John Bolton, former United States ambassador to the United Nations, is most decidedly a realist according to the International Relations approach he takes in his New York Times op-ed piece “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”. Just looking at the title, a reader can tell that Bolton’s solution is to ultimately bomb Iran to put a halt to its nuclear program, a thoroughly realistic approach. In this op-ed, Bolton provides an overview of his preferred action toward Iran’s nuclear program, including the use of military force and regime change, while also highlighting the ineffective use of diplomacy and comprehensive international sanctions. Realists think of security as something states should be focused on acquiring as security is linked directly with power, especially in an anarchic world. “Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its …show more content…
Again, there is a solid arrow pointing to realism with the abandonment of approaching Iran with something as soft as sanctions. However, he also states, “In theory, comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran’s nuclear program. But the sanctions imposed have not met those criteria.” Saying that sanctions could have worked does hint at an idealist perspective, but Bolton is aiming for a harder use of power, a more direct approach, which would get quicker results than just waiting around for an agreement to arise; “sanctions [will not] block its [Iran’s] building a broad and deep weapons