THE GULF WAR 1990-91 THROUGH

REALISM
In my opinion, the realist approach is the most useful for this particular case, as realism
highlights concepts such as the anarchial nature of the international system, and the will of
the states to pursue their interest through any means available.

While there may be other views that analyze certain aspects to justify their standpoint, I
believe that the realist view takes primacy in most categories as we can examine both the
views of the US-led coalition and the state of Iraq simultaneously.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait can be seen as a classic example of a state pursuing its national
interests. Under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, Iraq sought to acquire control over
Kuwait's vast oil reserves and establish itself as the dominant power in the region. On the
other hand, the United States and its allies saw Iraq's actions as a threat to the balance of
power in the Middle East and a challenge to their interests in the region. Moreover, after
the cold war, this was an opportunity for the US to solidify its “unilateral” world order.

Considering the large accumulation of world oil in the region and the heavy industrialization
at the time, it was in the utmost interest of states to continue steady development. This was
also visible through Japanese economic support. Despite realpolitik focusing on absolute
military power, it is the money behind the military that gives it “power”, and for Japan, this
was simply the only way available for them to achieve their interests, even if it was through
another’s army.

The realist view also highlights the limited nature of the invasion, as the goal was to drive
out the Iraqi forces and restore sovereignty in the state of Kuwait and not to occupy Iraq or
drive out Saddam, which goes to show the limitations of military action and the insufficiency
of outside influence to restore political order.

In conclusion, the conflict was a representation of the anarchic nature of the international
system, where states are driven by the need to protect and advance their own interests
along with the limits of military intervention and the challenges of achieving lasting political
change in complex and volatile regions of the world.