Between 2011 and 2016, western policymakers became interested in making a deal with Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, they have always been divided on whether bringing Iran into the international order would also reduce its tendency to use armed force to achieve its security objectives.
This is Part 4 of a 4-part essay series analysing this question through the lenses of different IR theories. This essay analyses the question through the lens of Stacie Goddard’s vision of Global Power Politics.
Global Power Politics
The extensive disagreements that rage over the literature on international relations are evident from the diverse opinions illustrated in this literature review. There is no clear consensus over an opinion as crucial as whether or not integration into the international order will reduce the use of armed force by revisionist states like Iran.
Stacie Goddard viewed this “fragmentation” of thoughts on IR as a significant problem and conducted extensive research into this field to bridge the gaps between different theories of international relations to create an approach to IR that better focuses on power politics between powerful states to better understand how to manage them.
She termed this understanding as Global Power Politics. Goddard devised the term “Global Power Politics” (GPP) to explain her “post-realist” understanding. She describes this as “an analytically distinctive mode of political activity that centres around the struggle for influence in global politics” (Goddard, 2016, p.5).
Goddard defines GPP as “politics based on the use of power to influence the actions and decisions of actors that claim or exercise authority over a political community” (Goddard, 2016, p.6).
Goddard targets several weaknesses in realist and liberalist arguments. She lambasts realism’s inability to understand how a state mobilises its resources to achieve significant foreign policy goals. She also attacks realism’s fixation on the anarchy of the international system. Indeed, she “rejects the claim that anarchy drives global power politics” because “much of contemporary and historical global politics takes place in the presence of rules institutions and social domination”. She states that instead, “Hierarchy, not anarchy, conditions much of the dynamics of not just international, but global power politics (Goddard, 2016, p.6).
However, she agrees with realism’s notion that an enduring struggle for power exists in the international system between states, and thus, she labels her approach as “post-realist.” At the same time, she draws on constructivist perspectives by acknowledging that the power of central state authority is variable. She also believes that states are not monolithic entities and that their identities and symbolic infrastructure can influence how and why they mobilise. She highlights the importance of legitimacy and other non-military forms of power while recognising that states are not the only actors operating in the international order.
She asserts that a state’s position within the international system is the most significant factor in determining its behaviour. While states may still be relevant regardless of their position, her theories offer limited insight into why this might be. States tend to exhibit violent military behaviour when they are isolated from the primary international order and lack access to alternative systems of power. For instance, she cites Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an example of a state that is excluded from the primary international order and has no alternative. By contrast, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union had access to an alternative international order, which allowed it to refrain from using hegemonic violence. Similarly, China is integrated into the liberal international order (i.e., the American-led global system) and thus focuses on internal system changes that do not require overt military aggression (Goddard, 2018)
Although she does not specifically address Iran, Tehran’s frequent use of armed force against regional powers and even the United States suggests that it fits into the category of states that are isolated from the primary international system and lack significant ties to an alternative order. Consequently, Iran resorts to, or is prepared to use, hegemonic violence. From this perspective, re-integrating Iran into the international system would likely shift its behaviour away from military force, leading it instead to pursue change within international norms and institutions.