Security dilemma
The security dilemma is an important concept in international relations, as it offers an explanation of wars and conflicts. The concept emerged in the 1950s and is usually traced to the works of John Herz, Herbert Butterfield, and Robert Jervis.
In his article, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma” (1950), Herz posits that the security dilemma emerges in the anarchy of the international system, wherein states strive to attain security by acquiring more and more power. This, in turn, renders the other states more insecure and compels them to prepare for the worst, resulting in the vicious circle of security competition and power accumulation.
Jervis, in his article “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma” (1978), also argues that the security dilemma exists when “many of the means by which a state tries to increase its security decrease the security of others”.
According to Jervis, the security dilemma depends on two variables: the offense-defense balance and offense-defense differentiation. He explained that before WWI, when Germany started building a powerful navy, Britain saw it as an offensive, while overlooking how its own superior navy coerced Berlin.
Role of identity
In the emergence of the security dilemma, the anarchy of the international system plays an important role, as it generates suspicion, competition, and arms race, and, at times, wars. Consequently, the concept largely falls within the realist tradition of international relations.
Story continues below this ad
However, constructivist scholars have drawn attention to the role of state identity in the security dilemma. In his article titled “The Security Dilemma in Saudi-Iranian Relations” (2015), Mohamed Bin Huwaidin, a professor of political science at the UAE University, argues that shared ideas, norms, and beliefs that states hold about each other determine their relationship, whether they opt for balancing, cooperation, or war.
Huwaidin employs the constructivist framework to argue how the absence of shared identity between Saudi Arabia and Iran explains Riyadh’s concerns over Tehran acquiring nuclear capability, which is not the case with Pakistan.
A similar dynamic is visible in tensions between Iran, and Israel and the US. Following the 1979 revolution, Iran’s anti-Western stance and its opposition to the regional order maintained by the US and its regional partners contributed to arms race, proxy wars, and even direct conflicts. The dynamics closely mirror Herz’s vicious circle.
We would love to hear what you think about this new initiative. Send your comments at ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Story continues below this ad
Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for January 2026. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.