International Relations

1: Iran’s Nuclear Program: Levels and Sectors of Analysis

In studying the trend in international politics, scholars have come up with analytical concepts that help to understand this complex phenomenon. The two most common analytical tools are the levels of analysis and sectors of analysis (Rousseau: 22).

Level of analysis as an analytical tool has three distinct levels through which it looks at the world politics. These are the global level, or what Rousseau refers to as systems level (23). There is also the state and the individual level. At the individual level, focus is made at the traits and personalities of individual players in the world politics (Rousseau: 22). For example, presidents are individuals in the world politics. State level looks at the governments, agencies and such groups that formulate the foreign policy which determines how the state relates with others on the global front. At the global level of analysis, focus is made on the characteristics of the global world as a whole. Sector analysis is where the politics are analyzed from the perspective of different divisions in the world. The sector could be private, economic, military and such other divisions (Rousseau: 23).

Iran’s nuclear program can be analyzed from the level of individual, where the president of this nation is seen as making an irrational decision that is affecting the whole world. At the state level, the government of Iran can be conceptualized as formulating a foreign policy that is destructive to the state. At the global level, it is obvious that the relationship between Iran and other global players like America is strained. Using the sector analysis, the Iran nuclear program can be looked at from the military sector as a way of defending their territory. From the economic sector, it is obvious that Iran is trying to be self-sufficient as far as supply of energy is concerned.

International Relations

Combination of individual level of analysis and economic sector of analysis yields great analysis in looking at the country’s nuclear program. This is because it is the irrationality of the president, coupled with the desire for the country to be self-reliant in energy supply that drives the program. On the other hand, combination of state level of analysis and military sector of analysis yields less analysis. This is because the government of the country is led by the individual president, and as such does the bindings of the same.

2: Relationship between Development of the Physical and Social Technology and Inside/Outside Distinction

There is no denying the fact that there is a relationship between development of both physical and social technologies of interactions and the emergence of a distinction between the inside and the outside (Rousseau: 43). Physical technology, like the improvement in sciences, enhances the interaction capacity of the state on the global arena. A state that is powerful in military terms enjoys unlimited influence on the global front (Rousseau: 44). Social technology, like the improvement of the democratic nature of the state, also improves the interaction capacity of the state on the global front. Democratic nations like the US are most influential globally due to this attribute.

The two factors above lead to emergence of an outside inside distinction. There is a distinction between the technologically powerful nations and those that are not powerful. This is the distinction that is seen for example between the western nations and the third world (Rousseau: 43). A socially enhanced nation, for example the democratic west, is significantly distinct from the undemocratic nations of Africa. The distinction started to emerge when the nations started interacting on the global front. In other words, the distinction first emerged with globalization (Rousseau: 44).

Other factors like globalization contributed to the emergence of this distinction. The distinction is very important because it defines the relationship between different political systems in the world. If there were no such distinction, the nature of the relationship between America and Africa could be undefined. It is natural for such distinctions to occur. This is because as long as distribution of power globally remains unequal, nations will be different from one another.

International Relations

Globalization will perpetuate such distinctions, rather than rode them (Rousseau: 43). This is because the distinctions emerge when the nations are interacting at the global sphere.

3: European Military-Political Structure

A look at latter day Europe and global system reveals three distinct types of military-political structure that were in operation at different points in time. The first is the treaty of Utrecht, which was in operation from 1713 to the Napoleonic war that lasted to 1789 (Rousseau: 45). This treaty is also referred to as the balance of power. The second is the concert of Europe. This is the treaty of Vienna, which was in operation from the year 1815 to 1914, when World War 1 broke out (Rousseau: 45). The third is the collective security. This is the treaty of Versailles, which was in force between 1919 and 1939. This was later by the NATO and European unification, which has been in force since 1645 to today (Rousseau: 45).

In the signing of Utrecht, Philip V was recognized as the king of Spain. The Spanish European empire was also subdivided as one of the provisions of the treaty (Rousseau: 45). There was also some ceding of territories by the signatories. For example, Spain surrendered Gibraltar and Minorca to Great Britain (Rousseau: 45). There were several treaties signed in Vienna. The one that was signed on 25th march 1815 saw several states agree to put their men against napoleon (Rousseau: 45). These were Austria, Britain, Prussia and Russia (Rousseau: 45). The Versailles treaty ended the aggression between Germany and the allied nations. The treaty required Germany to assume responsibility for the war, and to , among other things, repatriate aggrieved nations (Rousseau: 45).

Europe was necessitated to move from one treaty to the other for various reasons. One of the reasons was for it to solve the problems that were plaguing it at the time. One of the problems was political unrest, or wars in other words. For example, the Versailles treaty was meant to end the war between Germany and the allied powers. There might be a possibility of Europe moving away from the collective security again in the future. As history indicates, it has gone through several such arrangements when need arose (Rousseau: 45). So, even today if a need arose which could not be sufficiently addressed by the current arrangement, a new one will be made.

International Relations


Rousseau, Derrick N. “A Brief History of the European Continent.” New York: Basic Books, 2008. 22-23, 43-44, 45.