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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS