Knowing the Adversary: Leaders, Intelligence, and Assessment of Intentions in International Relations
Abstract
States are more likely to engage in risky and destabilizing actions such as military build-ups and preemptive strikes if they believe their adversaries pose a tangible threat. Yet despite the crucial importance of this issue, we don’t know enough about how states and their leaders draw inferences about their adversaries’ long-term intentions. This book draws on a wealth of historical archival evidence to shed new light on how world leaders and intelligence organizations actually make these intentions assessments. The book examines three cases: Britain’s assessments of Nazi Germany’s intentions in the 1930s, America’s assessments of the Soviet Union’s intentions during the Carter administration, and the Reagan administration’s assessments of Soviet intentions near the end of the Cold War. The book advances a new theoretical framework—called selective attention—that emphasizes organizational dynamics, personal diplomatic interactions, and cognitive and affective factors. It finds that decision makers don’t pay as much attention to those aspects of state behavior that major theories of international politics claim they do. Instead, they tend to determine the intentions of adversaries on the basis of preexisting beliefs, theories, and personal impressions. The book also shows how intelligence organizations rely on very different indicators than decision makers, focusing more on changes in the military capabilities of adversaries. The book provides a clearer picture of the historical validity of existing theories, and broadens our understanding of the important role that diplomacy plays in international security.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Heuristics and biases warp the ways in which individuals perceive uncertainty.
“One explanation for this finding is that heuristics and biases warp the ways in which individuals perceive uncertainty (Jervis 1976; McDermott 1998; Yarhi-Milo 2014; Hafner-Burton, Haggard, Lake, and Victor 2017).”
From The Value of Precision in Probability Assessment: Evidence from a Large-Scale Geopolitical Forecasting Tournament (2018) · cites this paper as Yarhi-Milo 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Friedman, J. A., Baker, J. D., Mellers, B. A., Tetlock, P. E., & Zeckhauser, R. (2018) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1093/isq/sqx078 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yarhi-Milo, K.
- Corresponding author
- Yarhi-Milo, Keren
- ORCID
- Yarhi-Milo, Keren
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2014-07-21
- OpenAlex
- W2265765582
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.49
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › History and International Relations
- Keywords
- intelligence organization, state decision-making, selective attention, Cold War, diplomatic engagement, military capabilities, international security
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review