John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato’s How States Think – A Book Review and Its Relevance to Today’s World

Welcome back, team! In this episode of Dave Talks Politics, hi, I’m Dave, and I’ll be talking politics. Today, team, let’s talk about:John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato’s How States Think – A Book Review and Its Relevance to Today’s World**1. The Core Thesis of the Book**- The book argues that states are rational actors most of the time when making foreign policy decisions, challenging the growing view in academia and policy circles that nonrationality is common.- Rationality is defined as a two-part process: individual policymakers rely on credible theories to understand the world and decide how to act, while states aggregate those views through deliberation to produce a final strategy.- Credible theories are those with realistic assumptions, logically consistent causal stories, and substantial empirical support from history.- The authors test this definition against historical cases of grand strategy formulation and crisis management, showing that rational processes dominate even when outcomes are poor.- Team, the book makes a strong case that rationality — not bias or emotion — drives most state behavior, with nonrational cases being the exception rather than the rule.**2. How the Book Defines Rationality in International Politics**- At the individual level, rational policymakers are “theory-driven” — they use credible theories to explain cause-and-effect relationships and choose strategies that best serve their goals in an uncertain world.- At the state level, rational aggregation requires deliberation: a robust debate among key decision makers where all views are considered without coercion or suppression, followed by a clear decision by an ultimate authority.- The book contrasts this with nonrational processes, such as when leaders silence dissent, rely on flawed or nonexistent theories, or bypass systematic evaluation.- Nonrationality is not equated with failure — rational states can fail due to unforeseen events, while nonrational states can succeed by luck or overwhelming power.- My take: This definition cuts through vague or outcome-based notions of rationality, focusing instead on the actual thought process that produces policy.**3. Key Historical Cases and Their Lessons**- The authors examine cases often cited as examples of nonrationality and show they were in fact rational: Germany’s crisis management before World War I involved credible balance-of-power theories and deliberation, even if the outcome was disastrous.- Japan’s decision to attack Pearl Harbor was based on credible theories about resource needs and U.S. resolve, emerging from extensive debate among military and civilian leaders.- The U.S. escalation in Vietnam and invasion of Iraq in 2003 are shown to involve theory-driven thinking and deliberation, despite poor results, while the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 demonstrates how deliberation produced a rational strategy based on credible threat assessments.- France’s grand strategy before World War II is analyzed as rational despite its ultimate failure, rooted in theories about alliances and deterrence.- Team, these cases illustrate that even when states make costly mistakes, the underlying process is usually rational, driven by credible theories about power, survival, and international dynamics.**4. Linking the Book to the Current Situation with Iran, China, Russia, Israel, the US, UK, and EU**- The book’s emphasis on credible theories explains much of today’s great-power behavior: the US National Security Strategy of 2025 treats China as a peer competitor seeking regional hegemony in Asia, using balance-of-power logic to justify focusing resources on the Indo-Pacific while reducing commitments in Europe.- Russia’s actions in Ukraine reflect a rational strategy based on credible theories about NATO expansion threatening its security, with deliberation among leaders leading to the decision to invade despite high risks.- Iran’s nuclear program and support for proxies are framed in Western analyses as rational responses to perceived threats from the US and Israel, consistent with the book’s view that states maximize power for survival in anarchy.- The EU and UK’s responses to the Iran war — including higher energy costs and shifting toward Russian and Chinese supplies — show rational adaptation to immediate needs, even as it creates wedges with the US, driven by theories about energy security and economic survival.- China’s bond market resilience and diversification of energy ties during the Iran conflict demonstrate theory-driven pragmatism: Beijing uses credible assessments of global disruptions to advance its long-term goal of reducing dependence on Western-dominated routes.- My take: The current multipolar tensions — US-China rivalry, Russia’s assertiveness, Iran’s defiance, and Europe’s hedging — align with the book’s prediction that states will act rationally to maximize power and security, often leading to competition rather than cooperation.**5. Broader Implications and Forward Realism**- The book challenges the narrative that nonrationality explains most foreign policy failures, instead showing that rational processes can still produce bad outcomes due to uncertainty and incomplete information.- In today’s world, where conflicts like the Iran war disrupt global energy and supply chains, understanding rationality helps explain why states like Russia and China gain influence by offering pragmatic alternatives to Western sanctions and pressure.- The authors argue that recognizing rational state behavior is essential for both scholars and policymakers — it allows for better anticipation of rivals’ moves and more effective strategies, rather than dismissing actions as irrational.- Forward realism: As great-power competition intensifies with China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence, the patterns Mearsheimer and Rosato identify — states using credible theories and deliberation to pursue survival and power — will continue to shape events, from energy deals in Asia and Europe to nuclear negotiations with Iran and military posturing in the Indo-Pacific.**Summary of the Book and Its Enduring Relevance**How States Think offers a clear and compelling definition of rationality in foreign policy: states are rational when their strategies rest on credible theories about how the world works and emerge from a deliberative process among key decision makers. Through detailed examination of historical cases — including Germany before and during the world wars, Japan’s path to Pearl Harbor, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, France before World War II, and the US decisions in Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and Iraq — the book demonstrates that rational processes are the norm, even when outcomes are disastrous. Nonrational cases, such as Britain’s no-liability strategy before World War II, are exceptions driven by flawed theories or suppressed debate. The book directly challenges political psychology’s emphasis on biases and heuristics, showing instead that theory-driven thinking dominates. In the current era of great-power rivalry, the book’s framework explains why the US focuses on containing China, why Russia acts assertively in Ukraine, why Iran pursues nuclear capabilities, and why Europe hedges by turning to Russian and Chinese energy. Mearsheimer and Rosato remind us that understanding rationality is essential for navigating an anarchic world where states prioritize survival and power, making their work a vital guide for both scholars and practitioners facing today’s complex geopolitical challenges. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wgowbrics.substack.com