Beyond national interest: role of ethics and emotions in world politics

Published 28 July 2026 · world

The language of world politics has become remarkably predictable. Every military strike, diplomatic initiative, economic sanction, or strategic partnership is justified in the name of

The language of world politics has become remarkably predictable. Every military strike, diplomatic initiative, economic sanction, or strategic partnership is justified in the name of national interest. Television debates and commentaries have a common vocabulary — power, deterrence, balance of power, strategic autonomy, and security. It almost appears as though International Relations has become an emotionless discipline, focused on power concentration, where morality and ethics have little place. Yet the defining geopolitical crises of recent years tell a very different story. Influence of Western traditions International Relations, both as an academic discipline and as a practice of diplomacy, has been largely shaped by Western intellectual traditions, with much of academic research originating in the United States of America. No wonder, famous IR scholar, Stanley Hoffman, in his article, argued that IR is an American Social Science. It is difficult to refute Hoffman’s argument because initially the modern international order emerged when European powers dominated much of the world, leaving the Global South with little role in designing the institutions, norms, and rules that continue to govern global politics. However, the discipline itself acquired its modern identity after the Second World War, with the U.S. based scholar, Hans Morgenthau’s Realism becoming the dominant framework for understanding international affairs. Realism portrays the international system as anarchic and argues that states, in the absence of a central authority, are compelled to pursue their national interests. Although the theory is far more nuanced than its popular interpretation suggests, public discourse has reduced it to two defining ideas—anarchy and national interest. Over time, Realism travelled from classrooms to newsrooms, becoming the default language through which foreign policy is interpreted. There is much to appreciate in the Realist tradition. It reminds us that power, military capability, and strategic calculations remain central to international politics. However, the dominance of Realism has also encouraged the belief that foreign policy is little more than a rational pursuit of national interest. Ethical considerations are often dismissed as idealistic, while emotions are treated as irrational distractions.

Yet certain recent scholarships in International Relations have increasingly challenged this assumption. Scholars such as Neta Crawford have argued that emotions are not the opposite of rationality; rather, they are integral to political judgment. Fear, grief, anger, humiliation, empathy, and pride actively shape how leaders interpret threats, define interests, and respond to crises. Foreign policy, therefore, is not merely an exercise in cold strategic calculation, but also a product of moral perceptions and collective emotions. This dynamic is encapsulated by scholar Brent Sasley, who notes that while state leaders make formal decisions as members of a group, “they do so within a particular (social) context and on that (social) basis”. Question of political legitimacy The recent U.S.-Iran conflict illustrates this point. Much of the strategic analysis focused on military capabilities, damage assessments, and the future balance of power in West Asia. Comparatively little attention was paid to the emotional and ethical consequences of the conflict. The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was not only Iran’s Supreme Leader but also one of the most influential religious figures in the Shia world, produced consequences that extended far beyond military calculations. Rather than weakening the Iranian state, his death generated an extraordinary wave of national solidarity. A society that had appeared politically divided only months earlier united around a shared sense of loss, nationalism, and religious identity. Crawford’s observation that grief and the desire for revenge continue to shape political behaviour long after the battlefield has fallen silent is particularly relevant in this context. Military planners may calculate strategic gains, but societies often respond through memory, identity, and emotion. Therefore, it is important to note that foreign policy must not be judged solely by the actions of a government, but also by how those actions shape and influence global public opinion. The debate surrounding the assassination largely focused on how Washington would engage with a post-Khamenei Iran. Far less attention was devoted to the ethical questions raised by such an operation and its implications for America’s moral standing.