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.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS