How to Think About State Sponsorship of Terrorism

Abstract States usually support terrorist groups to weaken their rivals, silence their opponents and give themselves options they otherwise lack. By providing weapons, training, a sanctuary and other support, states can make terrorist groups more deadly, increasing their skill and survivability. At the same time, states often impose constraints on their proxies, creating many difficulties for the terrorists. Iran and other enemies of the United States and its allies have long supported terrorists, and state sponsorship is likely to play a role in any continued confrontation with Russia, which may double down on existing ties to extremists given its humiliation in Ukraine and desire for revenge on its enemies. Confronting state sponsors of terrorism is difficult, however. For democracies, applying a ‘state sponsor’ label can be a powerful rhetorical, legal and policy tool. At the same time, it can often be misused, become an empty political gesture or even backfire. The ‘state sponsor’ label is highly politicised, and long-standing sponsors like Pakistan have avoided it. Clarifying what state sponsorship is, increasing the flexibility of the designation, giving policymakers more leeway on when to impose sanctions, and otherwise knowing how to better combat a state sponsor is vital.