Blog post: Ukraine, Iran, and the Rise of Preventive War

Gautham Vishnu Sreejith

Introduction

In light of the joint US-Israeli bombing of Iran, I was taken aback to a course assignment I had attempted which explored the ‘enduring relevance of the realist perspective on international politics’ (Walt, 2022). Walt argued that the Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the enduring relevance of realism, a theory that builds upon the perception of global politics as a struggle for power under conditions of anarchy. From this perspective, Russia deemed NATO’s eastward expansion as a threat and countered that threat with a predictable and brutal response.

Revisiting Walt’s 2022 article, I found that the article has relevance also for the ongoing joint US-Israeli strikes against Iran. Once again, we see the notions of security, deterrence, and pre-emption dominating the headlines. Although realism puts foreword a convincing argument in terms of state behaviour in both the cases, the real question is: does it provide us with the full story? To fully understand these two ongoing conflicts, we have to look past the material dimension of power and into how these actors act to preserve their sense of identity and not just their physical survival as a nation. Analysing the conflicts through Ontological Security Studies (OSS), developed by Giddens (1990; 1991)  is effective as it brings to the forefront the war as not as a rational response, but as an existential threat through which the actors attempt to maintain an ‘autobiographical continuity’ in an increasingly ‘uncertain world’.

Realism and the Logic of Security

In layman’s terms realism perceives global politics as an anarchic system, i.e. having no overarching or central authority to enforce rules or prevent conflict. Here, states rely solely on their own capabilities for their survival, leading to a ‘security dilemma’, where one state’s advancement in its security is seen as threatening by others, thereby triggering a ‘cycle’ of escalation.

John J. Mearsheimer (2022) and many of his contemporary realists have argued that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a result of Russia’s fear of losing Ukraine from its sphere of influence to the West. This frames the war as a ‘predictable’ outcome of the great power of global politics. Similar logic can be alluded in the US-Israeli strikes against Iran; the prospect of a nuclear-powered Iran has led Israel to frame military action as necessary for its survival. Meanwhile for the United States, it was the perfect opportunity to curb the blooming Iranian influence in the wider MENA region. Through a realist perspective, military action can be perceived as a safeguard to prevent a shift of regional balance out of its favour.

In both cases, we see that actors prioritise their security despite the high human, economic and political costs. In this instance, realism becomes a powerful analytical tool to understand why wars occur. However, it overlooks how certain threats can be seen as existential or why actors respond to them in specific ways.

‘Constructing’ Threats and Identities

Can threats and identities be constructed? To answer this question, we can turn to the constructivists. Constructivists, such as Alexander Wendt, argue that the international political system is not shaped only by material forces as the realists put it, but also by ideas, identities and social relationships. As Wendt (1992) famously put it “anarchy is what states make of it”. In this perspective of International Politics, threats are not objective or fixed, they are viewed through the lens of identity and social and historical experience. The same military capability is seen as a ‘duality’; it can be perceived as ‘threatening’ or ‘benign’ depending on who possess the capability.

Thus, the Russian invasion of Ukraine cannot be perceived just as NATO’s eastward expansion, but also in terms of history and identity. Putin (2021), over the years has emphasised the shared historical and cultural similarity between both nations, while greatly undermining Ukraine’s legitimacy to exist as a fully sovereign nation. The idea of Ukraine aligning itself with NATO and its allies was not just a strategic loss for Russia but also tarnished its self-identity as a ‘Great Power’ with a ‘rightful sphere of influence’.

Similarly, Iran’s identity as a revolutionary state, built on the foundation of its anti-West influence, shapes how it responds to external pressure. Meanwhile for Isreal, its identity is deeply intertwined to the notion of its existential security, moulded in place due to its public’s historical experiences of persecution and conflict. From an Israeli perspective, the possibility of a regional power acquiring nuclear weapons was not a just a strategic concern, but a fundamental threat to its continued existence as a state.

Though constructivism helps interpret these conflicts through the lens of power and identity, it does not fully elaborate why actors escalate conflicts rather than allowing them to come to a stalemate or pursuing deescalation.

Ontological Security and Autobiographical Continuity

Ontological Security (OS) as developed by Anthony Giddens (1990; 1991), refers to a yearning for a ‘stable sense of the self’, grounded in ones’ continuity in routines and narratives. In applying this concept to IR, we find that states, like individuals, not only seek physical security, but also a sense of the ‘self’ through a continuity in their identity. Disruption in the sense results in ontological insecurity, where states may take actions that appear to be irrational from a strategic perspective, to restore its autobiographical continuity, i.e.  stable identity.

For Russia, the collapse of USSR significantly impacted its identity due to the loss of territories, status, and its far-reaching influence. The impact still shapes Russia’s foreign policy and its ambition to restore its status as a world power. Ukraine, a country that Russia claims to have historical and cultural ties to, plays a central role in its narrative and its loss to Western influence has created insecurity in Russia’s identity. Therefore, its invasion of Ukraine can be viewed as an attempt to restore autobiographical continuity and the narrative of Russia being a regional super-power. Thus, making the war not just about territory or allegiance, but also about identity and recognition.

Iran can be seen in a similar light. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been seen as staunchly anti-Western, built upon by its narrative of ‘resistance’, which puts Iran as the defender of regional autonomy against external forces. While strict and never-ending sanctions did affect its economy, it has strengthened its identity and autobiographical continuity. Thus, the country continues to strategically utilise the ongoing conflict, to skilfully legitimise the regime by strengthening the narrative through the act of resistance.

The same can be said for Israel’s OS as the state’s identity is built on the narrative of having to survive in a hostile neighbourhood. Thus, forcing it to act strategically against ‘perceived threats,’ even though these ‘threats’ may be of no immediate danger. Thus, these pre-emptive strikes against Iran could perhaps be perceived as measures to preserve its sense of security and autobiographical continuity in the light of perceived uncertainty.

The Journey from Security Dilemmas to Preventive War

Combining all these perspectives, we see that these contemporary conflicts are moulded into a complex multi-helix of material and ideational factors. Realism gives insight into the structural pressures that lead actors into war and constructivism reveals the roles of identity and power in shaping these pressures, while OS highlights why these conflicts escalate even though doing so can generate dangerous or unpredictable outcomes. One notable feature of the Russin invasion and the strike on Iran is the increased normalisation of preventive war. In both cases, armed intervention was justified not (only) as a response to immediate aggression, but as a preventative measure for future potential threats. Thereby blurring the lines between what can be considered as offence or defence, as actions taken by one state for its ‘security’ is perceived as an act of aggression by the other, thereby triggering an unavoidable ‘cycle’ of escalation. While these actions are framed as being due to ‘necessity and inevitability’, its leaders present it as the only viable option for the nation’s survival. This strengthens domestic support and helps garner legitimacy, emphasising the importance of a strategic narrative and its role in maintaining the state’s identity.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The wars in Ukraine and Iran emphasises the enduring relevance of realism in international politics, as states remain reply concerned with power, security and survival, leading to conflicts over material interests. Through the lens of constructivism and OS, we see a more nuanced explanation of contemporary wars, as states not only act against perceived threats, but also look to preserve their sense of the self in an increasingly uncertain world. What is at stake for both nations is not only military capability or territorial integrity, but also its identity and recognition. This doesn’t make these wars any less tragic, but it does help to provide an explanation as to why they are hard to resolve and why the fear of escalation continues to loom.

 

Gautham Vishnu Sreejith ([email protected]) is a recent POLIS graduate.

The opinions in this blog are those of the author and not the Centre for Global Security Challenges.