Are Rival States Irrational? A Foreign Policy Blind Spot

Powerful countries, and sometimes even mid-level powers, often describe rival states or foreign adversaries as “irrational,” “delusional,” or “illogical.” Such labels can be politically useful, but they may also create a serious blind spot in foreign policy. Every state acts according to its own interests, security concerns, and understanding of a situation. What looks irrational from one side may make sense from the other, simply because the two countries see the same events differently. The real question, then, is whether political leaders truly understand what drives their rivals’ decisions.

In How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato take up this issue by looking at how states make foreign policy decisions and why the idea of the rational actor still matters. Here, I consider whether calling another country irrational can stop policymakers from seeing the strategic thinking behind its actions.

Read also: How State Interests Shape Foreign Policy Decisions

Why States See Their Rivals as Irrational

Seeing rival states as irrational is one of the questions I will discuss, but first, we need to understand what rational and irrational mean. Rational decision-makers are theory-focused: they apply theory to understand a situation and follow a complete process to address the specific problem a state is facing. In contrast, non-rational decision-makers do not base their decisions on a credible theory. Now comes the question of rivals being seen as irrational. According to Professors Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato, was the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 irrational? Take the example of  Boris Johnson, who questioned whether Putin was thinking logically. In addition, Mitt Romney described the invasion as an example of “poor judgment”. Here, Mearsheimer and Rosato argue that the close relationship between NATO and Ukraine threatened Russian influence in the region. Therefore, Putin wanted to maintain the balance of power, and these concerns were definitely discussed among Russian officials. Many called his decision irrational, but from the Russian perspective, it was a response to a threat to its security. This example shows that a decision considered irrational by one country may be based on strategic reasoning that its leaders do not fully understand or accept (Mearsheimer & Rosato, 2023, pp. ix-xiii, 1-3).

The Rational Actor Assumption: Understanding a Rival's Logic

The rational actor assumption means we begin by assuming that a rival state is thinking strategically, and then check that assumption against the evidence. The international arena is full of uncertainty, and sometimes governments lack complete information about rival states and their future plans. Therefore, rational policymakers must examine the available evidence and remain willing to reconsider their decisions when important new information becomes available. In addition, policymakers use credible theories that have realistic assumptions, logical explanations, and support from historical facts (Mearsheimer & Rosato, 2023, pp. 4-9).

Therefore, rational decision-makers will consider whether these theories fit the circumstances. Professors Mearsheimer and Rosato explain that government officials may disagree about the best foreign policy. One official might want to use the military as a solution, while another might prefer diplomacy. Rational decision-making therefore requires open discussion in which officials can challenge each other. Understanding a state’s logic also requires examining how its leaders conduct the decision-making process (Mearsheimer & Rosato, 2023, pp. 4-9).

The Foreign Policy Risk of Misjudging a Rival

A big problem in foreign policy is that governments often judge their rivals without really understanding what they are trying to do. Leaders like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-un are often called irrational, but that label does not explain much. More often, it just shows that other states cannot make sense of their choices. There is a difference between a decision that looks foolish from the outside and one made without any real thought.

For example, a country may build up its military because it fears an attack. Another state may see that as aggression instead of a way to stay safe. Once that happens, both sides can start preparing for conflict even if neither one actually wanted war. International relations scholars call this the security dilemma. That is the danger of misunderstanding another country’s intentions. Governments may react to what they think a rival wants instead of asking what it really wants, and that can make diplomacy harder and push states toward military responses that raise tensions. That said, this does not mean every move a rival makes is rational. Some governments do act without a sound theory or a proper decision-making process, and those decisions are non-rational. But a rival can also be rational and still make a mistake, so a failed policy does not always mean a thoughtless one.

Understanding a rival state's reasoning is important in foreign policy. If governments dismiss opponents as irrational without looking at why they act the way they do, they can misread threats and make bad decisions. But understanding a rival does not mean agreeing with it. From my point of view, governments should first look at the thinking behind their rivals' choices before judging them, because the real issue is sometimes not irrational behavior, but not understanding it.

Reference

Mearsheimer, J. J., & Rosato, S. (2023). How states think: The rationality of foreign policy. Yale University Press.