Theory of the State as a Rational Actor - Coursework Example

The Theory of the as a Rational Actor Grade (November 13, The theory of the as a rational actor Introduction The attempt to explain the international relations between different countries has led to the development of various theories, each trying to underline the calculations and the factors that different nations put into consideration in determining the manner in which they will interact with others on the international stage. However, none of the results obtained by these theories ever seem to be straightforward, while at the same time, none of these theories ever survives without criticisms (Heywood, 2004:246). According to Keohane (1998), the assumption of substantive rationality in the manner in which international institutions operate has proven useful for the purpose of understanding the subject of international relations (p.379).Therefore, the explanation of the international manner of engagement of nations based on their aims and calculations is the fundamental objective of the theory of the state as a rational actors, which provides that the actions of different nations in foreign relations swing between decision-making and choice. In this respect, the decision component creates the ultimate goal of the manner in which nations interact in the foreign relations, while choice allows for the selection of the best action amongst various alternatives, based on reference to some goals (Genest, 2004:77). Thus, this discussion seeks to analyze the theory of state as a rational actor through applying the the rationalist synthesis theoretical approach, with a view to understanding how goals, strategies, methods and various measures are taken by different nations when interacting with the others on the international space. Halperin & Heath (2012) argue that qualitative methods can offer more valid measures of political phenomena (p.16). Thus, the ultimate goal of this discussion is to qualitatively analyze the case of Iran as a state actor on the international stage, through the use of the rationalist synthesis approach, to define whether this approach merits consideration as a theoretical approach capable of explaining the international relations. Analysis The rationalist synthesis seeks to answer the question of why states go to war or why states cooperate, with the view that either of these decisions by a nation is based on the goals of the nation to advance both material and non-material interests in international affairs (Kahler, 1998:921). Thus, the rationalist synthesis approach is a central approach to modern political science study of the relationships between nations on the international front, offering the proposition that; when a nation is faced with several courses of action, the nation is likely to choose the action that will have an overall best outcome for its people (Landa, 2006:437). In politics, as also happens in economics, there is competition. However, while the competition in economics is that of scarce resources between different entities, the political competition between different nations on the international front is no t only for the access to scarce resources, but also for political power and dominance (Borooah, 2002:47). Therefore, the principle of competition for scarce commodities and its semblance for the competition for power and dominance, as well as the prestige that comes with it, has formed the basis of the rationalist synthesis, providing that nations act as rational beings on the international stage, based on their individual interests. Therefore, individual nations approach foreign relations when they are self-interested, and with the self-calculating goals that are aimed at self-maximizing the overall benefits of the nation from interacting with the others (Landa, 2006:447). Therefore, applying the self-calculating, self-interested and self-maximizing propositions of the rationalist synthesis, one is forced to ask the question; is Iran a rational actor on the international stage? The case of Iran is complex to analyze owing to the fact that the benefits the country attains from its isolationist policy to foreign affairs and international relations makes it a bit hard to understand (Rubin, 2013:n.p.). Nevertheless, if we apply the rationalist synthesis approach to analyze the foreign policy approach of Iran, the theoretical approach will still hold that Iran acts in the manner it acts so that it can maximize its political benefits from not openly interacting with the rest of the world. Let us first start with the self-calculating proposition of the rationalist synthesis approach to the theory of state as a political actor. According to the self-calculating proposition of the rationalist approach, a country will first assess the benefits versus the costs it will incur while interacting with the rest on the international stage, and will only take the alternative that offers more benefits and less costs to the nation (Keohane, 1998:381). Iran has adapted the isolationist policy for the past four decades now, opting to continue with its nuclear program strategies, at the expense of trade and other foreign relations benefits that countries gain from shelving their nuclear programs ambition, for the sake of maintaining cordial relations with the rest of the world(Rubin, 2013:n.p.). Thus, according to the rationalist approach to foreign policy, the self-calculating outcome of Iran has shown the country that it will benefit more while experiencing the international economic and political sanctions, but still continuing to produce its nuclear weapons undeterred. The major motivation behind Iran’s adoption of the isolationist approach to foreign relations is such that the country can remain the ‘fundamental leading defender of the Islamic ideology globally’ (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). Therefore, Iran’s goal in being Isolated from the West, is to ensure that the rest of the Islamic nations looks up to the country as the sole Islamic power that has stood for the defence of the Islamic ideology when most of the Islamic nations have warmed up to the Western capitalism ideology, by remain the Islamic Republic of Iran (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). Therefore, critics have observed that Iran is more likely to benefit from the removal of the economic sanctions by shelving the nuclear ambitions and discarding the isolationist policy to foreign relations. This is because; when harmony prevails in the international relations and there is cooperation between the different actors, “an actor’s policies automatically facilitate the attainment of other’s goals” (Keohane, 1998:380). This might hold true, owing to the fact that the country might be able to trade with the rest of the world and reap greater economic benefits, since the country is endowed with vast natural resources which will be of great interests to the rest of the world for possible exploitation. However, while opening up the Iran economy for free trade with the rest of the world would make Iran develop into one of the dominant economies in the modern world, the country will have definitely lost on its core-identity as the dominant global Islamic power (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). In this respect, where the rationalist approach to foreign relations offer Iran a choice between economic dominance and Islamic nation dominance, the self-calculating outcome of Iran has shown that the country will benefit more from the non-material-identity status, as opposed to the material status of a dominant economy. The logic behind this calculation cannot be understood by any other nation, owing to the fact that, according to the rationalist approach, different nations apply the individualistic approach to benefitting from the international interactions (Houghton, 1996:524). This is because; mapping the interest and testing the corresponding benefits that are attributed to foreign policy relations, when such benefits are of a noneconomic nature, is relatively hard Eichengreen (1998:995). It is for this reason that the rationalist synthesis approach becomes an important approach to explaining the foreign relations of different nations, since its self-calculating proposition holds true for Iran’s approach to international interaction, as the nation has deliberately chosen to continue the isolationist policy to foreign relations, so that it can earn political mileages from the Islamic nations, at the expense of the economic benefits the country would gain from joining the global community in mutual interactions and trade. The states, according to Milner (1998) “are the most important, if not the sole, actors of consequence in international politics” (761). Therefore, the global foreign relation is shaped by the manner in which the nations interact with each other, to confer benefits to all the nations involved in the interactions. However, rationalist synthesis approach holds that; while the states are the most important actors on the international front, individualism is the fundamental principle that drives the states to interact with one another. Thus, simply put, nations interact on the international front optimally, since they are self-interested in fulfilling their individualistic material and non-material agendas, regardless of whether their counterparts will equally benefit (Genest, 2004:72). The concept of optimally has been defined to mean that nations will only choose a certain alternative in the international and foreign relations, on the event that the nations do not have another option that they perceive to be better than the one chosen (Kahler, 1998:933). This assertion of the rationalist synthesis approach can be positively applied to analyze the case of Iran’s foreign policy, which is based on the isolation of the country from either the West or the East, only opting to retain strong ties with its counterpart Islamic nations. Thus one might ask; what informs the isolationist policy of Iran beyond the need to continue with the nuclear weapon development programs? The sole source of Iran’s political power domestically, is its constrained relationship with the West and most notably with the USA and Israel (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). This way, the country has been able to maneuver politically, through labeling any form of internal political dissention as being motivated by the West, thus such internal diversionary views are instantly labeled as plots by both the USA and Israel to divide the nation that holds the position of the leading Islamic dominant power, capable of dealing with any military conflict from the West (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). Therefore, the optimally action concept of the rationalist synthesis approach once again holds true in relation to the isolationist policy of Iran, due to the fact that Iran has sought to maximize its benefit of isolation from the rest of the world when it comes to the issues of foreign relations. Iran has done this through using the isolationist policy not so that the country can only be seen as the dominant and defacto defender of the Islamic ideology amongst the Islamic nations globally, but also to ensure the perpetuation of continuity of the ruling political regime in the country (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). The internal political dynamics of a country are an important consideration for any nation, due to the fact that international relations takes place in a unique milieu, where the rules of the game are very different from the rules of domestic politics (Milner, 1998:763). Consequently, the optimally question that the country first asked when opting for the isolationist policy was whether to openly interact with the global community in a mutually beneficial manner that would allow the country to continue advancing economically, while allowing its internal politics to be shaped by the international interference, or to lock the rest of the world out of the country’s politics and survive the economic sanctions. Through understanding that the desire of the country to continue with its nuclear programs would certainly be interfered by opening up to the international community, and understanding that the internal politics would be shaped by the international community interference, the optimally decision-making of Iran selected isolation policy at the expense of open foreign interactions (Brecher, 1993:22). In this respect, the country has obtained double political benefit from adapting the isolationist policy, as opposed to the single economic benefit that the country would have obtained if it opted for the open-foreign-interaction policy. This is because; the country has managed to sustain the political benefit of continued nuclear program development as the first political advantage, and then the sustenance of the internal political regime that favors the nuclear program development as the second advantage. This is opposed to the single benefit that the country would have attained by attaining economic advancement, while losing both nuclear development programs and internal political regime preservation (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). Thus, considering the fact that the optimally concept of the rationalist synthesis approach seeks to take the option that will confer higher benefits to a country in the international affairs, the concept holds true for the Iranian case, since the county has opted to remain with the double political advantage delivered by the isolationist policy, at the expense of the single economic benefit delivered by the open-foreign-interaction policy. According to Eichengreen (1998), economics is a discipline that has cut across all the other scholarly disciplines starting with dentistry through to nuclear war, thus it is not difficult at all to adapt the economic perspective to analyze international relations (p.993). The economic perspective offers that there are a number of factors that need to be considered by an agent before reaching at the optimal decision, which takes the form of establishing the goals and objectives, rationalizing the objectives to come up with different alternatives, evaluating the consequences of different alternatives and finally making a choice (Genest, 2004:102). Further, the rationalist synthesis approach collaborate the hypothesis of the economic perspective to political and foreign policy analysis, through offering that the decision-making process of nations is systematic, starting with setting the relevant goals, seeking for alternatives, determining the outcomes of the possible alternatives and reaching at the most optimal decision (Landa, 2006:451). The goal and objectives component of the economic perspective to international relations requires that the aims of a nation are reduced to consumable interests, which are then evaluated under the preference function to arrive at the preferred consequence of the interests that a nation has when engaging in international relations. Therefore, the fact that different countries have different international relations interests is not defined by the overall perceived political, social and economic gain that the countries will obtain from the interactions, but by the individual nations defining the benefits in terms of their individualist values (Heywood, 2004:246). While the overall outcome of an action could deliver equally beneficial consequences for the nations involved, it is the values that the nation has attached to such outcomes, rather than the quantifiable benefit that matters to individual nations (Borooah, 2002:44). Therefore, applying the economic perspective to the Iranian case, it becomes possible to understand that the economic advancement benefit that could be attained from shelving the nuclear development program and instead adapting an open international policy is of lesser value, compared to the political value attached to the isolationist policy (Houghton, 1996:549). The economic perspective to the foreign policy and international relations offers that value is the core determinant of the choice of a rational agent, and it can clearly be observed that Iran attaches more value to remaining the leading Islamic nation that is anti-West and also anti-East, so that the rest of the Islamic nations can look up to Iran as the country charting the right political direction. This way, the countries may not be lured into the capitalism and the communism ideologies of the West and the East, respectively (Landa, 2006:452). The possible gains that Iran could obtain from discarding the isolationist policy and then openly interacting with the global economic community are huge, since the country is well endowed with natural resources, such that it is capable of attaining a leading role in commerce, by cooperating with the rest of the world in a mutual trade for the exploitation of its economic potential. However, while the economic gain is just one quantifiable advantage for Iran, the value attached to this advantage is much lower, due to the value attached to the political dominance of Iran over the Islamic nations and the nuclear war advantage of the country in case of invasion by the West. In this respect, despite the fact that the country has been facing economic turmoil for the past three decades, the value perspective of the economic foreign policy analysis has helped the country detract attention from the economic crisis it is facing (Rafizadeh, 2013:n.p.). Therefore, the isolationist policy of Iran has made it possible for the global community to scrutinize the relationship of the West with Iran more closely, while forgetting to scrutinize the country’s economic crisis, because the country has shown the international community that it attaches high value on political position as opposed to the economic position. It is no wonder that the international community holds that the perceived warming up of the USA towards Iran in a bid to establish lasting cordial relations between the two countries is a futile attempt, with the critics holding that such an attempt is “the start of a foolish deal that Iran will break” (Rubin, 2013:n.p.). This view is widely contested by other political views, which are of the opinion that the creation of a cordial relation between the USA and Iran, and consequently with the rest of the world is a fundamental step towards reversing the history of animosity between the West and the Middle East. However, the contrasting political views can be easily understood, owing to the fact that the study of politics can be “complicated, confusing and controversial” (Halperin & Heath, 2012:1). The value concept is the main driving factor of the Iran’s isolationist policy, since the country does not measure its power through the economic advancement index or social prestige index that most powers in the East and the West apply to measure their success in the international relations platform, but rather applies the value index by measuring its success through its own index. Thus, for Iran, as long as it remains the ultimate adoration for the rest of the Islamic nations, and to the extent that it remains a global scare when it comes to the nuclear proliferation war, Iran ranks itself as a successful country, despite the economic crisis that the country faces. The fact that Iran remains a country that measures its success in foreign relations through indexes that other countries do not understand simply serves to show that “Iran is a rational actor in terms of its own objectives” (Rubin, 2013:n.p.). Conclusion In conclusion, the rationalist synthesis approach is a useful theoretical approach in assessing the foreign policy politics, due to the fact that it holds that countries acts on an individualistic basis that is likely to benefit hose countries through optimal gains, regardless of whether the other actors will benefit. The most influential drivers of foreign relations are political dominance, power and prestige, as well as economic advancement, since the international relations is characterized by the economic concept of shortage of resources that must be competed for. This theoretical approach has proven true in the analysis of the Iran isolationist foreign policy case, through deducing that it is the values attached to the ruling political regime as well as the nuclear development program that influence the Iranian foreign policy, as opposed to the economic interests. References Borooah, V. K. (2002). Rational Acotr Model in Political Science. University of Ulster and ICER. Brecher, M. (1993). Crises in World Politics: Theory & Reality. Oxford, Pergamon Press. Eichengreen, B. (1998). Dental Hygiene and Nuclear War. How International Relations Look from Economics. International Organization 52(4), 993-1012. Genest, M. A. (2004). Conflict and Cooperation: Evolving Theories of International Relations. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Halperin, S. & Heath, O. (2012). Political Research: Methods and Practical Skills. Oxford University Press, 1-21. Heywood, A. (2004). Political Theory: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 246 Houghton, D. P. (1996). The Role of Analogical Reasoning in Novel Foreign-Policy Situations. British Journal of Political Science 26(4), 523-552. Kahler, M. (1998). Rationality in International Relations. International Organization 52 (4), 919–41. Keohane, R. O. (1998). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32(4), 379-396. Landa, D. (2006). Rational Choices as Social Norms. Journal of Theoretical Politics 18(4), 434–453 Milner, H. V. (1998). Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American, and Comparative Politics. International Organization 52(4), 759-786. Rafizadeh, M. (2013). Is Iran Really a ‘Rational’ State Actor? The Front page magazine. Retrieved November 13, 2014 < http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/is-iran-really-a-rational-state-actor/> Rubin, B. (2013). Is Iran a lunatic state or a rational actor? Neither: It is a rational aggressor? The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved November 13, 2014 < http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Is-Iran-a-lunatic-state-or-a-rational-actor-Neither-It-is-a-rational-aggressor-328625> Read More