The Strategos

Put simply, nuclear proliferation refers to the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. Given their lethal powers, nuclear weapons attract a great amount of space in the discussions involving strategy. Complex as it is, strategy unfolds multiple and often contrasting aspects of nuclear weapons and their spread. With a multitude of divergences in terms of stands one takes on nuclear weapons, there is a broad understanding that nuclear proliferation is not in the larger good of the global community. It is here that the question of proliferation and the ways of preventing it come up. This discussion will take into account the journey to limit proliferation and challenges involved in the same. It will also try to delve into some systemic factors that make non-proliferation difficult. Before we go forward, it will be helpful to go through the basics of the nuclear world order along with some terminologies regarding the same. The United states of America became the first country to have succ

West Asia is a region full of twisted realities where the simplest of events can have the most complex underpinnings. Speaking of complexities in the region, Iran is one such country in the region whose sheer size and clout make it a prominent regional power. Iran being a theocracy led by the Shi'ite clergy has religion entwined with its politics. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, from the American lens, Iran has emerged as an untamed beast in the region with its own sense of purpose and an independent worldview to decide its state policy independently. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran does not align itself with the USA. Rather, Iran and USA share a relationship of animosity since the revolution in 1979. Multiple theories are proposed to explain the bitterness in Iran-US relationship. However, none prove sufficient enough to accomplish the arduous task of explaining the role of Iran in the region and its implications for the stability in West Asia. Put in one sentence, Iran as a st

“Did the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 do any good for the Middle East or the world?” This is the question that still haunts the USA and breeds serious doubts on the credibility of the US as a responsible superpower. The series of events that have followed the US invasion have been far from those expected. The unstable nature of the region in the recent decades can well be seen as after-effects of what US did in Iraq. The reasons given by the US for invading a sovereign nation far from its borders have been far from convincing. Nonetheless, the significant effects the invasion has had on Iraq in particular and the region at large have not diminished in the last decade.   The world has changed a lot since USA first got involved in Iraq with an aim to rescue Kuwait. What has remained same is one of the primary causes of the problems the region struggles with at present that can be backtracked to what US did in 2003. Following the defeat of Iraq and the restoration of Kuwaiti governme

To underline the significance of communication, it is said very often that ‘Communication is the first fatality in any conflict’. The idea behind this statement brings about the positive role communication plays in resolving conflicts very efficiently. The statement presents a clear observation which is evident in many if not all the conflicts. Very often, Parties in conflict do stop communicating. The positive force behind communication is considered so pious that absence of communication is often related to the existence of a dormant conflict. Thus, ‘communication is treated as a utilitarian device employed in pursuit of resolution.’ However, what is often glossed over is the part communication plays in introducing a conflict. Communication is indeed an irreplaceable tool when it comes to resolving a conflict but it would be naïve to believe that all communication leads to resolution. As a matter of fact, communication not only resolves conflicts but also acts a divisive force whic

Thomas Hobbes is remembered for his consequential work called “Leviathan” which was first published in 1651. It was in the aftermath of the English civil war which saw the forces of the King and the parliament head to head against each other. This resulted into a situation of chaos, misery and war. The war lasted for a decade killing more than 200,000. Hobbes witnessed the beheading of the King, Charles I in 1649 first hand.   All of this resulted into him pondering about the human relationship with governments. Hobbes thus produced one of the most definitive, persuasive and eloquent statements on why governments should be obeyed. To explain human nature, Hobbes took back his readers to the primordial ages where there was no central authority of any sorts present. He called this the ‘state of nature’. According to Hobbes, the life in the state of nature was nasty, brutish and short. With nobody to regulate human affairs at its helm, everybody was an enemy of everybody else. The tim

The term ‘Balance of Power’ is attributed to Otto Van Bismarck who while uniting Germany paid special attention to not disturbing the balance of power in erstwhile Europe. The term has since become part of commonly used vocabulary in media and academics alike. Balance of Power (BoP) says that states act to preserve a balance or equilibrium of power in the system. Kenneth Waltz talks about BoP in his book “Theory of International Politics”. BoP itself appears as a part of structural realism in Kenneth Waltz’s book. Waltz argues that the Anarchical world order breeds mistrust in the international structure where increase in the power/resources of one state is seen with caution. According to Kenneth Waltz, the self regarding states act to maximize their power by all possible means. Some states do succeed in aggregating greater power to the envy of other nation-states in the system. As soon as a state acquires power more than other states, a wave of discomfort runs through the system alarm

Put simply, Constructivism provides a bridge between Realism and Liberalism. It attempts to answer the questions left unanswered by both of these theories. Constructivism does this by introducing the aspect of identity and social interactions in relations. Since, Constructivism developed as a critique to Realists and Liberals; it is opportune to revisit Realism and Liberalism briefly before delving any deeper into the Constructivist thought. The realist and liberal thought structures present a diametrically opposite view of human nature. Evidently, this contrast in their outlook is also reflected in the interpretation of International Relations. For realists, all human actions are designed to further their personal gain. All humankind being self-regarding, there is little concern in their minds for their fellow human beings. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, it is war of all against all. Realists argue; human mind seeks conflict. It looks at relations in terms of relative gains. A gai

Altaf Azam The writer is a post-grad student at Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi   I.                Introduction    When cities around the world are experiencing an eerie desolation induced by state-imposed lockdowns, there is a frantic slump prevailing in the global oil markets. On Monday, the 20th of April, 2020, an empty barrel of crude oil was worth much more than a barrel full, as Oil traded at a historic low of -37 $ a barrel at the WTI. However, from India’s perspective, the majority of its crude basket represents oil from Oman/ Dubai axis which is based on Brent crude benchmark prices, which too sank to a two-decade low of just under 16 $ a barrel, but well above the WTI [i] . A historic low in oil prices is nothing short of a celebration for the 3rd largest consumer of Oil with over 80% reliance on oil imports for its petroleum needs [ii] . However, the ground reality is quite the opposite.  Contrary to such low global oil prices, there w