Expanding Role Theory: US Responses to Hizb'allah and Iran

There are many sociopolitical theories to help explain why governments and actors do what they do. Securitization Theory is a process-oriented theory in international relations that focuses on how an actor defines another actor as an “existential threat,” and the resulting responses that can be taken in order to address that threat. While Securitization Theory is an acceptable method to analyze the relationships between actors in the international system, this thesis contends that the proper examination is multi-factorial, focusing on the addition of Role Theory to the analysis. Consideration of Role Theory, which is another international relations theory that explains how an actor’s strategies, relationships, and perceptions by others is based on pre-conceptualized definitions of that actor’s identity, is essential in order to fully explain why an actor might respond to another in a particular way. Certain roles an actor may enact produce a rival relationship with other actors in the system, and it is those rival roles that elicit securitized responses. The possibility of a securitized response lessens when a role or a relationship between roles becomes ambiguous. There are clear points of role rivalry and role ambiguity between Hizb’allah and Iran, which has directly impacted, and continues to impact, how the United States (US) responds to these actors. Because of role ambiguity, the US has still not conceptualized an effective way to deal with Hizb’allah and Iran holistically across all its various areas of operation and in its various enacted roles. It would be overly simplistic to see Hizb’allah and Iran solely through one lens depending on which hemisphere or continent one is observing. The reality is likely more nuanced. Both Role Theory and Securitization theory can help to understand and articulate those nuances. By examining two case studies of Hizb’allah and Iran’s enactment of various roles in both the Middle East and Latin America, the situations where roles cause a securitized response and where the response is less securitized due to role ambiguity will become clear. Using this augmented approach of combining both theories, along with supplementing the manner in which an actor, action, or role is analyzed, will produce better methods for policy-making that will be able to address the more ambiguous activities of Hizb’allah and Iran in these two regions.