Iranian Political Studies

Iranian Political Studies

Agents ‘all the way down’: An Iranian critique of structure-war linkage

Document Type : Original Article

Author
seyed ahmad fatemi nejad
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
10.22067/ips.2026.97441.1020
Abstract
The inquiry into the causal origins of war remains a foundational concern within the philosophy of International Relations (IR). However, the causes of war have been examined at different levels from micro to macro. While at the micro level, for example, human nature and the quality of political systems are taken into account, at the macro level, most IR thinkers have addressed varying impacts of the anarchic nature of the international structure in starting wars. The purpose of this article is to show that there is no significant link between the anarchic structure and war. So, in this study, I adopt a non-Western lens and use Ferdowsi’s views to argue that individual decision-makers, on a micro level of analysis, play a prime role in initiating as well as concluding wars. To confirm this statement, I first examine the relationship between anarchy and war in the western IR literature. Then, using Ferdowsi's thoughts, I demonstrate how agency is the prime matter in initiating and ending wars. By introducing Ferdowsi’s conceptualization of “wisdom” (khirad) and the role of the “wise leader,” this research proposes a novel conflict resolution model that transcends the limitations of structural determinism. Ultimately, this individualistic approach provides a framework for analyzing conflicts simultaneously at the domestic and international levels.
Keywords
Agency
structure
non-Western theory
Iranian literature
Ferdowsi’s thought
  1. Adem, S. (2002). Anarchy, order and power in world politics: A comparative analysis. Ashgate Publishing Company.
  2. Ahrensdorf, P. J. (2000). The fear of death and the longing for immortality: Hobbes and Thucydides on human nature and the problem of anarchy. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 579–593.
  3. Ashley, R. K. (1988). Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(2), 227–262.
  4. Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. O. (1985). Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions. World Politics, 38(1), 226–254.
  5. Booth, K. (1991). Security in anarchy: Utopian realism in theory and practice. International Affairs, 67(3), 527–545.
  6. Braun, B., Schindler, S., & Wille, T. (2019). Rethinking agency in International Relations: Performativity, performances and actor-networks. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22, 787–807.
  7. Brown, S. (1992). International relations in changing global system: Towards a theory of the world polity. Westview Press.
  8. Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. Macmillan.
  9. Buzan, B., & Little, R. (1994). The idea of "International System": Theory meets history. International Political Science Review, 15(3), 231–255.
  10. Buzan, B., & Little, R. (1996). Reconceptualizing anarchy: Structural realism meets world history. European Journal of International Relations, 2(4), 403–438.
  11. Byman, D. L., & Pollack, K. M. (2001). Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in. International Security, 25(4), 107–146.
  12. Cerny, P. G., & Prichard, A. (2017). The new anarchy: Globalisation and fragmentation in world politics. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 378–394.
  13. Cudworth, Erika., & Hobden, S. (2010). Anarchy and anarchism: Towards a theory of complex international systems. Millennium, 39(2), 399–416.
  14. Donnelly, J. (2006). Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power and international society. European Journal of International Relations, 12(2), 139–170.
  15. Donnelly, J. (2009). Rethinking political structures: From ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond. International Theory, 1(1), 49–86.
  16. Donnelly, J. (2015). The discourse of anarchy in IR. International Theory, 7(3), 393–425.
  17. Doyle, M. W. (1983a). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign-affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), 205–235.
  18. Doyle, M. W. (1983b). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign-affairs, Part 2. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(4), 323–353.
  19. Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151–1169.
  20. Doyle, M. W. (2005). Three pillars of the liberal peace. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 463–466.
  21. Durfee, M., & Rosenau, J. N. (1996). Playing catch-up: International relations theory and poverty. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 25(3), 521–545.
  22. Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (2005). Generalising the international. Review of International Studies, 31(3), 451–471.
  23. Ferdowsi, A. (1998). Shahnameh (A. Joveini, Ed.; Vol. 2). Tehran University Press. (Original work published 1377 AP)
  24. Ferdowsi, A. (2001). Shahnameh (A. Joveini, Ed.; Vol. 3). Tehran University Press. (Original work published 1380 AP)
  25. Ferdowsi, A. (2003). Shahnameh (A. Joveini, Ed.; 2nd ed., Vol. 1). Tehran University Press. (Original work published 1382 AP)
  26. Ferdowsi, A. (2005). Shahnameh (A. Joveini, Ed.; Vol. 4). Tehran University Press. (Original work published 1384 AP)
  27. Gat, A. (2009). So why do people fight? Evolutionary theory and the causes of war. European Journal of International Relations, 15(4), 571–599.
  28. Gildea, R. J. (2020). Psychology and aggregation in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 26(1_suppl), 166–183.
  29. Glaser, C. L. (1994). Realists as optimists: Cooperation as self-help. International Security, 19(3), 50–90.
  30. Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.
  31. Griffiths, R. D. (2018). The Waltzian ordering principle and international change: A two-dimensional model. European Journal of International Relations, 24(1), 130–152.
  32. Guzzini, S. (2004). The enduring dilemmas of realism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 533–568.
  33. Haldén, P. (2017). Heteronymous politics beyond anarchy and hierarchy: The multiplication of forms of rule 750–1300. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 266–281.
  34. Havercroft, J., & Prichard, A. (2017). Anarchy and International Relations theory: A reconsideration. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 252–265.
  35. Hobbes, T. (2006). Leviathan (H. Bashirieh, Trans.). Nashr-e Ney. (Original work published 1385 AP)
  36. Holsti, K. J. (2004). Taming the sovereigns: Institutional changes in international politics. Cambridge University Press.
  37. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (2006). From dialectic of enlightenment. In L. Cahoone (Ed.), From modernism to postmodernism: An anthology (A. Rashidian, Trans., pp. 243–259). Nashr-e Ney. (Original work published 1385 AP)
  38. Horowitz, M. C., & Fuhrmann, M. (2018). Studying leaders and military conflict: Conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(10), 2072–2086.
  39. Horowitz, M. C., Potter, P., Sechser, T. S., & Stam, A. (2018). Sizing up the adversary: Leader attributes and coercion in international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(10), 2180–2204.
  40. Horowitz, M., McDermott, R., & Stam, A. C. (2005). Leader age, regime type, and violent international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 661–685.
  41. Howell, A., & Richter-Montpetit, M. (2020). Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School. Security Dialogue, 51(1), 3–22.
  42. Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1–30.
  43. Hudson, V. M., & Day, B. S. (2019). Foreign policy analysis: Classic and contemporary theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
  44. Hudson, V. M., & Vore, C. S. (1995). Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Mershon International Studies Review, 39(4), 209–238.
  45. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
  46. Johnson, J. T. (2017). Three perspectives on just war. International Relations, 31(4), 511–522.
  47. Karatzogianni, A., & Robinson, A. (2017). Schizorevolutions versus microfascisms: The fear of anarchy in state securitisation. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 282–295.
  48. Keohane, R. O. (1982). The demand for international regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 325–355.
  49. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony. Princeton University Press.
  50. Kratochwil, F. (1982). On the notion of "interest" in international relations. International Organization, 36(1), 1–30.
  51. Kratochwil, F. (1984). The force of prescriptions. International Organization, 38(4), 685–708.
  52. Kratochwil, F. (2000). Constructing a new orthodoxy? Wendt's `social theory of international politics' and the constructivist challenge. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29(1), 73–101.
  53. Kurki, M. (2008). Causation in international relations: Reclaiming causal analysis. Cambridge University Press.
  54. Lake, D. A. (2001). Beyond anarchy: The importance of security institutions. International Security, 26(1), 129–160.
  55. Lebow, R. N. (2010). Why nations fight: Past and future motives for war. Cambridge University Press.
  56. Lechner, S. (2017). Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 341–359.
  57. Lemay-Hébert, N., & Jerrems, A. (2023). The afterlives of state failure: Echoes and aftermaths of colonialism. European Journal of International Relations, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231191021
  58. Levy, J. S. (2011). Theories and causes of war. In C. J. Coyne & R. L. Mathers (Eds.), The handbook on the political economy of war (pp. 13–33). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  59. Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2010). Causes of war. Wiley-Blackwell.
  60. Linklater, A. (2007). Critical theory. In M. Griffiths (Ed.), International relations theory for the twenty-first century: An introduction (pp. 47–60). Routledge.
  61. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990). Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security, 15(3), 5–56.
  62. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
  63. Mercer, J. (1995). Anarchy and identity. International Organization, 49(2), 229–252.
  64. Milner, H. (1991). The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: A critique. Review of International Studies, 17(1), 67–85.
  65. Mitzen, J. (2005). Reading Habermas in anarchy: Multilateral diplomacy and global public spheres. The American Political Science Review, 99(3), 401–417.
  66. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
  67. Newman, S. (2012). Crowned anarchy: Postanarchism and international relations theory. Millennium, 40(2), 259–278.
  68. Nye, J. (2000). Understanding international conflicts: An introduction to theory and history. Longman.
  69. Onuf, N. (2002). Institutions, intentions and international relations. Review of International Studies, 28(2), 211–228.
  70. Onuf, N., & Klink, F. F. (1989). Anarchy, authority, rule. International Studies Quarterly, 33(2), 149–173.
  71. Oye, K. A. (1985). Explaining cooperation under anarchy: Hypotheses and strategies. World Politics, 38(1), 1–24.
  72. Phillips, A. (2018). Contesting the Confucian peace: Civilization, barbarism and international hierarchy in East Asia. European Journal of International Relations, 24(4), 740–764.
  73. Phillips, A. (2019). Global security hierarchies after 1919. International Relations, 33(2), 195–212.
  74. Prichard, A. (2017). Collective intentionality, complex pluralism and the problem of anarchy. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 360–377.
  75. Prozorov, S. (2009). Generic universalism in world politics: Beyond international anarchy and the world state. International Theory, 1(2), 215–247.
  76. Rosenau, J. N. (1990). Turbulence in world politics: A theory of change and continuity. Princeton University Press.
  77. Saunders, E. N. (2011). Leaders at war: How presidents shape military interventions. Cornell University Press.
  78. Saunders, E. N. (2018). Leaders, advisers, and the political origins of elite support for war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(10), 2118–2149.
  79. Schmidt, B. C. (2002). Anarchy, world politics and the birth of a discipline: American International Relations, pluralist theory and the myth of interwar idealism. International Relations, 16(1), 9–31.
  80. Singer, D. (1994). The evolution of anarchy vs. the evolution of cooperation. Politics and the Life Sciences, 13(1), 26–28.
  81. Sjoberg, L. (2012). Gender, structure, and war: What Waltz couldn't see. International Theory, 4(1), 1–38.
  82. Sjoberg, L. (2017). The invisible structures of anarchy: Gender, orders, and global politics. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 325–340.
  83. Smith, M. J. (1986). Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger. Louisiana State University Press.
  84. Snyder, J. (2002). Anarchy and culture: Insights from the anthropology of war. International Organization, 56(1), 7–45.
  85. Soudias, D. (2024). Alter-neoliberal analysis: Abduction, critique, radical imagination. European Journal of Social Theory, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310231221124
  86. Suganami, H. (2002). Explaining war: Some critical observations. International Relations, 16(3), 307–326.
  87. Thies, C. G. (2010). Explaining zones of negative peace in interstate relations: The construction of a West African Lockean culture of anarchy. European Journal of International Relations, 16(3), 391–415.
  88. Voelsen, D., & Schettler, L. V. (2019). International political authority: On the meaning and scope of justified hierarchy in international relations. International Relations, 33(4), 540–562.
  89. Walker, R. B. J. (1995). History and structure in the theory of international relations. In J. DerDerian (Ed.), International theory: Critical investigations (p. 324). Macmillan.
  90. Walker, R. B. J. (2003). International/Inequality. International Studies Review, 4(2), 7–24.
  91. Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.
  92. Walt, S. M. (2018). US grand strategy after the Cold War: Can realism explain it? Should realism guide it? International Relations, 32(1), 3–22.
  93. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the state and war: A theoretical analysis. Columbia University Press.
  94. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Random House.
  95. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
  96. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
  97. Wendt, A. (2003). Why a world state is inevitable: Teleology and the logic of anarchy. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491–542.
  98. Wight, C. (2019). Violence in international relations: The first and the last word. International Relations, 33(2), 172–194.
  99. Wight, M. (1960). Why is there no international theory? International Relations, 2(1), 35–48.
  100. Williams, M. C. (2005). The realist tradition and the limits of international relations. Oxford University Press.

 

Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
Iranian Political Studies
Volume 2, Issue 1 - Serial Number 2
Spring 2026
Pages 99-117