The Metamorphosis of Proxy Conflicts: Iran as Exemplar

Warfare has, over the past few decades, gone through a fundamental transformation. Unlike in the past, when wars were waged chiefly between clearly defined state actors—as in World War II or the Cold War—today’s international confrontations are increasingly shaped by proxy wars. In proxy wars, external powers back local factions, exerting influence without engaging in direct military intervention. This shift reflects the evolving strategic calculus of both major and regional powers, who now favour indirect instruments of influence as a means to project power while sidestepping the perils of open retaliation. 

Among the most prominent practitioners of proxy warfare is Iran, which has deftly  harnessed regional alliances to challenge Western and Saudi influence, strategically advancing its interests while preserving  plausible deniability. From Syria to Yemen and Lebanon, Iran has influenced conflicts by supporting non-state actors and insurgent movements, fostering regional instability. 

Proxy wars have grown in prevalence primarily because of their cost-effectiveness and strategic benefits. Rather than risking casualties, financial strain, and political backlash, states can pursue their geopolitical goals by arming and financing local factions. These types of wars enable states to expand their spheres of influence whilst ensuring the war ‘doesn’t come home’ so to speak. Though proxy warfare was a hallmark of the Cold War, with the U.S. and Soviet Union backing rival forces across Latin America, Africa, and Asia - since the 1990s, second-tier regional powers have increasingly embraced the model. Iran, in particular, has refined its proxy strategy by fusing ideological affinity with calibrated military support across the Middle East. 

The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, stands as one of the most significant modern examples of proxy warfare. Iran emerged as a key backer of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, providing military advisors, logistical support, and financial aid to ensure his survival. Iran’s support for Assad was part of a larger strategy to maintain the “Shia 

Crescent”, a geopolitical corridor that runs from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. This corridor gives Tehran access to the Mediterranean and strengthens Hezbollah, its most powerful regional proxy. The conflict quickly evolved into a multisided battleground involving major international actors. While the Iran-Russia-Syria alliance rallied to preserve  Assad’s regime, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Turkey backed a patchwork of rebel factions in a bid to curtail Tehran’s expanding influence. Ultimately, Assad reclaimed significant territory, reinforcing Iran’s foothold in the region. Yet the cost to Syria has been catastrophic, with over half a million people killed and a humanitarian crisis that will affect the country for generations.

Beyond Syria, Iran has played a pivotal role in Yemen’s ongoing civil war. Since 2009, it has provided financial and material support to the Houthi insurgency—a Shia-aligned group fighting against the Saudi-backed Yemeni government. This involvement fits into Iran’s broader strategy of countering Saudi Arabia’s regional dominance. The Houthis have significantly undermined Yemen’s internal stability and triggered wider geopolitical perturbations, particularly in the Red Sea. By threatening vital shipping routes—through which approximately 10% of global maritime trade passes—the Houthis have turned 

Yemen’s civil war into a global economic concern.

Hezbollah, Iran’s most sophisticated and entrenched proxy, operates in Lebanon. Unlike other non-state actors, Hezbollah functions both as an armed group and a legitimate political force, holding seats in parliament and occupying ministerial positions. Iran provides Hezbollah with extensive military, financial, and ideological support, enabling it to operate far beyond traditional insurgent roles 

Hezbollah forms a crucial part of Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance”—a coalition of forces opposed to Western and Israeli influence. Whilst many treat Hezbollah as a legitimate political actor, others, including the U.S. and Gulf states, classify it as a terrorist organisation.

The true danger lies in the burgeoning appeal of proxy wars. These conflicts create a “blame and shame” dynamic, as it is often difficult to conclusively prove direct involvement, leaving most deescalation drives stalled at the diplomatic level.

Iran’s preference for proxy warfare is unlikely to fade. With its limited economic power, both regionally and globally, indirect military engagement offers Iran a means to project influence without provoking direct retaliation. As proxy wars become increasingly intertwined with regional power struggles, Iran will likely continue leveraging alliances to deepen its footprint and widen existing political and military divisions across the Middle East. From Syria and Yemen to Lebanon and beyond, Iran’s use of proxies underscores how modern warfare has evolved, where wars are no longer confined to conventional battlefields but fought through intermediaries and strategic and diplomatic ambiguity.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Tasnim News Agency (Adham al-Dayah)

Licence.

No image changes made.