SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
yemen
Corporations Are Arming Militants and Threatening Global Peace
These shadowy alliances are reshaping how wars are fought, who profits from them, and why traditional peacekeeping doesn’t work anymore.
Oct 22, 2024
Picture a weapon that can level a city block, manufactured in Belgium, assembled in Dubai, financed through Swiss banks, and delivered to militants by a “logistics company” registered in Singapore. This isn’t the plot of a thriller—it’s how modern warfare works.
When a sophisticated drone strike hit Saudi oil facilities in 2019, investigators traced the weapons technology not to a nation-state, but to a complex network of corporate suppliers and militant groups.
When corporations can effectively arm and support militant groups with impunity, concepts like state sovereignty and international law begin to break down.
Welcome to the new face of global conflict, where the most dangerous relationships aren’t between countries, but between corporations and armed groups. These shadowy alliances are reshaping how wars are fought, who profits from them, and why traditional peacekeeping doesn’t work anymore.
The New War Profiteers
The old image of arms dealers as shady men with briefcases full of cash is hopelessly outdated. Today’s weapons trade runs through legitimate-looking corporations, tech companies, and financial institutions that have mastered the art of working in war’s gray zones.
Take the ongoing conflict in Yemen. While media attention focuses on state actors, private military contractors and defense corporations have formed intricate relationships with local militant groups. These companies don’t just supply weapons. They provide training, maintenance, and even operational support, all while maintaining a veneer of legitimate business operations.
“What we’re seeing is the corporatization of conflict,” explains Sarah Martinez, a specialist in non-state armed groups at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “These aren’t simple arms deals anymore—they’re long-term business relationships that create sustained cycles of violence.”
Follow the Money (If You Can)
The financial web supporting these alliances is deliberately opaque and designed to evade accountability. Private military companies, often registered in offshore jurisdictions like Dubai or Singapore, form partnerships with shell corporations based in the Caribbean. These shell entities, in turn, subcontract their operations to ambiguous “logistics companies” operating out of Eastern Europe. This elaborate system of front companies and subcontractors allows weapons and military equipment to flow freely into conflict zones without raising red flags. Responsibility is diffused across a web of corporate structures, making it nearly impossible to trace the ultimate source of arms shipments or hold anyone accountable for fueling conflicts.
In Africa’s resource-rich regions, the situation is becoming even more alarming. Here, private security firms, often funded by Western investors, forge alliances with local militant groups under the pretext of protecting valuable oil and mineral installations. What starts as a “security” operation to safeguard resources often escalates into these firms operating as de facto private armies, controlling entire regions and undermining the authority of national governments. These alliances not only destabilize local politics but also complicate international peacekeeping efforts, creating power vacuums where non-state actors can thrive. In such an environment, financial backing for these operations becomes a critical tool, turning what appears to be routine corporate transactions into a driving force behind some of the world’s most enduring conflicts.
The Tech Factor Changes Everything
Modern conflict isn’t just about guns and bombs. Today’s militant groups need sophisticated technology, which they’re getting from seemingly legitimate sources. Communications equipment, surveillance technology, and cyber tools flow through corporate channels that straddle the line between legal and illegal. These tools allow groups to operate covertly, communicate securely, and execute sophisticated cyber-attacks, which can be as damaging as conventional warfare. For instance, militant groups are using encrypted communication tools to evade state surveillance, while also acquiring drones and other high-tech surveillance equipment through corporate gray markets.
This access to advanced technology extends beyond just weaponry. It’s also about operational capacity. “The real game-changer isn’t the weapons themselves, but the support systems,” notes James Wilson, a former United Nations weapons inspector. When militant groups can access corporate-level logistics, training, and technical support, they become far more dangerous than traditional armed forces. These corporate partnerships allow militant organizations to mimic the structure of formal military forces, combining guerrilla tactics with modern technology to disrupt state control, launch cyberattacks, and even hold territories with a level of sophistication unseen in previous decades
A Pattern Emerges
The pattern repeats across regions. In Syria, corporate entities linked to Russian military industries provide not just weapons but entire support ecosystems to various armed groups. These companies deliver everything from logistical support and advanced weaponry to financial aid, creating a symbiotic relationship with local militias. This dynamic allows both the corporations and the armed groups to thrive in a perpetual state of conflict.
There is a growing call for the development of new international legal frameworks that hold corporations accountable for their roles in conflicts, particularly when they profit from or directly contribute to violence.
Similarly, in the Horn of Africa, Chinese companies, while officially involved in building infrastructure projects, are simultaneously supplying militant groups with equipment and technical expertise under the radar. These companies are benefiting financially from both sides—securing government contracts for infrastructure while also arming insurgents. According to the U.N. Security Council, these arrangements contribute to what conflict researchers call “sustained instability zones”—regions where violence is deliberately prolonged because it becomes profitable for both corporate actors and armed groups.
As a result, traditional peacekeeping missions, which were designed to manage conflict between state actors, are increasingly ineffective. These missions are often incapable of addressing the complex web of corporate and non-state alliances that fuel these conflicts. As the International Peace Institute highlights, peacekeepers find themselves irrelevant in these new conflict ecosystems, where the drivers of violence are no longer solely state actors but profit-driven corporations and armed factions operating outside the bounds of state control.
Why Traditional Solutions Don’t Work Anymore
U.N. peacekeeping was designed for a world where states were the primary actors in conflicts. But what happens when the real power lies with corporate-militant alliances that operate across borders? Traditional diplomatic tools and peace agreements often miss the real drivers of conflict.
“Peacekeepers can monitor cease-fires between armies, but they can’t address corporate supply chains that fuel conflicts,” explains former U.N. peacekeeper Colonel Maria Rodriguez. “We’re using 20th-century tools to fight 21st-century wars.”
These alliances don’t just threaten local stability. They’re undermining the entire international system. When corporations can effectively arm and support militant groups with impunity, concepts like state sovereignty and international law begin to break down.
The numbers are staggering. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, corporate-militant alliances now influence conflicts affecting over 250 million people globally. These arrangements have created shadow economies worth an estimated $300 billion annually.
What Can Be Done?
Traditional sanctions and arms embargo often fail because they target state actors rather than the increasingly influential corporate-militant networks that drive modern conflicts. Some experts argue for a completely new approach to international conflict management. First, they suggest recognizing that these corporate-militant alliances, rather than state actions, are the primary forces behind many of today’s wars. Without this shift in focus, sanctions will continue to miss their mark.
Second, there is a growing call for the development of new international legal frameworks that hold corporations accountable for their roles in conflicts, particularly when they profit from or directly contribute to violence. This would address the legal gaps that allow companies to evade responsibility when operating in conflict zones.
Finally, experts propose peacekeeping operations that disrupt these corporate-militant alliances instead of merely focus on separating armed forces. By cutting off the financial and logistical support that such networks provide to militant groups, peacekeeping efforts could become more effective in curbing conflict.
The real question is whether the international community can adapt fast enough to address this new reality, and whether global institutions are equipped to deal with conflicts that no longer fit neatly within the old rules of engagement.
The future of global conflict isn’t just about nation-states anymore. It’s about complex alliances between corporations and armed groups that profit from sustained instability. As one U.N. official put it (speaking on condition of anonymity): “We’re still playing checkers while they’re playing a much more dangerous game.” This sentiment underscores the growing complexity of global conflict, where traditional methods of diplomacy and peacekeeping are falling behind the rapidly evolving alliances between non-state actors.
The question isn’t whether these alliances will reshape global conflict. They already have, as seen in regions from the Middle East to Latin America. The involvement of multinational corporations in resource-driven conflicts, alongside insurgent and militant groups, adds layers of complexity that traditional state-based frameworks struggle to address. These alliances transcend borders, ideologies, and legal frameworks, creating new kinds of power dynamics that the international system was not designed to manage.
The real question is whether the international community can adapt fast enough to address this new reality, and whether global institutions are equipped to deal with conflicts that no longer fit neatly within the old rules of engagement. This crisis requires not only new thinking about conflict resolution, peace enforcement, and international law, but also a reevaluation of how power is distributed in a globalized world where non-state actors hold increasing sway. Until then, corporate-militant alliances will continue to challenge not just regional stability but the very foundation of the international order, undermining the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and governance that have long underpinned global relations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Deploys B-2 Stealth Bombers to Attack Yemen Without Congressional Approval
"Why is the U.S. bombing Yemen—with a B-2 bomber no less—with zero congressional authorization?"
Oct 17, 2024
The Biden administration on Wednesday deployed B-2 stealth bombers to launch multiple airstrikes on Yemen, attacks that underscored the United States' deep involvement in a deadly regional war that is threatening to engulf the entire Middle East.
The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement that the strikes targeted "numerous Iran-backed Houthi weapons storage facilities within Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen that contained various advanced conventional weapons used to target U.S. and international military and civilian vessels navigating international waters throughout the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden."
CENTCOM said its assessment of the damage inflicted by the strikes is ongoing and does not thus far "indicate civilian casualties." The U.S. military has routinely refused to investigate, acknowledge, or apologize for killing civilians in Yemen and elsewhere in the world.
The Houthis have repeatedly attacked vessels in the Red Sea this year in what they say is an effort to stop Israel's decimation of the Gaza Strip. The Biden administration has, in turn, bombed Yemen multiple times this year, strikes that progressive U.S. lawmakers have denounced as dangerous as well as illegal given that the White House did not seek congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.
"Why is the U.S. bombing Yemen—with a B-2 bomber no less—with zero congressional authorization?" asked Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), following Wednesday's strikes. "Are these members of Congress literally asleep or drugged?"
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said Wednesday that "at the direction" of President Joe Biden, he "authorized these targeted strikes to further degrade the Houthis' capability to continue their destabilizing behavior and to protect and defend U.S. forces and personnel in one of the world's most critical waterways."
The strikes on one of the poorest nations in the world, Austin said, were "a unique demonstration of the United States' ability to target facilities that our adversaries seek to keep out of reach, no matter how deeply buried underground, hardened, or fortified"—a message that observers interpreted as a warning to Iran.
"The employment of U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit long-range stealth bombers demonstrate U.S. global strike capabilities to take action against these targets when necessary, anytime, anywhere," Austin added.
Wednesday's airstrikes reportedly marked the United States' first use of the stealth bombers against Yemen, a country that has been devastated by years of relentless attacks by a U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition.
The strikes came days after the Pentagon announced the deployment of American troops and an advanced antimissile system to Israel ahead of the Israeli military's expected attack on Iran.
A coalition of progressive lawmakers warned in response to the troop deployment that "military force will not solve the challenge posed by Iran."
"We need meaningful de-escalation and diplomacy—not a wider war," the lawmakers said. "Addressing the root causes is the only route to achieving long-term security and stability in the region. Nothing in current law authorizes the United States to conduct offensive military action against Iran. We risk becoming entangled in another catastrophic war that will inevitably harm innocent civilians and may cost billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
There Is Still a Way to Prevent a Regional Middle East War: a Cease-Fire in Gaza
Without a cease-fire agreement in Gaza, there will be no deescalation of violence from groups across the region. The Biden administration’s focus on Lebanon alone ignores this fundamental reality.
Oct 14, 2024
As violence spreads across Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and beyond, the Middle East stands on the brink of a direct regional war between Israel and Iran. Following Israel's assassinations of Hassan Nasrallah and Ismail Haniyeh then Iran's retaliatory missile strikes, tensions are nearing a dangerous tipping point.
Armed groups throughout the region, including Hezbollah, have long declared that their military actions are directly tied to the ongoing genocide of Gaza. Despite U.S. efforts to frame Lebanon as an isolated front, Hezbollah has made clear there will be no deescalation without a cease-fire in Gaza. Only an end to the assault on Gaza can prevent further escalation.
Last week, a U.S. State Department spokesperson claimed that Hezbollah had " delinked" its call for a cease-fire in Lebanon from the original calls for a cease-fire in Gaza. This assertion, however, is not grounded in reality. In the 33-minute speech referenced by the State Department, Hezbollah's deputy leader actually reaffirmed the importance of maintaining solidarity with Palestine. He explicitly tied Hezbollah's military operations to the situation in Gaza. Moreover, Hezbollah issues daily statements—announcing its military activities in the ongoing conformation with Israel, and all of these statements start with the same template: "In support of the steadfast Palestinian people in Gaza and in defense of Lebanon, the Islamic Resistance carried out..." These statements continuous to underscore Hezbollah's ongoing alignment with Palestine and their unwillingness to cease operations in Lebanon without a simultaneous cease-fire in Gaza.
By halting military aid to Israel and enforcing U.S. law, [Biden] can help bring about a regional cease-fire that saves lives—not just in Gaza, but across the Middle East.
In a major statement issued on October 11, Hezbollah reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining alignment with Gaza. As the message read: "The settlements of northern occupied Palestine will remain empty of settlers until the war on Gaza and Lebanon stops." This declaration makes it clear that there can be no cease-fire in Lebanon without a simultaneous cease-fire in Gaza, directly contradicting the U.S. narrative of decoupling the two fronts.
Since last October, Hezbollah, as well as armed groups in Iraq and Yemen, have made it clear that their involvement in the armed conflict is directly tied to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza. They have explicitly linked their attacks on Israel to the violence in Gaza, stating that they are acting in solidarity with the Palestinian people living under a decades-long occupation, apartheid, and genocide. Without a cease-fire agreement in Gaza, there will be no deescalation of violence from these groups across the region. The Biden administration's focus on Lebanon alone ignores this fundamental reality.
Compounding this flawed approach is the Biden administration's contradictory and dangerous military aid policy. At the same time as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to openly defy U.S. calls for a cease-fire in both Lebanon and Gaza, the Biden administration approved a staggering $8.7 billion in military aid to Israel just last month, bringing the total for the past year closer to $20 billion of U.S. tax dollars sent to Israel—arms that have been used by the Israeli military to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the region.
This approach is not only morally indefensible but also violates U.S. law. Under Sections 620i and 620m of the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. is prohibited from providing military assistance to foreign security forces involved in gross violations of human rights or to entities obstructing humanitarian aid. Israel's ongoing blockade of Gaza and its military operations, which have resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and widespread destruction, clearly fall within these prohibitions. By continuing to send weapons to Israel, the Biden administration is disregarding its legal obligations and deepening its complicity in the violence.
The Biden administration's failed policies have led to a crisis not only in Gaza but across the region. Hezbollah's rocket fire, Iraqi militia activity, and Yemeni missile strikes are all part of a broader response to the situation in Gaza. Armed groups throughout the Middle East have made it clear: Until the assault on Gaza ends, they will continue to retaliate. The U.S. cannot hope to achieve a cease-fire in Lebanon while ignoring the root of the violence in Gaza.
As U.S. President Joe Biden approaches the final months of his presidency, he has an opportunity to course correct. By halting military aid to Israel and enforcing U.S. law, he can help bring about a regional cease-fire that saves lives—not just in Gaza, but across the Middle East. Achieving peace in the Middle East is a long process, but it begins with ending U.S. complicity in the brutal and ongoing genocide and pushing for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular