National security strategies, as the ultimate output of security decision-making processes, have long been at the center of theoretical debates in international relations. Materialist approaches—most notably realism—largely explain these strategies as products of the structural constraints of the international system and rational calculations based on the distribution of power. Nevertheless, such approaches face serious limitations in accounting for the diversity and persistence of states’ behavioral patterns under similar material conditions. Drawing on a constructivist perspective, this article seeks to address this explanatory gap by focusing on the role of security narratives and strategic culture. The core argument advanced here is that security narratives, as the independent variable, assign meaning to threats and represent the security environment through the mechanism of othering, thereby reproducing a particular strategic culture as an intervening variable that shapes the normative and cognitive framework within which national security strategies are selected. The findings indicate that strategic culture is not a static or pre-given phenomenon, but rather the product of the continuous reinterpretation of history, geography, and security experiences through dominant narratives. Moreover, the intensity of othering in security narratives is directly associated with a greater inclination toward aggressive and preemptive strategies; entrenched narratives can institutionalize norms governing the use of force; and shifts in security narratives—especially following external shocks—can lead to transformations in strategic culture and the reconfiguration of national security strategies. This analytical framework provides a more precise understanding of continuity and change in states’ security behavior in contemporary international politics.