Since nearly a quarter of a century, specifically before the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States, there has not been significant academic interest in non-state groups. This is not only due to their lack of major impact on regional or global security, but also because of the differing classifications of these groups. Some viewed them as militias, while others considered them political movements. However, over the past two decades, these groups have emerged in conflict zones and have become a driving force due to three factors. First: they were formed by individuals who were knowledgeable about state institutions, especially security ones, as seen in Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. Consequently, their activities posed a threat to the national security of those states amid a divide between the competing groups. Second: these groups have been able to utilize modern technology in these conflicts, which is inexpensive but has a high impact, creating a dilemma for regular armies and traditional arms systems. Third: they have become parties in negotiations related to the political transition process, which means that one of the foundations of negotiation is not only their political vision but also their capabilities on the ground.

In recent years, the activities of these groups have reflected indicators of threats to national as well as regional security. The most pressing question has been whether these groups could possess nuclear bombs or chemical weapons. This is a legitimate question, especially in light of incidents that have demonstrated the seriousness of this issue. In 1995, members of one of these groups executed an attack in the Tokyo subway using sarin gas, which resulted in the deaths of 12 people and injuries to thousands due to the use of that gas. Additionally, there have been reports of the use of chlorine gas in other conflict zones. On an international level, there has been significant attention to the activities of these groups, particularly those associated with nuclear terrorism. In the final statement of the Nuclear Security Summit hosted by the United States in 2016, it was stated that “the threat of nuclear terrorism remains one of the greatest challenges facing international security.”

Many may know the history and emergence of non-state groups, especially at the regional level, but the crucial question is: what is their impact on national and regional security? The answer to this question lies in three indicators, by way of example but not limited to: First: the delayed occurrence of political consensus, especially within states that have been in a prolonged transitional phase since the Arab world transformations in 2011. Instead of a dialogue based on political understandings aimed at preserving the unified national state, it has turned into a war of all against all, where the advantage goes to those with a real and strong presence on the ground, which means emptying all initiatives for conflict resolution of their substance. Second: the practices of these groups and militias have been a reason for establishing international coalitions to confront them, such as the international coalition against ISIS in 2014 and the Prosperity Guardian Coalition in 2023 to address maritime security threats, both led by the United States. These coalitions have goals and methods for participating states, along with imposed obligations. Third: the creation of a new equation for security. The issue is no longer just about states and regional or international organizations and major powers but also about non-state groups that have become one of the regional players.

This means that security, at its three levels—national, regional, and global—now faces a new challenge, and indeed, non-state groups are the ones that have erased the boundaries between these three security levels, leading to risks and effects, the first of which is: the decline of peaceful means to resolve disputes in favor of military action, which has not achieved decisive results in light of those groups’ possession of technology and their ability to prolong crises. Maritime security threats in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab exemplify this. The second effect is the decline of the roles of regional security organizations in favor of international military interventions. Given the existence of such groups and their ability to threaten the vital interests of major states, this goes beyond the scope of regional security organizations, leading major states to feel compelled to intervene militarily to confront these risks. Undoubtedly, the absence or sidelining of regional organizations brings negative effects on the resolution of regional crises, stemming from their specificity and preventing their internationalization. The third effect is the delayed achievement of national consensus within states undergoing transformation, posing risks not least of which is the division of those states themselves, which does not only impact national security but the entire regional security system.

With the multiplicity of current causes of regional security and regardless of where these crises will lead, the activities of non-state groups, which now have clear connections and coordination, represent the most significant threats to regional security, especially given their armed capabilities and their ability to utilize modern technology in these conflicts, affecting global trade routes while also considering traditional conflict underpinnings, such as geography and conventional warfare, as seen in the Gaza conflict.

As I have pointed out in previous articles, the most appropriate theoretical framework for understanding the impact of these groups on regional security is what the American thinker Barry Buzan has offered, who is among the leading experts in regional security theories and has presented important ideas regarding the non-military aspects of security, as well as the concept of regional security, its significance, and how regional security is affected by neighboring areas and other important concepts.

Note: This article has been automatically translated.

Source: Akhbar Al Khaleej