John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato’s How States Think postulates a provocative thesis: contrary to much current discussion of intellectual biases and emotional decision-making, states act as rational actors, primarily driven by survival and power considerations in an anarchic international system.
Mearsheimer and Rosato analytically examine major diplomatic and military events from the world wars and the Cold War to Vietnam to Iraq and the Russia-Ukraine conflict
The authors define a novel perception of “instrumental rationality” decision‐making embedded in credible theoretical understanding and careful calculation and argue that most foreign-policy choices by states reflect this kind of rational calculation. Mearsheimer and Rosato analytically examine major diplomatic and military events from the world wars and the Cold War to Vietnam to Iraq and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, showing that state leaders pursued comprehensible theories about security rather than acting out of emotion or pure ideology. The book’s clear, engaging prose and rigorous argumentation make it a significant contribution to debates in international politics.
“An unflinching critique of liberal idealism, it forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth: states don’t dream, they calculate.”
John J. Mearsheimer and Rosato organized their argument across nine separate chapters, each developing the case for rational statesmanship.
“The Rationality of States,” sets the base. Here, the authors define rationality as decision-making that increases national interest under uncertainty. They argue that, unlike individuals, states do not act on impulse; instead, policymakers assess threats strategically. Using this explanation, they contend that states usually prioritize survival and security above all. The chapter introduces the idea of the decision-maker as “homo theoreticus” someone guided by coherent theories about how the world works.
The authors’ framework key realist view, especially that the international system is anarchic and power-determined, and acknowledges critics who emphasize institutions, norms, or democracy
“Realism and Its Critics,” reviews the realist school of thought and focuses on liberal and constructivist counterarguments. The authors’ framework key realist view, especially that the international system is anarchic and power-determined, and acknowledges critics who emphasize institutions, norms, or democracy. Significantly, Mearsheimer and Rosato argue that, even if liberal internationalist theories such as democratic peace, interdependence or constructivist ideas are not baseless, they are ultimately inferior to raw security concerns. They maintain that realism’s materialist focus is the most reliable guide to state behavior.
“The Nature of the International System,” explains how anarchy leads countries toward power-maximizing behavior. Without an international authority, states must be self-reliant and security conscious. The authors explain that this enduring insecurity causes competition, especially among great powers. The importance that a state’s top priority is survival, which describes recurring arms races and balancing behavior.
The U.S. policymakers throughout the Cold War evaluated that containing the Soviet Union best served American interests, even when the costs were high
“The Rational Calculus of Foreign Policy,” explores the method of decision-making. Here, Mearsheimer and Rosato discuss how leaders weigh the risk of resources and long-term consequences. They use historical cases like the Cold War to show that states systematically analyze threats and opportunities. For example, they show how the U.S. policymakers throughout the Cold War evaluated that containing the Soviet Union best served American interests, even when the costs were high. The primary claim is that even costly, aggressive behaviors can be rational if they suit a realistic security theory.
States may wear the layer of ideology, but under the lens hood, their calculus continues about power and security
“The Role of Ideology and Norms,” encounters views that ideas or values govern policy. The authors acknowledge that policymakers occasionally invoke ideological norms but argue, these are usually rationalized extensions of interest-pursuing. They specifically question the liberal notion of an inherent “democratic peace.” Quoting U.S. interventions in democracy’s name, they mention that democracies have still begun wars when power was at stake. Therefore, ideology is framed as a secondary element. In brief, states may wear the layer of ideology, but under the lens hood, their calculus continues about power and security.
“Case Studies of Rational Foreign Policy,” grounds the theory in the past. John J. Mearsheimer and Rosato examine major twentieth-century events to show how decision-makers behaved in strategic judgment. They analyze the Vietnam War, Cold War conflict, and U.S. interventions in the Middle East region, arguing that even provocative engagements were chosen from a menu of what leaders considered rationally would best expand security. For instance, American escalation in Vietnam is recast not as eyeless anti-communism, but as an unwise attempt to sustain global influence, prestige, and contain Soviet Union influence. Similarly, the 2003 Iraq War is illustrated as a rational, if eventually flawed, effort to secure U.S interests in the region. The narrative points out that in each incident, policymakers formulated logical theories, however suspicious, about enemy intentions and responded accordingly.
China’s military development in Asia is given as a logical effort to counter U.S. supremacy
“The Challenge of Global Power Dynamics,” concerns the framework to current geopolitics. The growing rise of China and the assertiveness of Russia are examined as rational power shifts. The annexation of Crimea, for instance, is shown as a strategic move by Russia to safeguard its sphere of influence. Likewise, China’s military development in Asia is given as a logical effort to counter U.S. supremacy. In each instance, acts often condemned as provocations are reframed as logical reactions to perceived risks.
“The Limits of Rationality,” acknowledges that rationality is unsound. Mearsheimer and Rosato recognize misunderstandings and unexpected changes. They mention, for instance, how U.S. leaders misinterpreted Russia and China after the Cold War, leading to destabilizing faults, e.g., NATO’s expansion, frustrating Russian fears. The chapter underscores that rational decisions can still go wrong; being rational does not ensure success. However, they persist that these are constraints of realization, not weaknesses in the theory of rationality itself.
“The Future of Global Politics,” finishes the book. Assuming a multipolar world, the authors argue that key major powers, the U.S., China, and Russia, will continue to jockey for security-driven benefits. Without a global authority, they forecast constant competition and occasional conflict as states repeatedly estimate how best to survive. The chapter repeats the center note: as long as anarchy keeps, states will act according to rational calculations of interest.
“In a world obsessed with values and norms, How States Think reminds us that power still speaks the loudest.”
Complex ideas like strategic rationality vs. goal rationality are explained without unnecessary jargon
How States Think has several remarkable strengths. First, its theoretical clarity is creditable. The authors precisely define what they mean by rationality, perceive it from common erroneous beliefs, and without neglect, use this framework throughout. The book is well-written and intuitive, with arguments presented in an organized, accessible way. Complex ideas like strategic rationality vs. goal rationality are explained without unnecessary jargon, making the study useful to both specialists and advanced students.
Second, the book’s accuracy and texture are impressive. Mearsheimer is a veteran of IR theory, and Rosato assembled the argument with academic thoroughness. it is a “systematic, precise examination” of state decision-making. They don’t just assert that states are rational; they redefine rationality and harness it to several domains like grand strategy vs. crisis management, and many situations. The theoretical organization is consistently rooted in realist writing, yet the authors also engage with other schools significantly, showing intellectual coverage.
Third, the integration of theory with history is a strong suit. Rather than staying hypothesis, the authors use historical illustrations to test and explain their theory. This historical foundation adds credibility to their arguments. Finally, the book makes a focal contribution to the IR concept by challenging some fundamental assumptions. In an era when many scholars emphasize institutional or normative drivers, How States Think strongly re-centers classical realist reasoning. Even where one disagrees, it provokes re-examination of believed narratives.
No work is beyond criticism. One limitation of How States Think is its state-centric core. The authors emphasize states to the exclusion of other actors and components. Non-state actors such as international community, terrorist groups, NGOs, and international institutions receive insufficient attention.
The framework assumes leaders can and do apply credible theories
Another critique points to the treatment of ideology and emotion. Nevertheless, the authors recognize these factors, but they downplay them as mainly secondary. It explicitly argues that norms or ideological obligations are subordinate to security interests, but this underestimates how ideological worldviews, or domestic politics, can truly shape preferences. A further concern is the overemphasis on rationality.
The framework assumes leaders can and do apply credible theories. In truth, decision-making is often messy, subject to complex politics, misinformation, and leadership character quirks. While the authors compromise that some decisions are “nonrational” and definitely catalog a few infamous fiascos (Bay of Pigs, 2003 Iraq), skeptics might feel these exclusions are large enough to challenge the rule.
Lastly, the book tends to decode every major policy through a rationalist lens system, which may gloss over nuance
Despite these critiques, How States Think is a convincing scholarly achievement. Its endorsement of realist logic comes at a time when many international conflict like Russia-Ukraine, U.S.-China rivalry, Middle East instability remind us of classical power politics. By re-interpreting happenings through its lens, the book offers an absolutely but arguably realistic context: global politics is less about “values” and more about “security needs in an ever more aggressive world order”. Lastly, the book tends to decode every major policy through a rationalist lens system, which may gloss over nuance. In outcome, critics argue that what the authors deem “rational” is sometimes just picture rationalization.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
