the National Defense Authorization Act, which sanctioned any foreign financial institution that facilitated any transactions from Iran, effectively freezing the flow of money into the state from the global marketplace. That same year, the EU bans all oil from Iran. The combination really hurts Iran's economy.

The following year, Iran agrees to negotiate substantively with the UN Security Council's P5 (the U.S., China, Russia, the UK, and France) as well as Germany (who serves as a key leader in the EU). This group is known as the P5+1. It is this group that agrees to the Join Comprehensive Program of Action in 2015 with Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the lifting of all sanctions.

Why Iran Wants a Nuclear Weapons Program

As there is no one way to explain conflict among actors, there is also no consensus as to why Iran (or any state) would like to have a nuclear weapons program, though Neorealist, Kenneth Waltz (who is credited with founding the Defensive Neorealist camp in International Affairs) believed that Iran is not interested in nuclear war any more than a pacifist would be.

Instead, he argues that "power begs to be balanced," and he argues that Iran feels that they do not have enough power in the Middle East and that its enemies do. Specifically, Iran does not trust the United States, many of its Sunni neighbors, and two other rivals: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

If you return to the map of the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire, you may note that Saudi Arabia is the region in the center of the Arabian Peninsula that was never conquered by the Ottomans (though they did try). Instead, the Saudi family (known as the House of Saud) was able to use strategic alliances, brute force, and the adoption of a fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, which offers a much narrower and more literal interpretation of the Quran than other Sunnis. As Saudi Arabia has grown as a strong absolute monarchy, it is considered a regional power equal only to Iran. Though Saudi Arabia does not have a nuclear weapons program (yet!), the Saudi family has benefitted from an alliance with the United States for decades. In contrast, Iran does not have as strong a nuclear ally (though it is relatively close with Russia).

The second enemy of Iran is Israel. Israel is a Jewish state located on the Arabian Peninsula founded in 1948. Originally, Iran was initially one of the few states in the Middle East to recognize Israel. This occurred during the time that the British and Americans had reinstated the Shah following the coup against the Prime Minister. As Iran at the time was ruled by a leader friendly to the U.S., and Israel is a long-term ally of the U.S., the states were quite cooperative with one another. All of this changed, however, following the Iranian Revolution and the establishment of the Shia theocracy in Iran. Following the regime change, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, declared Israel an enemy of Islam. He also nicknamed the state the "Little Satan" and the United States the "Great Satan." Whereas Iran's other enemy, Saudi Arabia, does not have a nuclear weapons program, it is widely understood that Israel has developed a covert nuclear weapons program since the 1950s, likely supported by the U.S. and France in their claims to have been transferring peaceful nuclear technology under the "Atoms for Peace" program. As for the official Israeli stance, the state has chosen not to "confirm or deny its existence." Whether confirmed or not, however, a nuclear state that is both an ally of the United States and just over a thousand miles from Iran's border offers little sense of security in the region.

In addition to two sworn enemies, as well as the United States, Iran is aware that it is a Shia-led state surrounded by Sunni-led states. As a result, the country feels that its neighbors are not advocates of their theocratic rule based on diverging religious interpretations of the Quran. As NPR notes, despite claims by Iran that their revolution was for Islam, most Sunni Muslims "rejected that claim" and there is a deep sense of worry among its neighbors that Iran will assert its claims to the rest of the Muslim world (a prediction that is supported in the Shia texts).

The Original Iran Deal: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA

In 2015 the P5 and Germany negotiated a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. As President Obama suggested, “Everyway pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off.” The purpose of the deal is to decrease the likelihood Iran will enrich weapons-grade uranium. The key provisions include:

1. Decrease Uranium Stockpile: It must get rid of its enriched low-enriched uranium stockpile by 97%

2. Uranium Enrichment Limit: It is not allowed to enrich uranium above 3.67% (highly-enriched uranium used in weapons is around 90%)

3. Centrifuges: It must decrease its centrifuges from 20,000 to 6,000 (to prevent the capacity to enrich uranium)

4. Inspections: Iran has agreed to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency greater access and information regarding its nuclear program, and to allow the agency to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of covert facilities related to uranium enrichment anywhere in the country. Inspectors will also have access to the supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program, including uranium mines and mills, and to continuous surveillance of centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities.

Though the IAEA confirmed that Iran met all of the requirements of the JCPOA after its implementation, Iran accelerated launches of ballistic missiles before and after signing the agreement. Technically, the agreement did not forbid the launching of ballistic missiles. However, UN Security Council Resolution (2231), which was a resolution that passed in support of the JCPOA, added the forbidding of the launch of any ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. As a result, Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA, but not this resolution.

Trump's Withdrawal & Iran's Non-Compliance

Throughout his campaign, Trump disparaged the JCPOA and vowed to renegotiate with Iran once in office. After Iran continued to launch ballistic missile tests and used them against Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni civil war, the Trump administration announces its plans to withdraw from the agreement and to impose sanctions effective in the summer of 2018. In response, France, Germany, and the UK determine they will continue the agreement without the United States, and Iran continues its compliance with the agreement as well. As the United States continues to increase sanctions on Iran, Iran responded by threatening to no longer comply with the JCPOA to France, the UK, and Germany's deep concern. Though Trump attempted bilateral negotiations with Iran in 2019, Ayatollah Khamenei responded that he would not negotiate with Trump as he has "thrown away everything that was agreed upon." Beginning in 2020, Iran announced that it would stop complying with the JCPOA and then began increasing its enrichment to pre-JCPOA levels this time with even more advanced centrifuges.

Since these actions by Iran, there have been two explosions at Iranian facilities this year that have led to significant shutdowns of these facilities and enrichment. Reports suggest that Israel was responsible for these attacks. Though Israel has shown that it is not interested in seeing the JCPOA renewed (as it has little faith Iran ever intends to give up its nuclear program), others suggest the attacks by Israel may make it more desirable for Iran to work to restore the JCPOA to gain relief from sanctions and to encourage the U.S. to reign in future Israeli attacks.