At one level, Iran’s support for Yemen’s Houthi rebels could pass for magnificent statecraft. By supporting the militants’ attacks against Red Sea shipping, the mullahs in Tehran have managed at minimal cost to disrupt the global economy and show up US claims to provide security to the region.
The relationship underscores how effectively pliable non-state actors can serve the interests of nations that might otherwise struggle to project power in their region.
However, those who live by the militant’s sword, die by it, too. Imperial powers that grow dependent on non-state armed groups tend to end up fighting them, or organizations much like them. The US found that out in Afghanistan. Eventually, as the Romans discovered centuries ago, proxies might even consume the empire that long supported them.
Today, middle powers such as Iran are learning this lesson anew. After Tehran-backed militants claimed responsibility for a drone attack in Jordan that killed three US soldiers and wounded at least 34 others, the country is facing the prospect of direct US retaliation that risks spiraling into a wider war.
Iran has already dodged one crisis of its own making. The regime was yesterday sending its foreign minister to Pakistan to patch up relations after the two neighbors traded cross-border attacks earlier this month. On Jan. 16, Iran fired missiles and flew drones into the Pakistani province of Balochistan, targeting a Sunni extremist group called Jaish al-Adl, which it accuses of conducting terrorist attacks inside its borders.
The Iranian strikes came after Islamic State suicide bombers killed almost 100 people in central Iran early this month. The furious Iranians launched reprisals in Iraq and Syria as well as Pakistan, targeting various militant groups they say have violated their sovereignty and killed their citizens, police officers and soldiers.
Pakistan responded two days later with strikes ostensibly aimed at two armed groups based in Iran’s province of Sistan and Baluchestan: The Balochistan Liberation Army and the Balochistan Liberation Front, which as their names imply wish to detach Balochistan from Pakistan.
Irony abounds. The Islamic State attack targeted mourners at the tomb of Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian general who long oversaw covert operations involving proxy groups such as the Houthis and Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, it is an open question whether Pakistan’s strategists or Iran’s have been the more enthusiastic sponsors of militants and extremists over the past few decades.
For citizens of the various countries victimized by such policies, that the two neighbors turned on each other must appear a dark sort of justice. Each accuses the other of using Baloch nationalists to destabilize it.
The Baloch — one of the many restive ethnicities in West Asia who have never been granted their own state — would only be further alienated from their colonial-minded masters by the tit-for-tat attacks on their soil.
When nations arm extremists, blowback is inevitable. This is as true for middle powers such as Iran and Pakistan as it is for the US. While it might be tempting to allow militants to operate as long as they are focused on your strategic rival next door, there is no such thing as “our” terrorists. It is in the nature of extremist militias to go rogue.
The temptation for middle powers to deploy non-state actors as force multipliers is set to increase. Weaponry is cheap and easy to access. Even poorly organized fighters can do a lot of damage with drones, improvised explosive devices and electronic warfare. The Houthis have demonstrated how easily basic missiles and small boats can undermine the global economy.
At the same time, any regime inclined to recruit proxies should remember that the first casualty of this kind of thinking is respect for sovereignty. Once a nation turns a blind eye to camps on its border to unsettle its neighbor, it creates a lawless area where its own sovereignty is questionable. It would likely wind up being attacked by fighters based in other camps on this or that side of the same border, if not more directly.
Sovereignty, with all its flaws, emerged not to oppress small powers, but to protect them from a world of constant war that damaged them more than anyone. The Westphalian system of the 17th century granted the principalities of Germany peace and eventually prosperity after a bloody century in which they had served as a battlefield for militias and mercenaries — pawns in a conflict between superpowers.
Iran and Pakistan ought to recall that the system they are so willing to violate was designed to protect smaller countries, not to prevent them from harming larger ones. Undermining sovereignty helps nobody — middle powers least of all.
Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS