To what extent does the concept of the security dilemma shape security communication between Iran and Israel, and how does this influence regional stability and international responses?
This research question explores how the security dilemma influences the way Iran and Israel communicate their security concerns and strategies, and examines the impact of this dynamic on regional stability and global reactions.
According to the "Security Dilemma" or "Thucudides' Trap" theory, when a state's power rises, it is usually percieved by other states as a threat to their national security leading to conflict.
As understood, the basis of this concept in mistrust. Therefore, in order for two states to effectively communicate their (national) security concerns, their need to have established mutual trust.
This can be achieved by cooperating in several policy fields, through the signing of bilateral agreements, the establishment of confidence-building measures, etc. Another important factor is also their historic ties/relations, which greatly affects theri perception for each other actions.
As far as the Israel-Iran bilateral relations are concerned, taking into consideration the aforementioned factors in the context of the contemporary regime of Iran, it is concluded that the perceived rise of Iran's power by Israel and vise-versa affects the security communication between these two states in a negative way, leading to regional insecurity and instability.
Security communication through the lens of security dilemma must account for two important factors;
1. Context; this is important because in State relations; self preservation is a critical aspect of State interest. As such before any State releases communication regarding a certain security topic with regional or global implication it must consider and make clear the context they wish their communication to address. Any misinterpretation of security communication can easily escalate a situation and/or enjoin a neutral State in conflict.
2. Strategic National Interest: A State is always guided by its strategic national interest. Hegemonic States will act in certain ways as they mostly provide guidance in conflict situations. Statements from hegemonic States therefore hold great influence in shaping conflict outcomes. Consequently, hegemonic States will always balance their communication and align to their strategic national interest. Peripheral States on the other hand; will either align to statements by hegemonic States or take a neutral position because they do not want to be involved in conflict situations that their national resources cannot support.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning