Just suppose a cinematic thought, a picture or a scenario where two Asiatic giants “Japan and Iran” acquire nuclear powers. This is a situation that once belonged to the category of science fiction movies and television series becoming a real possibility. The nuclearization of Japan and Iran is not only a simple addition to the already existing nuclear power states but would definitely create a change in the regional interaction and in the international system. The already tense and competitive relations between Asian countries would be changed drastically, upsetting the fine line of power in the region.
Technologically advanced Japan which is a strategic U.S ally has not possessed nuclear weapons after the Second World War and instead, relied on the protection offered by the American nuclear shield. Nevertheless, recent threats posed by the nuclear developments in North Korea and growing military power of China may change the situation and force Japan to think about the necessity of the no nuclear policy. On the other hand, Iran, which is one of the most influential countries in the Middle Eastern area, has become one of the main subjects of international non-proliferation regime. Sanctions have been lifted and the JCPOA at risk of collapsing can fast forward Iran’s nuclear program. This op-ed is devoted to the analysis of potential impacts of Japan and Iran attaining nuclear status and changing the pole of powers in Asia. The nuclearization of these two nations will not only create a strategic shift among the region neighbors but also will generate a response of the leading world powers, thus, a new stage of tensions and race in the nuclear weapon will start.
Asia’s Existing Nuclear Landscape
It is, therefore, imperative to first analyze current power dynamics in Asia before looking at the possibilities of shifts that new nuclear players may bring. The continent already has a structure of nuclear powers that includes both participants with a long history of interaction and newcomers. Therefore, one can conclude that out of all the Asian superpowers, only China has a fully developed nuclear power, and with an estimated stockpile of about 350 warheads, it can be considered a major power in the international security system. Along with China, India and Pakistan are two nations that have a long-standing feud, and both are nuclear nations.
Despite the fact that North and South Korea are much smaller in terms of military power compared to China, both sides of the Korean peninsula possess sufficient firepower to inflict considerable harm to each other and the region as a whole. North Korea is yet another factor that complicates the situation. It continued to violate the prohibition through multiple nuclear tests and is estimated to possess a small nuclear arsenal, although international organizations and other nations have condemned the country and placed sanctions on it. Due to the unpredictability of leadership and the desire to develop ballistic missile capability, there is a chance that it may spread and escalate into an accidental war.
Japan’s Nuclearization
Historical Context: After WWII, Japan stated that it would not use force to solve international issues and made its constitution peaceful. It has been prepared with the support of the United States, and it does not allow possession, production, or introduction of nuclear weapons in Japan. After that, Japan depended much on the protection of the nuclear shield of the United States, which is reflected in the US-Japan security treaty.
Catalysts for Change: However, there are some potential precipitating factors that could cause Japan to revisit this matter of nuclear power if security threats within the region were to surface. The nuclear program of North Korea and its unpredictable actions are worrisome. North Korea launched more missiles and threatened Japan recently, and this has aggravated the public concerns and raised the question of the effectiveness of the US deterrence. Secondly, Chinese increasing military strength and their approach towards the East China Sea are seen as a threat to Japan due to its territorial disputes over islands such as Senkaku.
Strategic Implications: It is, therefore, quite certain that a nuclear-armed Japan will definitely alter the balance of power in East Asia. It would convey a new look of assertiveness, which might lead to aggressive foreign policy. This could lead to some tension with other countries in the region, such as China and South Korea. China, already apprehensive about an awakening Japan, might perceive nuclearization as a threat, and the two may get involved in an arms race in the region. North Korea might be pressured into developing a nuclear arsenal given the neighbors on both sides, South Korea and Japan, might turn nuclear as well.
Reactions from Neighbors: Thus, the response of South Korea would probably stem from the need to ensure balance of power. It may force the US to increase the size of its nuclear shield or go as far as considering nuclear weapons. China, for example, will likely perceive a nuclear Japan as a threat that can be hostile. The possible countermeasures may include the growth in China’s military expenses, the holding of military exercises close to Japanese-controlled territories, or exerting political pressure. Another player in the region is Russia; it might have seen a nuclear Japan as a means to strengthen its position in the region and might offer support to China.
Impact on US-Japan Relations: For the US-Japan alliance, it would experience considerably great pressure. Although, in the uncertainties when such interests are threatened, the US may at first extend support to mitigate anxiety of other regional powers and would put into question the longevity of the arrangement of the extended deterrence. Japan’s nuclearization may therefore result in demands for renegotiation of the security treaty, hence reducing the power of America in the area.
Iran’s Nuclearization
Historical Context: Iran has always had its nuclear ambition, in spite of claiming that it will be for the purposes of generating electricity. Nonetheless, global society has developed some concerns regarding such advancements that may lead to the area being weaponized. This is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in July 2015 that sought to restrict Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions. Nevertheless, the decision of the USA to leave the JCPOA in May 2018 under the presidency of Donald Trump created certain reserves on the agreement.
Catalysts for Change: It is not only important for one to understand the key causes of Iran’s nuclear drive but also grasp different factors behind it. The perceived threat depends on the caster’s Israeli enemy, which is assumed to have nuclear weapons. Also, Iran’s regional competition with Saudi Arabia for the region’s supremacy contributes to its quest for an insurance policy against biased military aggression. Political factors also come into consideration within a country; there are always factions that would wish to escalate the nuclear program for their countries’ interests.
Strategic Implications: Speaking of the implications that weaponization of Iran’s nuclear program would mean to the region, it should be stated that its effect on the Middle Eastern region’s security would be catastrophic. Other nations in the region’s view may follow suit and develop nuclear weapons since Iran, their rival, has done so; this results in an arms race between countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. This could spurn instability in the whole region and also enhance the probability of conflict at any one time by chance. Moreover, Iran’s nuclear potential boosts its backers for proxies in nations such as Syria and Yemen, continuing sectarian unrest and insecurity throughout the Middle East.
Responses from Regional Rivals: Saudi Arabia, which sees itself in a struggle with Iran in the region, would most certainly regard the nuclearization of the latter as a threat to its existence. It can mean higher military expenditures in Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Persian Gulf that may disrupt world oil markets. For instance, Israel, whose policy for a long time has been the nuclear ambiguity, might be forced to declare their nuclear capability in order to offset Iran’s nuclear potential. This may result in an increased rate of insecurity as well as paranoia within the region in question.
Regional Security Dilemmas
East Asia: There are risks that Japan will acquire nuclear weapons, which, if it happens, would usher in a new order in East Asia security. Thus, when currently Japan is thinking about the potentials of obtaining nuclear weapons, countries like South Korea and Taiwan, neighbors of Japan, may also begin to think twice about their non-nuclear policies. While North Korea poses an existential threat to the former, China somewhat similarly can be viewed as an existential threat by the latter; the idea of possessing nuclear arms might not be far from reality. It is thus not beyond the realm of possibility that an arms race in this region may develop and cause more militarization and defensive-type positions. Thus, South Korea may continue to modernize its missile-defense systems and conventional armed forces, whereas Taiwan may try to strengthen its relations of military cooperation with the United States.
Middle East: Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would only escalate tension in the Middle East and increase the rate at which different nations in the Gulf will try to arm them. Introducing the nuclear weapons Iran has used as a modeling reference, other Sunni-dominated nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others, may feel forced to develop or purchase their own nuclear weapons in order to sort out Iran. This situation presents the following difficulties for Israel, a state that has officially followed the policy of ‘nuclear opacity.’ An openly nuclear Iran would pose some increased security threats to Israel, thereby making it alter its security outlook and orientation, including the alliance relations with America. Thus, Israel could want to invest more in defensive weapons such as the Iron Dome and enhance its second strike capacities.
Global Non-Proliferation Challenges
The nuclearization of Japan and Iran would critically jeopardize the non-proliferation regime of the world. An increasingly larger number of countries will regard nuclear weapons as necessary in order to ensure their security, and thus the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which forms the basis of today’s security structure, would be contested further. This erosion of the treaty might have further undermined the treaty by other countries in order to get nuclear power as well. Major powers (UN, IAEA, United States, Russia, and China itself) would encounter severe challenges in responding to these new nuclear realities.
Pathways to Mitigation
To meet these challenges, diplomacy and regional security conferences are required to be repeated. Some steps of diplomatic relations may be discussed as multiparty negotiations meant to reduce hostility levels and establish a positive relationship between states. For example, the multilateral forum for security dialogue in the East Asian region can involve the members like Japan, South Korea, and China, where the participants may discuss the security issues that are of a contentious nature and explore the possibilities of arriving at the onus for arms control measures. New or modified arms control agreements that respond to the current developments in the sphere of nuclear weapons are also required. They should respond to modern security necessities and contain provisions on such aspects as transparency, checks, and sanctions. For instance, a new version of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that may cover the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and other countries of the region may be signed.
Considering the further perspectives of the world’s security development, the examples of future nuclear Japan and Iran evidence the need to persistently develop the non-proliferation regime. International security is interconnected, and insecurity in any one part of the world (for instance, possession of nuclear weapons) threatens the rest of the world. In a similar manner, sustaining and building up the global non-proliferation regime also involves the reinforcement of people’s collective commitment to peace, security, and stability. The cases of Japan and Iran are very important as they show the tendencies of distribution of power and the constant risks of nuclear escalation. Being global citizens and leaders, we owe ourselves the duty to push for the acronym of nuclear weapons, campaign for disarmament, and work for a safer world for the generations to come. The path towards elimination of nuclear weapons is full of difficulties, but it remains one of the most important missions in the context of enhancement of the quality of life of people around the globe.
The problem should be underlined with regard to the necessity of further active international intervention. This is why it is necessary to focus on the political actions of such international subjects as the UN Security Council, IAEA, major world powers, and other structures that must address the potential threats in Asia in terms of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This policy entails the strengthening of existing commitments in nonproliferation treaties like the NPT and then enforcing such treaties to the letter through means such as inspections and possible punitive measures. For instance, the P5+1 talks with Iran on the nuclear deal, and the JCPOA shows how useful and efficient multilateral diplomacy can be. Nonetheless, in many ways the destiny of the JCPOA stood as a testament to the fact that consistent diplomacy, no matter how difficult, can act to reign in nuclear aspirations and foster stability. In the same way, it is important to involve Japan in wide-ranging security talks that would ban its concerns and clarify its obligation to non-nuclear course. This might have entailed strengthening United States-Japan security and urging of regional disarmament.
The Author, Muti Ur Rehman is pursuing his bachelors in Strategic Studies from National Defense University, Islamabad. He has a keen interest to analyze the complexities of nuclear arms development and strategic policies in Asia.
Add a Comment