In Proxy war, one state supports local nonstate actors to wage a civil war in its name. This form of warfare can serve as an effective escalation ladder to avoid direct conflict, but it also has serious risks. In addition to the kinetic violence that proxy wars often involve, they can create humanitarian crises and destabilize regions. These consequences exacerbate the risk of escalation and damage states’ international relations.
Historically, major powers have engaged in proxy wars out of security and diplomatic concerns. The United States and Russia, for example, are currently engaged in a proxy war in Ukraine that is fueled by geopolitical competition over regional influence. Ideological factors like communism and shared ethnic and religious identities also play a role, and can motivate states to support local rebel groups that share their goals.
However, the effectiveness of a proxy strategy depends on a host state’s ability to sustain policy coherence under suboptimal conditions. Its leadership must be able to understand and adapt its proxy’s intentions, while limiting its autonomy so it can apply resources toward the desired objectives. If these limits are not carefully set, a proxy’s self-interest can erode the intervener’s strategic goal, and may widen local military conflict.
Moreover, proxies can be a source of instability, as they are likely to draw in rivals who back their own favored factions. This complication can make the conflict even more difficult to resolve, as has been the case in Lebanon where Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have each supported competing factions.
About the Author
