With tensions mounting in the Middle East, the US reacted this week by leading airstrikes on remote sections of Eastern Syria, areas controlled by terrorist groups like ISIS and Khorasan. In attempts to find solutions, people have been analyzing the situations obviously in varying opinions and lenses through which they view terrorists. Interestingly, terrorists seem to fit the profile realists create for the world better than most state actors, and yet proponents of realism do not include such organizations in their levels of analysis. Terrorist organizations would subscribe to the realist theories balance of power, the security dilemma and the emphasis on military might.

As a central tenet of realism, security is often the ultimate goal of extremist groups. Known for their violence, there is a definite preference for excessive use of armed forces. Physical survival of the group is considered the true means for judging security. The more threatened a group feels, often the more violent and extreme they become, fearing that their unit and beliefs will be suppressed. When you compare two groups such as ISIS and Khorasan who have drastically different suspected numbers, it may suggest some groups value military means more than others. However even though Khorasan has less than 100 members, they are a well-organized group that can inflict serious damage through careful planning rather than through sheer man power. Alternatively, ISIS has a more traditional form of military power with around 30,000 members. Although security may look different some terrorists have refined their techniques to become a more technological and bureaucratic form of military security.

The second central tenet of realism, power, is the key motivator for groups like ISIS. All other motivators such as religion, culture or monetary desires help build a more effective military. Religion is typically a strong connector for terrorist groups which links well to the constructivist idea of thought where interests are underpinned by identity. However, it is merely an influence for power in unifying terms. A concession must be made though that the constructivist idea of the “other” does play well into terroristic mindsets. Due to the fact that groups like ISIS control oil wells, they have deep economic ties to their actions. However, they are also a means to an end rather than a point of specific interest. As realism suggests, their economic prosperity is used to promote their security and power instead of being a basis for actions.

Many terrorist groups will see the world as zero-sum as realists do as well. For example, Hamas sees any gain of power by Israel as bad, even if they gain more than the Israeli forces do. Power to terrorist groups is relative, not wanting to relinquish any of their own power or strength to another group. Known as the security dilemma, the struggle for power and security is magnified as there suddenly becomes limited amounts of security to go around. Terrorist organizations will use violence to shred feelings of security within the people and therefore boost their own power. Although realists may not recognize terrorist groups to be international actors, their strict mindset most closely matches that of many “freedom fighters”.