The world is witnessing a chilling evolution in geopolitics: states are increasingly, and openly wielding terrorist groups and terrorism as instruments of foreign policy, blurring the lines between legitimate governance and organized extremism.
The UK is embedding itself in HTS
Recent events, such as those reported by The Cradle, reveal a disturbing trend where Western powers are now seen openly aligning with figures once branded as global pariahs. The case of Razan Saffour, a British-Syrian activist accompanying Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa — formerly Abu Mohammad al-Julani from Al-Qaeda, and the Nusra Front — on high-profile state visits to Saudi Arabia and the Munich Security Conference, underscores this grim reality.
Britain’s apparent role in embedding operatives within Syria’s new Al-Qaeda-rooted government signals a brazen willingness to launder extremist power for strategic gain. Donald Trump’s open admiration for the same man, describing al-Sharaa / Julani as a “young, attractive guy” with a “strong past,” reflects a troubling normalization of terrorist figures as legitimate actors on the global stage.
NATO is catalysing terrorism in Russia
This shift is not an aberration but a calculated strategy. States, unable to compete through conventional military or economic means, are turning to terrorism as a proxy weapon. NATO’s technical support, as observed by different media houses and analysts, to empower Ukraine to attack Russian military assets illustrates how Western powers are leveraging terrorist tactics to destabilize adversaries that they cannot (or do not want to) face in open battlefields.
The UN is embracing the known terrorist-sponsor, Pakistan
The hypocrisy is stark: nations that once decried terrorism, are now openly embracing it when it serves their interests. The elevation of Pakistan, a country with a documented history of harboring terrorists, to co-chair positions in UN counter-terrorism bodies further exposes the farce. Under what scope of “Rules based International Order” can a state that had once sheltered Osama bin Laden, or allowed Hafiz Sayeed (with a bounty of USD 10 million) to be a university lecturer, be entrusted with global counter-terrorism oversight?
This contradiction lays bare the erosion of moral and legal boundaries in international relations.
Where Is This Headed?
EROSION OF GLOBAL NORMS: By legitimizing terrorist actors, states are dismantling the global norms that once restrained such alliances. The integration of figures like al-Sharaa into diplomatic circles risks emboldening other extremist groups, signaling that violence and terror can pave the way to power and legitimacy. Saffour’s rise, as a Western-educated figure embedded in Syria’s new leadership, suggests a deliberate effort to whitewash extremism, cloaking it in the veneer of governance.
ESCALATION OF TERRORIST GROUPS: This creates a dangerous precedent: terrorist organizations, once ostracized, can now aspire to statehood with the backing of powerful nations. The result is a world where the distinction between state and non-state actors collapses, fostering a chaotic landscape of proxy wars and unchecked violence. Advances in drones, cyberwarfare, and online recruitment (e.g., ISKP’s digital expansion) will make state-sponsored attacks more sophisticated and harder to trace. This could lead to increased deniability, allowing states to wage covert wars with minimal accountability.
WEAKENING OF INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKS: The consequences extend beyond geopolitics. Normalizing terrorism as a tool of statecraft undermines global security, emboldens rogue actors, and erodes trust in international institutions like the UN. If states can openly support terrorists without repercussions, what prevents the proliferation of such tactics in other conflicts? The use of extremist proxies in Syria and Ukraine could easily spread to other regions, fuelling insurgencies and destabilizing fragile states.
BLOWBACK: This reliance on terrorism as a geopolitical lever risks blowback. History shows that groups like Al-Qaeda, once nurtured by states, often turn against their patrons. The 9/11 attacks, born from the U.S.-backed Mujahideen in Afghanistan, serve as a grim reminder of this danger.
The Trend Is Clear
States are getting increasingly comfortable using terrorists as strategic assets and terrorism as a geopolitical lever, exploiting the weak governance, tech tools, and global divisions. Without a unified international response — unlikely given current rivalries — this could lead to a world where terrorist groups are not just proxies but quasi-state actors. With normalization of figures like al-Shaara, the UN-endorsement of a terrorist-sponsor like Pakistan, and complicity of major powers like the USA or the UK, the world edges closer to a dystopian future where violence and instability are entrenched, with civilians bearing the brunt.
The only way to do address this is through an extremely robust framework of cooperation, but the current trajectory offers little hope for that. Instead what can be expected is more such covert alliances and a world where the line between the West touted “Rules based International Order” and terrorist blurs beyond recognition.
