Recently the New York Times published this on Saudi Arabia. The article says that Saudi is promising to always match the nuclear capabilities, or arsenal, of Iran, because it perceives threat from them, and does not want to be a regional underdog at any given time. My argument to this is that Saudi is in fact wrong, if what the New York Times is reporting true, and what they should be doing in fact is always having the upper hand over Iran. Let me explain.
Ask yourself a question; if you absolutely hate a person because you believe that he is evil, in order to deter a threat from him, do you think that matching his abilities would guarantee that you both would never get into a fight with each other?
In reality, studies have shown that when two powers are equal, or as in more technical terms in parity, the likelihood of war in between them can be maximized or minimized depending on how satisfied they are with each other. On the other hand, the likelihood of conflict in between those two powers is highly minimized if they are not in parity in their capabilities, whether or not they are satisfied with each other.
To be more philosophical and technical with terms for your online research, one is called the ‘Balance of Power’ theory, and the other is called ‘Power Transition’ or ‘Hegemonic Theory’. What Saudi Arabia is referring to in this case shows that they believe the ‘Balance of Power’ theory would result in peace in the region. This in fact has never worked in history and scientific evidence shows that it leads to catastrophic economic failure because of ‘Arms Race’ and ‘Uncertainty’ and ‘Instability’ and ‘Regional Tensions.’ Basically, every factor that precedes the conditions of ‘WAR’.
Therefore, scientifically, I would have to object to what Saudi Arabia presumes and suggests, and advice that what they should be doing instead is aim for always maintaining an obvious power advantage to Iran. This would minimize the likelihood of conflict and create more stability in the region. The question is how do we do this?
Well the first step is to trust science, because it comes with evidence and proven theory. Science also understands decision-making and how humans act in such situations, because they are the ones who press the buttons and sign the papers. The second step is to show the world, including America, that they need to be supporting no nuclear deal with Iran. Iran, as a proven rogue state that openly supports terrorism, should not have any nuclear abilities, whether peaceful, for civilian use, or not. We can’t lie and trick ourselves on this issue, let’s be realists.
Third is to be ready to support giving Saudi Arabia the necessary tools to always and at all times be visibly more powerful than Iran. This would always assure us in the region and elsewhere that the globally acceptable Saudi foreign policy from combating radicalism to supporting Middle Eastern political stability is never threatened and competed.
In many different ways, the region here desperately needs a unipolar, not bipolar pyramid with a good leader and where everyone else toes the line. This pyramid would bring about stability, peace, and keeps bad guys on check. There you go, supporting Saudi is more scientific than hereditary than you think!