Skip to main content
Log in

Intelligence and diplomacy in the security dilemma: gauging capabilities and intentions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Determining whether the opposition is benign or malign is central to the security dilemma. In this context, states have to decide whether the military capabilities of others are for defensive or offensive purposes. Despite the importance of this issue, states’ use of intelligence and diplomacy to gauge others’ capabilities and intentions and its implications for exacerbating, ameliorating and escaping the security dilemma have hardly been addressed. The few who have engaged with the topic have only done so superficially. This article engages with the subject matter at length and argues that both intelligence and diplomacy are double-edged swords in the security dilemma. Intelligence is particularly useful in attaining information regarding the capabilities of others and diplomacy is of great value in acquiring information about their intentions. Yet, they are both prone to error. The best prospects of mitigating and escaping the security dilemma are therefore by utilizing intelligence to gauge others’ capabilities and diplomacy to decipher their intentions, even though these efforts may instead end up aggravating the security dilemma dynamics due to mistakes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For other examinations of structural realism, see for example, (Pashakhanlou 2013, 2014, 2016).

  2. IMINT and SIGINT fall under the broader category of technical intelligence (TECHINT).

References

  • Adler-Nissen, R. 2015. Relationalism or why diplomats find international relations theory strange. In Diplomacy and the making of world politics, ed. O.J. Sending, V. Pouliot, and I. Neumann, 284–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andrew, C. 2004. Intelligence, international relations and “under-theorisation”. In Understanding intelligence in the twenty-first century: Journeys in shadows, ed. L. Scott, and P. Jackson, 29–41. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew, C., and O. Gordievsky. 1990. KGB: The inside story of its foreign operations from Lenin to Gorbachev. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, G. 2002. Diplomacy: Theory and practice. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blight, J., and D. Welch (eds.). 1998. Intelligence and the Cuban missile crisis. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, K., and N. Wheeler. 2008. The security dilemma: fear, cooperation and trust in world politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brind, H. 1999. Lying abroad: diplomatic memoirs. London: The Radcliffe Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. 1996. The Gorbachev factor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., O. Coté, S. Lynn-Jones, and S. Miller (eds.). 2004. Offense, defense and war. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, H. 2002. The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, H. 1960. International conflict in the twentieth century: A Christian view. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. 1982. Keeping faith: Memoirs of a president. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. 1997. Negotiating across cultures: International communication in an interdependent world. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R., and R. Westbrook (eds.). 2002. Amarna diplomacy: The beginnings of international relations. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. 1997. The security dilemma and the end of the cold war. Edinburgh: Keele University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., B. Finel, S. Goddard, S.V. Evera, C. Glaser, and C. Kaufmann. 1998. Correspondence: Taking offense at offense-defense theory. International Security 23: 179–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eban, A.S. 1977. Abba Eban: An autobiography. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R.D. 1994. True brits: Inside the foreign office. London: BBC Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, R. 2000. A chain of cities: Diplomacy at the end of empire. London: The Radcliffe Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J. 2004. Netcentric warfare, C4ISR and information operations: Towards a revolution in military intelligence? In Understanding intelligence in the twenty-first century: Journeys in shadows, ed. L. Scott, and P. Jackson, 54–77. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, G. 1980. International negotiation: A cross-cultural perspective. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J.L. 2007. The cold war. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates, R.M. 1997. From the shadows: The ultimate insider’s story of five presidents and how they won the cold war. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, C. 2010. Rational theory of international politics: The logic of competition and cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, C. 1994. Realists as optimists: Cooperation as self-help. International Security 19: 50–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W.M., and G. Citrenbaum. 2010. Intelligence analysis: How to think in complex environments: how to think in complex environments. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handel, M. 1998. War, strategy and intelligence. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, N. 2000. Mandarin: the diaries of an ambassador, 1969–1982. London: Phoenix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, M. 1996. Intelligence power in peace and war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herz, J. 1951. Political realism and political idealism: A study in theories and realities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Intelligence Collector Operations. 2006. Department of the Army, Washington, DC.

  • James, A. 1980. Diplomacy and international society. International Relations 6: 931–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. 1978. Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics 30: 167–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. 2007. Strategic intelligence: Understanding the hidden side of government. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, C., and M. Hall. 2003. Communication: An essential aspect of diplomacy. International Studies Perspectives 4: 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, P. 1992. Journeying far and wide: A political and diplomatic memoir. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kydd, A. 2000. Trust, reassurance, and cooperation. International Organization 54: 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, K. 2011. Mission impossible: Measuring the offense-defense balance with military net assessment. Security Studies 20: 451–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorand, S. 1981. Intercultural communication: A process model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 5: 133–146.https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(81)90004-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, M. 2000. Intelligence: From secrets to policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, M., and R. Clark (eds.). 2015. The five disciplines of intelligence collection. Washington, D. C: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrin, S. 2012. Improving intelligence analysis: Bridging the gap between scholarship and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: WW Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, H. 2004. Ethics and intelligence after September 2001. In Understanding intelligence in the twenty-first century: Journeys in shadows, ed. L. Scott, and P. Jackson, 180–194. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, E.B. 2006. Breaking out of the security dilemma: Realism, reassurance, and the problem of uncertainty. International Security 31: 151–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, E. 2008. Distance, power and ideology: Diplomatic representation in a world of nation-states. Area 40: 228–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olcott, A. 2012. open source intelligence in a networked world. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, A. 1984. The pride and the fall: Iran, 1974–1979. London: J. Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashakhanlou, A.H. 2013. Back to the drawing board: A critique of offensive realism. International Relations 27: 202–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117812455353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashakhanlou, A.H. 2014. Waltz, Mearsheimer and the post-cold war world: The rise of America and the fall of structural realism. International Politics 51: 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashakhanlou, A.H. 2016. Realism and fear in international relations: Morgenthau, Waltz and Mearsheimer reconsidered. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. 2006. The mechanisms of perception. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quandt, W. 1986. Camp David: Peacemaking and politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltzman, I. 2012. Securitizing balance of power theory: A polymorphic reconceptualization. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, L. 2004. Secret intelligence, Covert action and clandestine diplomacy. In Understanding intelligence in the twenty-first century: Journeys in shadows, ed. L. Scott, and P. Jackson, 162–179. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, L., and P. Jackson. 2004. Understanding intelligence in the twenty-first century: Journeys in shadows. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, J.G. 1989. Getting to the table: The triggers, stages, functions, and consequences of prenegotiation. International Journal 44: 475–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, S. 2010. A theory of security strategy for our time: Defensive realism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, S. 2009. The security dilemma: A conceptual analysis. Security Studies 18: 587–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410903133050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. 2007. The role of intelligence in national security. In Contemporary security studies, ed. A. Collins, 248–269. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, A. 1992. Diplomacy. In Dilemmas of world politics: International issues in a changing world, ed. J. Baylis, and N. Rengger, 159–173. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, N. 2013. Investigating diplomatic transformations. International Affairs 89: 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Jacqueline Anwar for her helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pashakhanlou, A.H. Intelligence and diplomacy in the security dilemma: gauging capabilities and intentions. Int Polit 55, 519–536 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0119-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0119-8

Keywords

Navigation