Geopolitical

What is the bandwagon technique?

Bandwagon is a propaganda technique that utilizes the instinct of human participation in a systematic manner. It has a simple but deadly basic idea, creating the impression that “everyone is on this side” and that others will join in not because they think critically, but because they are afraid of being left behind, afraid of being seen as wrong, or afraid of being ostracized. In international relations, this technique not only affects public opinion but is also used to pressure countries to follow certain geopolitical positions, build alliances that seem “inevitable,” and delegitimize anyone who chooses not to participate. Motin (2024), in his study on bandwagoning in international relations, explains the behavior of the bandwagon of small and medium countries that are greatly influenced by the perception of global power distribution. When a great power manages to convince the world that it is “winning” or that its position is already the consensus of the majority, other weaker nations tend to conform to that power to avoid the risk of being on the losing side. This is the essence of the bandwagon in propaganda, manipulating perceptions of who is superior. (Dylan Motin, 2024)

Theoretical Roots: Balancing vs Bandwagon

In the theory of international relations, bandwagoning always coexists with the concept of its opponent, namely balancing. According to Cladi & Locatelli (2015), he explained about the alliance theory that states basically have two choices when facing dominating powers, namely by balancing or following (bandwagoning). These decisions are not always taken solely based on strategic calculations but are greatly influenced by the way information regarding the balance of power is conveyed and perceived. This is where the propaganda bandwagon comes into play: through the manipulation of views about who is stronger and more numerous, countries can be invited to ‘join in’ even though the current has actually been set up. A study on alliance theory, published by OPS Alaska Academic in 2003, confirms that in an anarchist international system, small countries are particularly vulnerable to pressure to join because they do not have the resources to independently verify claims about international consensus. They tend to respond to the signals that are most powerful and appear most often in their information environment. These signals can be easily affected by large forces through various operations. (Cladi & Locatelli, 2015) (Thomas Gangale, 2003)

How Does Bandwagon Work in the Field?

To understand this technique concretely, we can look at the example of Sri Lanka discussed in the International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (2015). The study notes how Sri Lanka, during various periods of internal conflict and international pressure, constantly had to navigate between two great powers, each trying to create a narrative that ‘joins us because all that is rational is here.’ ‘Sri Lanka is a prime example of a small country that is the target of bandwagon propaganda from multiple parties at once, where each major power seeks to create the illusion of consensus that they represent the majority of the world. Nanyang Technological University’s RSIS said that the simple division between balancing and bandwagoning is no longer sufficient to explain the behavior of countries in the now much more complex international system. Countries not only choose to fight or follow but also hedge, that is, pretend to follow while secretly maintaining a strategic distance. In addition, bandwagon propaganda techniques are increasingly being used to complicate these hedging options by creating increasingly strong social and reputational pressure on countries that are reluctant to publicly declare their choice (Gunasekara, 2015) (Ian, 2003) (Ian, 2003).

Bandwagon in the Global Disinformation Machine

One of the aspects that makes the bandwagon even more dangerous today is the way it works, which is integrated with large-scale disinformation operations. In the Journal of Advanced Military Studies, it is explained that contemporary political warfare involves not only conventional military power but also efforts to create an information environment that makes resistance feel illogical and futile. The bandwagon serves as a key psychological mechanism in building such an environment: when all sources of information seem to convey the same message, even the most critical individuals begin to doubt their own judgment. The Oxford Internet Institute notes in their in-depth report that in 2020, at least 81 countries have used organized social media strategies to reinforce the impression that their governments have broad support from the public, both domestically and internationally. Thousands of bot accounts and cooperating accounts are launched to fill public discussion spaces with consistent messages, creating a very convincing illusion of consensus. When people turn to social media and see that ‘everyone’ seems to support a certain narrative, the bandwagon effect automatically takes effect, even without realizing it. (Forest, 2021) (Forest, 2021) (Samantha Bradshaw et al., 2020), (Samantha Bradshaw et al., 2020)

Closing: Thinking Independently as the Last Fortress

The effective bandwagon technique is not because the people or the target country are less intelligent. Its effectiveness lies in the use of something fundamental, namely, the desire to side with the right side and the fear of the consequences of loneliness. In the context of international relations, the consequences can be diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, or loss of access to security alliances. This pressure prompted many countries to go with the flow even though the currents were made up of the Oxford Internet Institute emphasizing that to counter the modern bandwagon propaganda operation, goodwill alone is not enough. It requires a real combination that includes the state’s ability to detect information manipulation early on and the public’s critical awareness of the narrative it constructs, as well as a serious investment in an analytical capacity that is completely independent of the influence of great powers. The state can verify claims about its own ‘international consensus’ and not only rely on information crowded in the media or digital platforms. A state that has true sovereignty in the era of this global information war. Ultimately, the most effective weapon against bandwagon propaganda is the ability to question things in a simple but critical way: is it true that everyone is involved, or is it just an illusion deliberately created to force your involvement? (Samantha Bradshaw et al., 2020)

As Washington escalates threats of military action against Iran, negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear programme continue behind the scenes. But while the Trump administration insists that the standoff is about security, Iran’s state media are pushing a very different narrative: that the crisis is a deliberate distraction from the Epstein scandal that continues to implicate the US president.

Contributors:
Dina Esfandiary – Middle East Lead, Bloomberg Economics
Fereshteh Sadeghi – Iranian journalist
Jamal Abdi – President, National Iranian American Council
Sina Toossi – Senior Fellow, Centre for International Policy

On our radar:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to Israel this past week in a carefully choreographed display of solidarity. While Modi’s trip was celebrated in the Israeli media, criticism by Indian journalists was blocked back home. Leaving the two leaders to sign arms deals that will boost an already significant military partnership.

The Rise of Digital Micro-Bolsonaros

Nearly two years after Jair Bolsonaro’s fall from power in Brazil, the movement he built is searching for a new figurehead. A rising generation of young, evangelical, and hyper-online politicians is stepping in.

They are leveraging a sophisticated, decades-old religious media machine that evolved from radio and television into a powerful force on social media. Brazil’s political right is being reshaped for the digital age.

Featuring:
Anna Virginia Balloussier – Journalist, Folha de Sao Paulo
Caro Evangelista – Executive Director, ISER
Magali Cunha – Editor-in-Chief, Berreia Project

Almost fifty years after the revolution in 1979 that changed the political landscape of Iran, Iran is at the crossroads of its history, which is defined by economic pressures, social pressure, and the changing geopolitical environment. The Islamic Republic was constructed as a combination of revolutionary ideology, anti-Western response, and promise of social justice. In the present day, although the ideological framework is still maintained, the sustainability of that framework is being strained increasingly by the structural economic pressures of the day, generational shifts, and changing regional hegemony.

On the economic front, Iran is continually constrained by global sanctions and inefficiency in its structure. Withdrawal by the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the reimposition of massive sanctions in 2018 have cut off much of the oil exports of Iranian oil, banking, and foreign investment flows. The country works well under its economic potential despite the fact that Tehran has been able to sustain limited oil sales, especially through discounted sales to China and through surrogate routes. The inflation rate has been above 40 percent during the recent years, the Iranian rial is falling drastically, and unemployment among the youth is also a burning issue. It is the middle and lower classes that are directly impacted by these economic pressures and that pose a legitimacy challenge that cannot be solved only through rhetorical means of revolution.

The internal landscape is a manifestation of long-term frustration. Frequent demonstrations regarding fuel prices, the state of the economy, and social liberation indicate the growing disparity between state discourses of resistance and the realities that the citizens encounter. The newer generation born after the revolution has lost any connection with the revolutionary memory of 1979 and perceives governance less as ideologically symbolic and more based on economic performance and individual opportunity. The policy employed by the state has been based on the repressed handling of dissent, which consists of the limitation of the mobilization of protests and the prevention of the collapse of the system. Although this is a way of maintaining short-term stability, it does not deal with structural issues like brain drain, capital flight, falling purchasing power, and diminished faith in long-term economic potential.

The main political quandary is consequently a legitimacy transformation quandary. In the past, the Islamic Republic gained legitimacy through revolutionary mobilization, religious control, and confrontation with the external hostilities, especially the United States and Israel. Nevertheless, the contemporary politics demands more and more performance-based legitimacy—providing economic growth, stability, and material changes in the quality of life. The conflict between ideological stability and realistic adjustment is the characteristic of the contemporary crossroads of Iran.

Iran is geopolitically a country that exists in the complex web of pressures. The United States is still the main external agent, which affects the Tehran strategic calculations. The policy of Washington is alternating between the engagement of diplomacy and coercion, yet the ultimate goal is the same as it is: avoiding the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons competence and reducing its impact in the region. In Tehran, it will need negotiations that will help soften sanctions and stabilize the economy, but any deal will not collapse under the perception of submission over matters of sovereignty, ballistic missile potential, and relations with the region.

Meanwhile, the nuclear and missile programs in Iran are considered to be existential threats to Israel. The shadow struggle that has been there for a long time, including cyber attacks, precision attacks, espionage, and proxy wars, has heightened strategic mistrust. The intensity of this rivalry is shown by the fact that Israel has been carrying out its operations within Iran and against Iran-related targets in Syria. Any intensification would attract Gulf states and disrupt world energy supply, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a choke point in the oil markets of the world. Even minor confrontations will have a global economic impact, as Iran is strategically placed in the important maritime paths.

The regional policy of Iran has focused on the establishment of strategic depth by alliance and coalition with non-state actors and supportive governments within Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This system becomes a deterrence and leverage factor, making it difficult to engage in a direct military strike on the territory of Iran. Geostrategically, this doctrine of forward defense has enhanced the bargaining power of Iran. But it is likewise causing tension with the other Arab countries and creating the impression of destabilization in the region. The recent diplomatic thaw between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which was facilitated by China, shows that both sides noticed that continued confrontation is expensive in terms of both economics and strategy.

Iran is geographically at one of the most strategic points of Eurasia. It connects the Persian Gulf with Central Asia, the Caucasus, and South Asia. The International North-South Transport Corridor is one of the major trade routes that can make Iran a major transit route between India and Russia and Europe. This geo-economic location, in theory, has colossal prospects of being rolled into new multipolar trade systems. Sanctions and political isolation in reality prevent full access to the global markets. The latter can be said to be strategic convergence, as Iran was brought closer to Russia, especially after the war in Ukraine, as a result of Western pressure. But such convergence also subjects Tehran to secondary sanctions and makes it less flexible in its East-West balancing.

Iran—Concerns about the nuclear problem continue to be the major pivot of the external affairs. Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is nonviolent and has indicated that it is free for verification. But the Western governments require more guarantees and wider negotiations, which can feature missile capabilities and regional operations. It is possible that a strictly limited nuclear deal will minimize the risks of immediate proliferation and alleviate the economic pressure, which might make the Iranian internal situation more stable. Nonetheless, such a deal may not help solve any underlying rivalries between the region but could simply freeze the situation unless there are larger regional de-escalation mechanisms. On the other hand, the inability to find any solution will lead to the further worsening of the economy and the possible military clash.

In a more geo-strategically global understanding, the balance of power between the Middle East and the rest of the world will be influenced by the course of Iran. In case Tehran manages to negotiate the lifting of sanctions and turns in the direction of economic integration with the Gulf states, it will be able to shift from the resistance-focused model to the development-oriented state step by step. This would strengthen the stability of the region, safeguard the energy security, and minimize the motivation to intervene. It would also make the regional rivalry be based more on economic rivalry rather than military rivalry, especially in terms of infrastructure rivalry, trade corridor rivalry, and energy market rivalry.

Nevertheless, should the negotiations fail and the confrontation escalate, Iran might apply the asymmetric deterrence further, increasing the range of its missiles and extending proxy bases. That way would strengthen the preemptive stance of Israel and increase the presence of the US military in the Gulf. The escalation would disorient shipping routes, exert more volatility on oil prices, and disintegrate the security infrastructure in the region. To the surrounding Arab nations, which require diversifying and changing their economies, new warfare would destroy investment conditions and long-term strategies.

On the domestic front, economic resilience is what will sustain the strategic position of Iran. The political principle of endurance can only be stretched so far as inflation undermines the wages and the depreciation of currency undermines savings. This needs structural changes: enhancing transparency, welcoming foreign investment, and a non-hydrocarbon economy, and empowering the business sector. Foreign policy victories cannot entirely offset its dissatisfaction at home without economic change.

After all, the crossroads of Iran is not only ideological but also structural. The state has to strike a compromise between sovereignty and economic need, deterrence and diplomacy, and ideological identity and practical governance. Its strategic location means that its decisions will have a far-reaching impact, not only across its frontiers, but also on the energy markets of the world, the great-power politics, and the new security order of the Middle East. The future of Iran becoming a development-oriented regional power with full membership in multipolar networks or being a sanction-bound resistance state under continuous pressure will not only dictate the internal stability of the country but also the geopolitical orientation of a long-time conflict-ridden and strategically divided region.