This essay argues that India’s analytical under-engagement with the ideological dimensions of Iranian statecraft is not a policy failure but a theoretical one: a structural consequence of what I term the “postcolonial materialism trap”: the tendency of postcolonial states to systematically bracket ideology in international analysis as a defense against perceived Western epistemic imperialism. Drawing on constructivist and classical realist insights, I argue that this trap produces a distinctive form of strategic partial vision that is neither purely realist nor adequately constructivist, and that correcting it requires not merely incorporating ideology into existing frameworks but reconceiving the relationship between strategic autonomy and ideational analysis in non-Western IR theory.

Introduction: The Problem Is Not Empirical, It Is Theoretical

India’s relationship with Iran is, by conventional metrics, a success story of managed complexity. New Delhi has sustained energy imports through sanctions regimes, negotiated transit rights through Chabahar while Washington pressed for isolation, and maintained diplomatic channels through the turbulence of Ahmadinejad, Rouhani, Raisi and Pezeshkian with a consistency that has eluded most Western capitals. The strategic community in Delhi rightly regards this as a demonstration of principled pragmatism: interests identified, relationships cultivated, red lines held.

Yet something is systematically missing from this picture, and its absence has consequences that compound quietly over time.

The missing element is not intelligence on Iranian capabilities or even awareness of revolutionary rhetoric; Indian analysts are neither naive nor uninformed. The gap is analytical: a persistent under-theorization of how ideology functions as an instrument of statecraft, how revolutionary states operate across registers that material analysis cannot capture, and why this matters not as a moral or civilizational concern but as a hard strategic one. India sees Iran clearly as a state. It sees it only dimly as an ideological actor.

This essay’s central claim is that this blind spot is not accidental. It is structurally produced by a distinctive feature of postcolonial international relations (IR) thinking, one that deserves examination on its own terms, not as mere derivative failure to absorb Western constructivism but as a theoretically significant phenomenon with its own internal logic and unintended consequences.

What Ideology Does in International Politics: Beyond the Constructivist Consensus

Before diagnosing the blind spot, it is worth being precise about what ideology actually does in international politics, because the mainstream constructivist account, which has rightly moved the field beyond crude materialism, is itself insufficient for the task at hand.

The constructivist contribution, from Wendt’s (1992) “Anarchy is what states make of it” onward (see also, Wendt, 1999), established that identities and ideas constitute interests rather than merely expressing them. This was theoretically decisive. But constructivism, particularly in its American academic form, has tended to focus on the ideational constitution of systemic structures, including elements such as norms, regimes and identities at the level of the international order, rather than on how particular states instrumentalize ideology as a tool of power projection (On Iran, see Fürtig and Gratius, 2010).

The Iranian case requires a different analytical lens, closer to what might be called operational ideological analysis: the study of how a state deploys its ideological commitments not as noise around material interests but as infrastructure for influence. The Islamic Republic’s Velayat-e Faqih doctrine, its cultivation of Shia political networks from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, its media ecosystems (Press TV, Al-Alam, Al-Mayadeen’s orbit extending beyond its Beirut headquarters), its financing of ideological entrepreneurs, these are not epiphenomenal expressions of identity. They are instruments of statecraft, as deliberate as any conventional alliance portfolio, and they produce measurable effects in political systems far beyond Iran’s borders.

The crucial point is that these instruments operate on a different bandwidth than conventional power. Military capabilities deter; economic leverage coerces; but ideological infrastructure shapes the terrain on which interests are formed, mobilized, and expressed. States with strong ideological projection capacity can influence what domestic audiences in other countries want, what they regard as legitimate grievances, and which frames they use to interpret events. This is not “soft power” in Nye’s (1990) sense, which remains fundamentally state-centric and presupposes passive receivers. The classical Persian civilizational heritage, for example, would serve as “soft power” in the case of Iran, which the present regime actively denounces as an “Age of Ignorance”. Instead, it (the ideology-driven foreign policy in the non-Western IR thinking) is better understood as ideational statecraft: the deliberate cultivation of affective and normative dispositions in foreign societies to expand the range of possible actions available to the projecting state.

India’s analytical frameworks have not adequately theorized this phenomenon. The result is not that India ignores Iranian influence. It is that India lacks the conceptual vocabulary to measure it, track it, or incorporate it into strategic planning.

The Postcolonial Materialism Trap

Why? The answer lies in what I call the postcolonial materialism trap – a structural feature of how states emerging from colonial experiences have constructed their IR frameworks.

The logic runs as follows. Colonial rule was itself an ideological project. It justified itself through civilizational hierarchies, racial theories, and cultural superiority claims that were, in retrospect, transparent instruments of material extraction. The postcolonial critique of empire was therefore necessarily also a critique of ideology as a cover for power (See McLeod, 2010). Non-alignment, Bandung, the New International Economic Order (NIEO) – these movements were united by a shared suspicion: that ideological framing in international politics was typically a hegemonic ruse, a way of mobilizing value claims to serve material interests while disguising them as universal principles (Lee, 2010; Slobodian, 2018; Prashad, 2012).

This suspicion was not paranoid. It was empirically well-founded, and it produced a genuine intellectual contribution: postcolonial states developed a systematic scepticism toward ideological polarization that allowed them to navigate Cold War alignments with considerable dexterity. Nehru’s refusal to be recruited into either bloc was partly principled and partly shrewd; the two were not in tension. The non-aligned tradition taught Indian strategists to look behind ideological claims for material interests, to treat ideological conflict as a screen for great-power competition, and to protect strategic autonomy by refusing ideological commitment.

The trap is that this epistemological posture, highly productive in its original context, calcified into a general methodology. The habit of demystifying ideology, that is, of asking what material interests it serves, became a habit of discounting ideology: of assuming that, once the material interests are identified, the ideological superstructure becomes analytically redundant. This is an intellectual error with real strategic costs.

The error can be stated precisely. Postcolonial materialism correctly recognizes that ideology can mask interests. It incorrectly concludes that ideology never constitutes interests or generates them independently. In the Iranian case, this means that the revolutionary dimension of the regime (see Fürtig and Gratius, 2010), the genuine ideological commitments of the clerical establishment, the Quranic foundations of Khomeinist foreign policy, the sincere eschatological dimensions of IRGC doctrine, is systematically translated back into calculable interests: energy security, regional influence, domestic legitimacy, deterrence against regime change. These translations are not false. But they are incomplete. They cannot account for why Iran makes the choices it makes at the margins, the choices that deviate from pure interest-maximization and can only be explained by taking ideology seriously as an independent variable.

The postcolonial materialism trap thus produces a distinctive analytical posture: sophisticated about material interests, systematically thin about ideational dynamics. It is neither realist, since classical realism, from Morgenthau to Kissinger, always understood the role of ideology in statecraft (see Williams, 2004), nor constructivist, since it refuses to treat ideas as constitutive. It is a peculiar hybrid that lacks the virtues of both.

The Comparative Dimension: India Is Not Alone

It is important to establish that the postcolonial materialism trap is not an Indian idiosyncrasy. It is a structural feature of how a broader category of states has developed IR thinking, and India-Iran is simply the most consequential case study.

Consider the ASEAN states’ engagement with China. The analytical frameworks dominant in Southeast Asian capitals have consistently prioritized economic interdependence over ideological analysis, producing recurrent surprise at the persistence of Chinese territorial assertiveness even when it cuts against economic interests (Jones & Smith, 2007; Murphy, 2023). The explanation, once again, is partially ideological: the CCP’s nationalist legitimacy framework imposes constraints that pure interest calculations cannot capture. States that have internalized postcolonial materialism keep predicting Chinese restraint on the basis of economic interdependence; they keep being wrong.

Or consider Brazil’s engagement with Venezuela and Cuba through the Lula years. The Brazilian foreign policy establishment, shaped by a sophisticated dependency theory tradition that is, at its core, a materialist critique of ideological cover, systematically underestimated the ideological commitments of Bolivarian governments, treating them as economic grievance movements rather than genuinely revolutionary projects with transnational aspirations. The analytical failure produced genuine strategic costs (On Venezuela, see Fürtig and Gratius, 2010).

The postcolonial materialism trap is, in other words, a generalization problem: a theory of critique (ideology as hegemonic ruse) erroneously extended into a theory of analysis (ideology as always reducible to material interests). This is a fascinating inversion of the critique’s own logic: the very epistemological move designed to expose hidden power ends up blinding its practitioners to a different kind of power.

Indirect Effects and the Unmapped Terrain

The strategic consequences of this blind spot are not primarily about bilateral India-Iran relations. They are about the unmapped terrain where external ideological ecosystems intersect with domestic political spaces.

This is analytically the most difficult and most important issue. When Iranian state media or Iranian-linked religious networks frame the Kashmir dispute in Ummah terms, when Pakistani religious parties with documented Iranian patronage generate diplomatic pressures that constrain Indian foreign policy options, when transnational Shia solidarities interact with domestic Indian Shia politics in ways that complicate relationships with Gulf states, these are not direct Iranian operations against India. They are second and third-order effects of ideological infrastructure whose operation India lacks the frameworks to map.

The conceptual tool needed here is what might be called ideational second-order analysis: the tracking of how ideological narratives, networks, and solidarities emanating from external actors interact with domestic political currents to shape the option space available to states. This is distinct from intelligence about specific threats. It is an analytical capability: the ability to model how ideas travel, where they gain traction, what political configurations they enable, and how they feed back into diplomatic environments.

Western IR has developed some tools for this, particularly in the radicalization literature and in the scholarship on norm diffusion, but these tools were developed for Western analytical contexts and carry their own distortions (see Hobson, 2012, Ch.12-13). India needs to develop its own version, grounded in its specific political sociology and its specific interface with the ideological ecosystems of its extended neighborhood.

This is not a call for securitizing Islam or treating all transnational religious networks as threats. Most such networks are benign or irrelevant to state strategy. The point is analytical discrimination: the capacity to distinguish between ideational flows that are strategically consequential and those that are not, and to integrate the former into strategic assessment without the latter contaminating it with alarmism.

The Realist Objection and Its Limits

The most sophisticated objection to this argument will come from realists, and it deserves serious engagement.

The realist might concede that ideology shapes rhetoric but insist that, in the final analysis, states act on interests, and that India correctly identifies those interests without needing to engage with the ideological packaging. On this view, taking Iranian revolutionary ideology seriously is either redundant (it maps onto identifiable interests) or dangerous (it introduces value-laden frameworks that distort clear-eyed assessment).

This objection has genuine force, but it proves too much. If ideology were always reducible to material interests, we would expect revolutionary states to converge, over time, toward conventional-power-maximizing behavior. The literature on revolutionary states suggests the opposite: they consistently maintain behavioral dispositions that deviate from interest-maximization in ways that can only be explained by taking ideological commitments seriously as constraints on, and sometimes as substitutes for, material calculation. Khomeini’s rejection of the 1988 ceasefire with Iraq until the military situation became catastrophic (Gause, III, 2010:85; Tayebipour, 2023:Ch-7), the IRGC-Quds Corps’ maintenance of ideological networks in Syria at enormous material and personnel cost, the consistent prioritization of the “Axis of Resistance” over economic normalization, these are not explainable by material interests alone.

More fundamentally, the realist objection confuses two different questions: whether ideology ultimately serves material interests (a claim about motivation) and whether ideology generates independent effects (a claim about causation). Even if we grant the former, which is itself contestable, the latter can be true. Ideology can be an instrument of interest-pursuit that nonetheless generates effects, dynamics, and opportunities that cannot be predicted from the interests alone. Analyzing those effects requires analytical tools that materialism cannot supply.

The realist is right that ideology should not replace material analysis. The realist is wrong that ideology can be safely subsumed within it.

Toward a Non-Western Ideational Realism

What would an adequate analytical framework look like? The answer is not to import Western constructivism wholesale, that would replicate a different form of the epistemological error. It is to construct what might be called non-Western ideational realism: an approach that retains the postcolonial tradition’s core insights (sovereignty matters, strategic autonomy is non-negotiable, ideological framing can serve hegemonic interests) while incorporating a more sophisticated account of how ideology functions as an independent variable in international politics.

Such a framework would have several components.

First, it would treat ideology as infrastructure, not merely as expression. Rather than asking what interests ideological claims serve, it would map the organizational, financial, and communicative architectures through which ideological influence actually operates. For Iran, this means analyzing the IRGC’s Islamic Revolutionary networks, the Hawza’s transnational religious authority structures (see also, Louër, 2008:73-82), and Persian-language media ecosystems as strategic assets, as consequential as naval tonnage or foreign exchange reserves.

Second, it would develop ideational second-order analysis as a systematic practice, mapping the intersections between external ideological ecosystems and domestic political spaces to identify where and how foreign ideological actors can shape domestic political configurations without direct intervention.

Third, it would distinguish between constitutive and instrumental ideological commitments. Some Iranian ideological commitments are constitutive, they define what the regime is, not merely what it wants, and they impose genuine constraints on behavior. Others are instrumental, deployed strategically and amenable to tactical adjustment. Analytical sophistication requires distinguishing these rather than either taking all ideological claims at face value or dismissing them all as cover.

Fourth, and critically, such a framework would be reflexively aware of its own ideological dimensions, including the postcolonial-materialist commitments that have shaped Indian IR thinking itself. Strategic autonomy is not merely a policy goal; it is an ideological commitment that shapes analytical priorities, elevates certain questions, and suppresses others. A mature framework must be able to audit its own conditions of possibility.

Conclusion: Incomplete Understanding as Strategic Vulnerability

The India-Iran case is, in the end, a lens through which to examine a broader theoretical problem: the limits of postcolonial materialism as the dominant epistemology of non-Western IR. Those limits are not incidental. They are structural, and they produce systematic blind spots whose strategic costs are real even when they are difficult to attribute directly.

The prescription is not alarmism. It is not to securitize transnational Islam or to reverse the postcolonial tradition’s healthy suspicion of ideological polarization. The prescription is theoretical: to develop analytical frameworks adequate to the actual complexity of states like Iran, which operate across material and ideational registers simultaneously, and whose behavior cannot be fully captured by either pure realism or pure constructivism.

Non-Western IR theory has, over the past two decades, made significant progress in recovering non-Western traditions of political thought and in challenging the universalist pretensions of Western IR paradigms (see Acharya, 2018). This is a genuine contribution. But decolonizing IR theory is not the same as developing better IR theory. The next step, more difficult, and more consequential, is to build analytical frameworks that are both epistemologically self-aware and strategically adequate: that can see ideology clearly without being captured by it, and that can pursue strategic autonomy without mistaking analytical insularity for intellectual independence.

In the case of Iran, this means seeing not just a partner of convenience, nor a civilizational threat, but a complex revolutionary state whose material and ideological dimensions are neither identical nor separable. The failure to see it whole does not protect Indian strategy from ideological contamination. It merely ensures that India’s understanding remains structurally incomplete.

And in strategy, as in theory, incomplete understanding is not a neutral condition. It is itself a choice, with consequences.

Acharya, Amitav. 2018. Constructing Global Order: Agency and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fürtig, Henner, and Susanne Gratius. 2010. “Iran and Venezuela: Ideology-Driven Foreign Policies in Comparison.” In Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers, edited by Daniel Flemes. Farnham: Ashgate.

Gause, III, F. Gregory. 2010. The International Relations of the Persian Gulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobson, John M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, David Martin, and Michael L. R. Smith. 2007. “Making Process, Not Progress: ASEAN and the Evolving East Asian Regional Order.” International Security 32 (1): 148–184.

Lee, Christopher J. 2010. Making a World after Empire: The Bandung Moment and Its Political Afterlives. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Louër, Laurence. 2008. Transnational Shia Politics: Religious and Political Networks in the Gulf. New York: Columbia University Press.

McLeod, John. 2010. Beginning Postcolonialism. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Murphy, Ann Marie. 2023. “China’s Grand Strategy toward Southeast Asia: Assessing the Response and Efficacy.” In China’s Grand Strategy: A Roadmap to Global Power?, edited by David B. H. Denoon. New York: New York University Press.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. 1990. “Soft Power.” Foreign Policy, no. 80 (Autumn): 153–171.

Prashad, Vijay. 2012. The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South. London: Verso.

Slobodian, Quinn. 2018. Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tayebipour, Meysam. 2023. Ayatollah Khomeini Through the Lens of the Iran-Iraq War. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.

Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, Michael C. 2004. “Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 58 (4): 633–665.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)