-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Once a global priority, counterterrorism now finds itself unapologetically sidelined—replaced by influence games, proxy wars, and geopolitical realignment.
Image Source: Getty
With a slow pivot rather than a dramatic twirl, the global fight against terrorism has turned messier and lonelier. The axis of international attention—once obsessively fixated on counterterrorism—now intently points toward the murky terrain of great-power politics. The metaphors have changed; no longer is the language defined by safe havens, counterinsurgency (COIN), sleeper cells, pre-emptive interdiction, radicalisation nodes, and insurgent hubs, but by spheres of influence, balance of power, deterrence, proxy warfare, and strategic alliances.
Recalibrations had already commenced under the previous Trump administration. However, under his renewed presidency, they are being executed with unambiguous clarity and brute bluntness. This shift—profound for its subtlety—is evidenced not in eloquent speeches or new doctrines but in the silent erosion of the old ones.
In the current mood of balance-of-power theatrics, a Trump-led America seems more concerned with managing China than confronting terrorism.
The case of India’s recent successful counter-terrorist strikes against Pakistan—‘Operation Sindoor’—serves as a strategic inflexion point. Once a litmus test for global solidarity against terrorism—kinetic operations—now elicit little beyond ceremonial commentary from Western capitals. Thus, Nirupama Rao’s proposition for a T20 bloc—an Indian-led bulwark against terrorism—is both urgent and perceptive. Yet, given the West’s drift from counter-terrorism toward strategic competition, its efficacy appears doubtful. In the current mood of balance-of-power theatrics, a Trump-led America seems more concerned with managing China than confronting terrorism.
Gone is the vigorous outrage, the high-sounding resolutions, and diplomatic statements in condemnation of terrorist attacks or support for self-defence against unprovoked terror. In its place: a studied silence, broken only by vague calls for ‘restraint on both sides’. Why this transformation? The answer lies not in a newfound attraction for Pakistan, nor a reassessment of India’s role. It lies as much in geography as in strategy.
Though the world today faces a widening spectrum of terrorism threats—emerging from new far-right actors to longstanding jihadist networks to state-sponsored non-state actors—Washington likely considers them simply another component of the ongoing shift into a new phase of great power politics. Pakistan—for all its domestic contradictions and external dysfunctions—remains a vital corridor in the emerging strategic contest with China, even though the United States (US) President Donald Trump seeks a wide-ranging settlement with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Unconfirmed reports of America’s covert control of Nur Khan airbase near Pakistan’s military core highlight its effort to maintain geopolitical influence, even as the importance of Gwadar—China’s emerging Belt and Road hub—continues to rise.
The resurrected American engagement with Islamabad is not a rekindled romance but an expedient revival of a marriage of convenience. Unconfirmed reports of America’s covert control of Nur Khan airbase near Pakistan’s military core highlight its effort to maintain geopolitical influence, even as the importance of Gwadar—China’s emerging Belt and Road hub—continues to rise. Together, they reveal a struggle where great powers vie for dominance through shadowed control. Aligned with Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan leverages its position as an indispensable node in predator geostrategy.
In this cold calculus of realpolitik, a sponsor of terror can effortlessly become a ‘phenomenal partner’ in counterterrorism. At a moment when the American posture keeps repeatedly oscillating between stern confrontations with formidable adversaries and resembling the heavy-handed coercion of its more temperate allies, the global fight against terrorism has been subsumed into great power politics. No wonder, the lexicon of global security now speaks of ‘proxy battles’, ‘hybrid warfare’, ‘disinformation campaigns’, ‘weaponisation of economic relations’, ‘multi-domain operations’, and ‘information dominance’.
Counterterrorism—once the axis upon which the post-9/11 world revolved—now risks being relegated to a tactical sub-discipline within the broader terrain of proxy warfare. The tools are almost identical—drones, intelligence operations, cyber incursions—but the objectives have largely shifted. The West is not, strictly speaking, trying to defeat terrorists anymore; it is trying to manage influence, deny territory, and entangle rivals—all to secure the homeland.
This is not the first time the rhetoric of values has yielded to the merciless rationale of great power politics. History is replete with moments when nations declared one motive and pursued another. The US, which once proclaimed the uncompromising mission of rooting out terror, now whispers faintly audible caveats when those same threats emerge in spaces of inconvenient strategic utility. For instance, the renewed American interest in Central Asia and Afghanistan, where President Trump recently lamented the loss of Bagram Air Base as a grave strategic misstep, cautions against potential encroachment by China. This rekindled interest is driven not by counterterrorism imperatives, but by base access, overflight rights, and containment postures.
The renewed American interest in Central Asia and Afghanistan, where President Trump recently lamented the loss of Bagram Air Base as a grave strategic misstep, cautions against potential encroachment by China.
Meanwhile, the United Nations (UN) proceeds with its procedural formalities. However, in stark counterpoint, a Trump-led America threatens to remake/remodel the institution altogether—subordinating international law to a narrowly defined vision of national interest. In an ironic twist befitting this epoch, Pakistan—a member-state long shadowed by complicity in fostering terrorism—is entrusted with key roles on counterterrorism committees of the UN Security Council (UNSC). These committees will convene, resolutions will be tabled, and statements will be made in the sombre tones of diplomats, who recognise that much of it may amount to little more than rhetoric echoing into the void. While the apparatus of multilateralism persists, it operates on a parallel track—superficial rather than consequential, revealing a system as compromised as it is codified. The real game unfolds elsewhere, in security pacts inked behind closed doors, in covert operations plotted in distant capitals, and in the silent coordination between intelligence communities unshackled by the formal strictures of international law.
The world has returned to an increasingly perplexing state—where the line between peace and war is porous, the tools of statecraft are more clandestine than kinetic, and influence is measured not in treaties signed, but in crises averted or manufactured. The ghost of containment lingers, but it is clad in a new guise: it speaks of semiconductors, rare earths, naval passages, and digital sovereignty. In this new era of hegemon jockeying, terrorism is not the enemy; it is an instrument–wielded, denied or ignored as the occasion demands.
If history offers any lessons, it is that nations pursue permanent interests—not permanent friendships. The current Western posture toward Pakistan, and the tepid response to India’s counter-terror actions, is not a betrayal of a moral order, but confirmation of a cynically realist one. What the recent proxy wars in Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen have indicated is that proxy warfare is now the dominant grammar of global conflict, and counterterrorism merely a dialect within it.
The current Western posture toward Pakistan, and the tepid response to India’s counter-terror actions, is not a betrayal of a moral order, but confirmation of a cynically realist one.
In the current international landscape—defined by fragmented loyalties and complex geopolitical conflicts—India would do well to abandon the comforting fiction of a world united against terrorism, a unity that exists only within the vaulted halls of multilateral institutions. The emerging narrative is far messier and more opaque, driven less by moral consensus and more by strategic rivalry and influence. In this shifting order, terrorism has become merely a subplot.
Vinay Kaura (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of International Affairs and Security Studies and Deputy Director at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Sardar Patel University of Police, Rajasthan.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Vinay Kaura PhD is Assistant Professor in the Department of International Affairs and Security Studies and Deputy Director of Centre for Peace &: Conflict Studies ...
Read More +
PREV
