The concept of war by proxy holds a special (although far from cherished) place in my heart. This is in part due to my academic interest in the current affairs of the Middle East, but mostly because of my heritage. As someone with Middle Eastern roots, I have seen the devastating impact of proxy wars on the region. My family and many of my friends have been directly affected by the ongoing instability, whether it be through the Egyptian economic downturn or empathizing with the countless people starving and dying in our neighboring countries. Their lives are continuously disrupted by violence and uncertainty, two qualities that proxy wars seem to always inflict. This ceaseless instability is much more than a simple topic of study; it’s part of my lived experience in the world, which continually shapes my perspective of it.
Instability as a concept has been synonymous with the Middle East in recent years. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the involvement of military superpowers, such as the United States and Russia, and isn’t just an abstract geopolitical issue; it’s a reality that impacts millions, including the ones I care about most. This makes the following analysis of these conflicts a matter of personal concern, as well as simple curiosity. In the present, the Middle East has unwillingly become a flagship in proxy wars, where global superpowers influence conflicts within regions in order to achieve their own geopolitical goals. The famine in Yemen, the Syrian Civil War, and the constant infighting within Iraq and Lebanon are all strong examples of exactly how external parties can exploit local, surface-level tensions and quarrels in order to further themselves and their strategic interests, which is often at a devastating human cost.
This phenomenon isn’t new. War is a phenomenon that goes back to before us humans thought to keep records of notable events. Luckily, we have an account of proxy wars and their destructive nature from one of the most technologically advanced societies in history – ancient Greece. Thucydides, an Athenian general and historian, wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War in order for future generations to gain insights and information about the causes and consequences of conflict. Why are his words so enduring? I believe it’s because war and violence are universal and timeless, and people have sought to understand these issues since the beginning of the human race. Well, nearly two and a half millennia later, the time is now. By examining Thucydides’ work, we can gain a better understanding of these issues and develop more informed opinions and strategies to address them in the present.
Proxy wars, defined as “conflicts where external powers support different sides to advance their interests without direct involvement” (Encyclopaedia Britannica), have been a staple of warfare for millennia. In the Peloponnesian War, Athens and Sparta engaged in indirect conflicts through their allies, including through the Corcyrean Civil War, which served as a precursor to the larger conflict. Athens supported Corcyra, while Sparta backed Corinth, both using these alliances to weaken each other without immediate and direct confrontation. Thucydides records, “The war between Corinth and Corcyra provided the first occasion for the allies of Sparta and Athens to be drawn into the conflict, illustrating how quickly a local dispute could escalate into a wider war” (Thucydides, 1.55).
This cowardly use of allies to wage war (by proxy) is strikingly similar to the ways in which global powers have involved themselves in the Middle East today. For example, the Syrian Civil War has seen the involvement of multiple global and regional powers, each supporting different factions to further their interests in any/every way possible. The U.S., Russia, Iran, and Turkey, among others, have all provided varying levels of support to various groups, turning Syria into a death-laden battleground for competing ideologies and interests. What’s amazing is that Thucydides’ millenia-old depiction of the Peloponnesian War’s alliances and rivalries offers a framework for understanding these modern conflicts. His work highlights the inherent complexities and long-standing motivations behind today’s proxy wars, revealing that such conflicts are often driven by the desire for influence and the avoidance of direct confrontation.
Thucydides provides a vivid account of human and societal consequences of elongated conflict, particularly the internal decay within Athens and Sparta. What started as a simple disagreement that didn’t involve either city-state led to them picking a side that happened to villainize the other. As such, the Peloponnesian War led to significant moral and social decline, political instability, and economic hardship within both Athens and Sparta. Thucydides also described that the war led to an erosion of the social fabric within Athens and Sparta, with internal strife becoming almost commonplace. Thucydides notes, “The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same” (Thucydides 3.82). Here, Thucydides raises a point: human nature is the main factor in choosing peace or warfare. As long as human nature stays the same as it was before the turn of the common era, there will always be bloodshed and suffering. However, he is also hopeful, in the sense that as we advance as a race, one day the “nature of mankind” will change to one that is more peaceful, one that doesn’t require such violence to occur.
Thucydides’ insights regarding societal collapse are unsurprisingly relevant to today’s Middle East, where the external involvement within Syria led to similar outcomes seen in his time. The Peloponnesian War was a precursor to dark times for everybody (and every city) involved. Thucydides describes how the long-term conflict eroded the social structure of both states, leading to internal strife within states, civil war, and a breakdown of trust between the common man and their government. This social decay was not a side effect of the war, but a direct consequence of the sustained violence and the corrosive influence of long-term conflict. There comes a point in every war where those fighting forget why they are even doing so.
For example, the Syrian civil war (propagated by the U.S., France, and Russia among others) has resulted in the devastation of millions’ of ways of life. Syrian citizens were displaced, social order was broken down in many regions, and the government crumbles with internal strife. A report from the World Bank notes, “The Syrian conflict has caused an estimated 400,000 deaths, displaced more than half the population, and caused a total economic loss of over $226 billion” (World Bank, “The Toll of War”).
The war destroyed vital infrastructure, the economy, and society as a whole, leaving generations (and the ones to follow) scarred by violence and total instability. Yemen is also a disheartening example of this: They’ve been ravaged by a proxy conflict that has caused a widespread and deadly famine, one my family and friends are deeply saddened by. The United Nations reports that “The conflict in Yemen has triggered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with over 24 million people in need of assistance and millions facing starvation” (UN News, “Yemen”). Such is the case that Thucydides’ observations are somehow still extremely relevant in today’s international relations, especially that of the Middle East in the sense that war has an extremely destructive and widespread nature, spreading far beyond where a conflict was once held. There is a heavy toll that war takes on both the people and societies involved, as well as a toll on the common citizen, one removed from fighting and violence.
Achieving peace after prolonged conflict is incredibly difficult. This was underscored in Thucydides’ account of the Peace of Nicias. This ‘peaceful’ period was created through a truce between Athens and Sparta, which temporarily stopped hostile engagements, but ultimately failed to address the true causes and subsequent effects of the hostilities between the two city-states. Thucydides writes, “The Peace of Nicias was marked by mistrust and the underlying tensions between Athens and Sparta, making the truce fragile and ultimately leading to its breakdown” (Thucydides 5.26). Obviously, the peace was fragile, and thus did not take long for warfare to resume, which led to more destruction and loss of life. Utilizing this example, Thucydides emphasizes that true peace requires more than just stopping conflicts; it demands the resolution of the root causes of conflict between the two parties.
Shifting our scope to today, ceasefires and peace agreements in the Middle East are often met with similar challenges. For example, there have been numerous attempts at peace in Syria (whether through UN-mediated conversations or regional negotiations), which have repeatedly failed due to unresolved issues or sentiments, continued interference through external parties, and simple deep-seated rivalries that plague the region. Dozens of countries have supported either the Syrian government or rebel groups through military, political, and logistical support, all in the name of furthering strategic interests in a land far away from your own. Another example of this phenomenon occurring is within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Numerous peace initiatives that aimed to forward a solution between the two parties have failed. The Economist notes that “Despite multiple rounds of negotiations and international mediation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, with deep-seated grievances and external influences continually undermining peace efforts” (“The Endless Conflict”). Why? Peace, in the way most of the world describes, does not address the fundamental issues regarding both sentiment and historical quarrels at the personal level, which are at the heart of this conflict. The observations of Thucydides denoting the anger caused by incomplete solutions highlights the importance of addressing these causes at the source, and the staunch difficulties of negotiating peace in a region plagued by centuries-long rivalries and external influence.
Thucydides and his perspective on the Peloponnesian War has been a thoroughly important resource when broaching war and its nuances. He addresses and understands the issue of proxy wars, possibly even better than our leaders of today (especially when focusing on the destabilization of the Middle East). Thucydides’ expertise in the dynamics of proxy wars (denoting the human and societal costs of prolonged conflict and the challenges of achieving lasting peace) offers indispensable guidance to my understanding of these nuances. His insight can help others navigate the intrinsically complex landscape of modern conflicts, ones he may have only seen in nightmares. By internalizing these ever relevant lessons, we as a species will begin to understand the challenges faced by others’ indecision, find more effective ways to address them, and ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself for another millennium.
Works Cited
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner, Penguin Classics, 1954.
“Proxy War.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/topic/proxy-war. Accessed 19 Aug. 2024.
World Bank. “The Toll of War: The Economic and Social Consequences of the Conflict in Syria.” World Bank, 2017, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/07/10/the-toll-of-war-the-economic-and-social-consequences-of-the-conflict-in-syria.
UN News. “Yemen: World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis Endures, Worsened by COVID-19.” United Nations, 2020, https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1079232.
“The Endless Conflict.” The Economist, 2021. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/05/15/the-endless-israeli-palestinian-conflict.