The arguments presented by Colin H. Khal and Kenneth Waltz place opposing viewpoints 
on whether Iran should have the right to be established as a Nuclear country. However 
it is evidential that only one of the opinions seems more logical to further conduct. 
Khal's perspective in "Iran and the Bomb:Would a Nuclear Iran Make the Middle East More Secure?" exemplies 
that the United States should not implement actions that allow Iran to engage in nuclear activity. 
If his perspective alone is not enough, he further goes on to counter-argue at details Waltz's 
justification of the allowance of a nuclear Iran and explains why Waltz's viewpoints are illogical. 
The president should be informed that states that have recently been declared nuclear are more susceptible 
to reckless behavior and may potentially use their nuclear weapons as a way for terrorists 
to advance (Khal, 157). Furthermore Iran's new status may be used as an intervener in the Isreali- Palestine 
Peace process as an attempt to harm their neighbours. Khal, unlike Waltz refers to a numerous amount of 
incidents proving that nuclear powered states have cause a disrupt in international law.If the allowance 
of nuclear power is instilled in Iran, then tensions with the Israelis shall rise. Waltz's example of India 
and Pakistan negotiating peace as a way to justify that there will be no conflict amongst Israel and Iran is 
invalid as he fails to include crucial details such as several violent encounters amongst the two countries. 
Khal further goes on to unveil the hidden truths in Waltz's justifications which is why Iran should not recieve a nuclear status. 
Khal's realist and evidence proven perspective justifies why Iran should not be granted Nuclear status 
as doing so will increase tensions on the internation scale.