The current civil war in Syria does not solely affect the national community in Syria; it also affects the members of the international community which hold interests in Syria. More specifically, a civil war not only affects Syria’s neighbors, but also impacts the international system’s main powers through potential regional destabilization. For the sake of concision, this paper will focus only on Iran and the United States. Each of these states has approached the Syrian civil war with their individual benefits and desired outcomes in mind. In this essay I will present each country’s relationship with Syria through the paradigms of realism, liberalism, and constructivism and then argue in favor of the paradigm which best explains their policies. Ultimately, I argue that constructivism is the most dominant and prominent relationship between the Iranians and Syrians. but realism.
For years Iran and Syria have strengthened their relationship and built a foundation based on co-desired outcomes and goals. However, their relationship also emphasizes the necessity of trade and of the attainment of both power and security; thus portraying aspects of the paradigms of Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism.
As a regional power, Iran has felt and will continue to feel the immediate effects of the Syrian Civil War. Realism predicts that in a permanent state of international anarchy states strive to amidst a constant struggle for power. However, amidst the chaos of a system without an overarching authority, a realist views state behavior as rational and strategic. For a realist, the longstanding military between Iran and Syria is solely for the purpose of securing their state and balancing against potential threats such as Israel. This attitude can be seen in the two states during several conflicts publically claiming their military allegiance to one another. As Alan Cowell of the New York Times explained during Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, “The leaders of Syria...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document