Among the theories of International Relations, Realism offers the most concrete explanation for America and Israel’s imperialist campaign against Iran.
Pranay Kumar Shome
In this context, a deluge of commentaries explaining the nuances of the conflict—including belligerents and weapons involved—have been circulating on social media in general and global intellectual circles in particular. However, one important missing aspect of this conflictual puzzle is the theoretical explanation behind the ongoing war.
In the realm of international relations, theories play a critical role in not only explaining the nature of state behavior but also explaining the factors that contribute to that behavior and how states respond to the actions of other states and non-state actors. The four key theories that have explained most events in the realm of international politics are Liberalism, Marxism, Realism and Constructivism. Among these, with regard to the ongoing Iran-U.S.-Israel war, realism appears to be the most important theory that explains the actions of the state actors involved in this conflict.
Let’s analyze them one by one.
The ongoing war in the Middle East is reflective of how Israel and the U.S. seek to exercise hegemony in the region, thereby explaining how the pursuit of power trumps the sanctity of international law
Classical Realism
Classical realism is rooted in a lineage dating back to the times of the Greek philosopher Thucydides. The high priests of this school include Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli in the medieval period and Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger in the modern period. Machiavelli painted human nature in dark colors, arguing that humans are motivated by greed, lust, power, and other emotions. Among these emotions, power was the strongest motivating factor.
In his book Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau argued that the pursuit of power caused nation-states, who constituted the most important actors in the realm of international politics, to take measures to enhance their survival.
These measures, Morgenthau argues, contributed to international law’s inability to restrain the actions of states, primarily because states prioritize their national interest over everything else. Morgenthau highlighted that politics acquired an autonomous shape with states rejecting the universalism of laws and acting in accordance with their national laws.
When this is extrapolated to the context of the ongoing war in the Middle East, we find that America and Israel have been motivated by the urge to consolidate their power in the region. The principal obstacle, they felt, was Iran. In order to put an end to the threat, both powers launched this imperialist war, thereby proving Machiavelli right. In addition to this, Israel and America engaged in a wanton violation of international law, thereby vindicating Morgenthau’s contention that nation-states, in pursuit of their ‘national interest,’ no matter how egregious and anti-human rights they appear to be, will be bound more by their domestic laws than by international law.
Structural Realism
As states take steps to secure their national interests, it contributes to an increasingly unstable international order. In that context, Kenneth Waltz, one of the pioneers of structural realism, argued in his book Theory of International Politics that in the absence of an overarching, omnipotent sovereign to enforce law and order, nation-states act in ways they deem fit. This, Waltz argues, leads to the creation of anarchy—a state of lawlessness. Given the fact that international order is anarchic, states naturally take steps to bolster their survival.
These steps include enhancing their hard power profile. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of enhancing their power, each state perceives the other as posing a threat to their very survival. This creates a security dilemma, with each state arming itself to the hilt.
When this theoretical position is contextualized to the Iran-Israel-U.S. war, we find that Israel and the U.S. blatantly mistook Iran’s defense program as posing a threat to the existence of Israel on one hand and undermining the U.S. position in the Middle East on the other hand. This suspicion arose despite Iran vehemently assuring the world community that its nuclear program is strictly meant for peaceful, civilian purposes and its defense program is purely defensive.
This perceptual blunder led to the U.S. and Israel attacking Iran, igniting a war that has ended up threatening the energy security of the entire world.
Offensive Realism
In attacking Iran, the duo of Israel and the United States also invoked the idea of offensive realism, a term popularized by the political scientist John Mearsheimer. In offensive realism, Mearsheimer argues, states seek to exercise the use of force to tilt the balance of power in their favor, thereby not only neutralizing the threat against it but also ensuring that a hegemonic international order is established. This is precisely what Israel and the United States did with Iran.
They sought to change the balance of power in the Middle East in their favor by attacking Iran, a country that has proven to be the most formidable obstacle to Western dominance in the strategic region. However, what upset the calculation of this duo was the fact that despite being under tremendous pressure, the Islamic Republic of Iran has fought back ferociously, preventing the creation of a new regional order in the Middle East that would otherwise have been constituted mostly of pliant Islamic countries that toe the line of the script Israel creates and the United States backs?
Hence, the ongoing war in the Middle East is reflective of how Israel and the U.S. seek to exercise hegemony in the region, thereby explaining how the pursuit of power trumps the sanctity of international law.
Pranay Kumar Shome, a research analyst who is a PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India
No comments:
Post a Comment