Proxy war strategy offers advantages along with inherent risks and limitations. This study analyzes the strategic benefits, challenges, and limitations of this approach. While proxies offer flexibility and plausible deniability, Iran faces challenges in controlling them,
as seen in Hezbollah’s 2006 war and Hamas’s October 7 attack, which led to significant costs and strategic blowbacks. The inefficacy of Iran’s proxies in large scale operations in Syria and Iraq exposed their limits in conventional warfare. The challenges and limitations of the proxy war strategy underlined in this study raise questions about the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of the proxy war strategy.
Proxy war is a common form of indirect intervention in international relations, used by states to initiate and influence conflicts while pursuing their objectives without direct engagement.Footnote1 By waging proxy wars, states can achieve their interests while reducing the costs and potential risks inherent in direct intervention.Footnote2 Historically,
the practice of proxy warfare predates World War II.Footnote3 However, proxy wars became prominent during the Cold War as states sought to avoid the costs of direct conventional military conflict and the risks of nuclear escalation.Footnote4 Since the end of the Cold War,
proxy warfare has become more common due to the increasing role of non-state actors in the security environment of the 21st century.Footnote5
The Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the most prominent practitioners of proxy warfare. Since the early 1980s, Iran has placed proxy wars at the center of its grand strategy.Footnote6 Iran has established specialized units within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) for the purpose of indirect interventions and united them under the name of Quds Force.Footnote7 Through the Quds Force (QF) and its antecedents, Iran has cultivated a network of proxies.Footnote8
No comments:
Post a Comment