English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

How do states perceive threats? Why are material forces sometimes more prominent in shaping threat perceptions, whereas ideational forces are the motivator in other instances? This article aims to move beyond the task of determining whether material or ideational factors matter to offer an integrated framework based on analytical eclecticism that specifies the conditions under which one of these two factors becomes salient in regimes’ threat perceptions. When regime identity is fixed and the material structure provides multiple strategic options to ensure a state’s physical security, leaders perceive challenges to their identity as more salient. When a state's identity is fluid, providing multiple narratives, and the distribution of military capabilities constrains strategic options for physical security, leaders perceive threats to their physical security as more prominent. As a result, the regime’s identity narrative is reframed to adapt to the constraints of the material structure. To examine the validity of this argument, I analyze the divergent Syrian and Saudi threat perceptions during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)

Ideational and Material Forces in Threat Perception: The Divergent Cases of Syria and Saudi Arabia During the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)