The identity crisis in international relations is closely interlinked with the issue of political enemies and rivals.

Hostilities between nations date back to time immemorial. In ancient times, we saw epic confrontations, such as the wars between the Persians and the Greeks and the Punic Wars between the Romans and the Carthaginians.

Later, the Crusades became one of the most relentless symbols of hostility in history.

Shortly afterwards, the Mongol invasions of Iran, Iraq, and Europe injected a great sense of horror and hostility into the history of humanity. The main question that arises is: Why have enmity and war always existed? Furthermore, why have some societies felt compelled to define their identity through their enemies? Do opposition of interests or lack of resources cause animosity? Is the existence of an enemy, or, if one does not exist, the creation of a phantom enemy, a vital necessity for all societies in the world?

Although their enemies actually do take violent and hostile measures, in their quest for an identity, nations usually attribute negative characteristics like cowardice, violence, lust, and dishonesty to their enemies but regard themselves as free of such deficiencies.

Unfortunately, societies often do define their identity through their enemies, and a great number of societies experience an identity crisis when they have no enemy.

In order to resolve their identity crises, nations actually use the concept of the enemy to define their policies and objectives.

For example, the existence of an enemy of any kind was a constructive necessity for the Romans. The endurance and scope of the Roman Empire was in large part due to its constant conflicts with enemies.

When the existence of an enemy becomes a constructive element for a society, real and illusory enemies arise.

Yet there are different kinds of hostility.

The clash between Greece and Iran in ancient times was an authentic animosity, whereas the animosity between North Korea and South Korea is in some ways illusory, since the citizens of the two countries belong to the same ethnic group and have a common cultural background.

Meanwhile, the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, although based on the ideological differences of the two sides, was also defined by certain cultural differences.

They actually could have posed no threat to each other.

However, when each side advocated the superiority of its political theories and challenged the other’s definitions of certain fundamental economic and social concepts, hostilities arose, triggering an identity crisis in each country.

Later, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States could no longer justify its military presence in the Persian Gulf and other parts of the globe. Thus, the West felt obliged to create an enemy for itself.

At first, differences between the Islamic and Western civilizations were exaggerated. This facilitated U.S. efforts to fabricate an illusory enemy. Then 9/11 provided a vague but new enemy for the United States.

Although terrorism is a great threat for the West, and particularly for the United States, it is at the same time the best kind of enemy, in that it helps the West define its identity.

Terrorism is also the best pretext for U.S. intervention in any country. By magnifying the threat of terrorism and introducing it as not only the enemy of the United States but rather as the enemy of all humanity, the U.S. thus justifies its policy of aggression.

This act has helped some nations and governments temporarily overcome their identity crises.

The introduction of the phantom enemy has also created a seemingly endless global war with no clear goals, an astronomical rise in the U.S. defense budget, and windfall profits for the U.S. military-industrial complex, which may have been the original goal in the first place.