On Terrorism
Since the 9/11 attacks, fighting terrorism has become a key part of global security. But its connection with international politics is full of contradictions. On the one hand, terrorism gets huge attention and funding. On the other, it’s actually responsible for very few deaths worldwide — just 0.05% in 2019, according to Our World in Data. That’s far less than deaths from diseases or even other types of violence.
Still, many governments and intelligence agencies use the fear of terrorism to push their own agendas — whether it’s invading another country, getting foreign aid, or cracking down on political opponents at home. This article looks at how countries have used counterterrorism (CT) cooperation not just for safety, but also to gain strategic advantage. Sometimes, this means blowing terrorist threats out of proportion or even inventing them.
We explore how this has played out from the Cold War to the U.S.-led “War on Terror,” and in places like the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Europe. We also look at how extremist ideologies often spread with help from powerful backers — not just from ordinary people acting on their own.
Finally, we consider how future developments — shifting alliances, new technologies, and changing beliefs — might affect how countries fight terrorism in the next 10 years. Throughout, we rely on up-to-date research and expert opinions to understand how fighting terrorism often becomes a political trap — a way for countries to define enemies, expand influence, and gain power.
Global mortality by cause (2019): Noncommunicable diseases (blue) dominate, while terrorism (red, bottom right) accounts for only ~0.05% of deaths.
How Fighting Terrorism Became a Political Tool: A Look at the Past
After the 9/11 attacks, the United States launched the “War on Terror” — officially to destroy al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. But in reality, it was also used as an excuse for major military invasions and to gain more influence in certain regions. For example, U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed to be about stopping terrorism, but they also toppled governments, tried to rebuild countries, and fought rebels — all while serving broader U.S. interests.
The U.S. also strengthened ties with allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf countries under the banner of counterterrorism. This included sharing intelligence, selling weapons, giving financial aid, and making diplomatic deals. But this came with a price: the U.S. sometimes turned a blind eye to human rights violations or even quietly supported groups that were themselves involved in extremism. A good example is Pakistan — while the U.S. asked it to crack down on the Taliban and the Haqqani network, Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) was actually helping those groups, giving them shelter and even military support. Pakistan did this to protect its own interests, especially to keep India from gaining influence in neighbouring Afghanistan. But this double-dealing led to more attacks on U.S. and Afghan troops.
This kind of behaviour isn’t unique to the U.S. Iran, for example, openly backs Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis — groups that fight for Iran’s interests in different parts of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states have also funded extremist groups in the past (especially during the 1980s Soviet–Afghan war), using them to expand their own influence and counter their rivals.
Often, countries talk about working together to fight terrorism in global forums like NATO or the UN, but behind the scenes, they pick and choose which threats to fight and which ones to ignore — based on their own political goals and alliances.
All of this shows that terrorism isn’t just about safety; it’s also about politics. Governments have used the “terrorist” label to silence opponents or justify harsh crackdowns. In some cases, they’ve even faked events to manipulate public opinion. During the Cold War, for example, the U.S. had secret plans like Operation Northwoods, which proposed staging fake attacks to justify military action. Today, similar tactics are still used.
How Extremism Can Be Created: Undercover Stings, Fake Attacks, and Political Labelling
One of the most controversial parts of modern counterterrorism is how authorities sometimes create the threats they claim to fight. Intelligence agencies often use undercover agents and secret surveillance to catch potential terrorists. But critics argue that these operations often go too far — instead of just stopping real threats, they may actually encourage people to commit crimes they wouldn’t have done otherwise.
In the U.S. after 9/11, there was a big increase in FBI sting operations. A PBS investigation found that many of these cases blurred the line between investigating and actually setting up the crime. From 2002 to 2012, most of the people arrested in terrorism stings were charged with helping terrorism, not committing attacks themselves — and often they were pushed into it by undercover agents. Black Muslims were found to be much more likely than white suspects to be targets of this kind of entrapment. Similar cases have happened in Europe and other places, where small-time individuals were provoked into plots they may never have pursued on their own.
Even more disturbing are “false flag” operations — when a country secretly stages an attack and blames someone else. There have been examples in history, like in Cold War Europe, where intelligence agencies allegedly carried out fake terror acts to manipulate public opinion. While hard proof is rare, experts say some governments still try to stir up trouble in enemy countries using secret supporters or violent groups, so they can deny direct involvement. Many authoritarian governments also use counterterrorism laws to silence political opposition. They call activists or protesters “terrorists” just to lock them up or shut them down. In 2018, the Maldives charged peaceful protesters with terrorism under vague laws. In Kazakhstan, a political opposition group was labelled “extremist” just for posting on social media, even though there was no violence. These cases show how governments can turn political dissent into a security issue — scaring people into silence and tightening control under the excuse of keeping the country safe.
Governments also use social media and propaganda to paint their enemies as extremists. In Malaysia, political groups have been caught running hate campaigns online to label critics as terrorists, while encouraging extreme support for the government. Internationally, there are even state-backed campaigns that spread radical content and false information — not just to cause chaos, but to shape political beliefs and gain power. These disinformation efforts are often aimed at both scaring people at home and pressuring enemies abroad — sometimes even supporting extremists secretly while publicly condemning them.
Who’s Really Behind the Ideology?
Most violent extremist ideas don’t just pop up on their own. They usually grow in places where there’s outside support — like money, weapons, training, or ideology — from foreign governments or powerful groups. A key example is Afghanistan in the 1980s: the U.S. and Saudi Arabia gave huge support to anti-Soviet fighters (the mujahideen), but some of those fighters later became part of al-Qaeda under Osama bin Laden. This is a classic case of “blowback” — when help given for short-term goals creates long-term problems.
The same thing is happening today. Many extremist groups in Africa and Asia survive because of funding from wealthy supporters or regional powers. Prisons and vulnerable communities are also hotbeds for radicalisation. Some inmates, or even prison chaplains, convert others to extremist beliefs. In the U.S., a study found that “Prison Islam” — a twisted form of religion adopted behind bars — is a major concern, and some known terrorists actually started their journey in prison. One example is a group called JIS (Jam’iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh), which was born in a California prison and turned into a violent extremist group.
The same thing is seen worldwide — whether it’s poor youth, refugees, or ex-prisoners — extremist recruiters offer them belonging, identity, and sometimes material help. The internet makes it even easier. With advanced technology like AI, extremists can now create tailored content to radicalise people online, making recruitment faster and more effective.
Extremism by Region – A Global Breakdown
Although terrorism is a worldwide issue, each region faces its own unique threats and uses different strategies to deal with them. Here’s a simplified look at key regions and how counterterrorism (CT) links up with local politics.
Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
This area has seen some of the worst terror conflicts in recent history. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the war in Syria after 2011 helped extremist groups like ISIS grow. An international coalition led by the U.S. did manage to defeat ISIS’s “caliphate” by 2019, but the group’s ideas and followers still remain, especially online and in unstable regions. ISIS’s Afghanistan branch (ISIS-K) continues to carry out deadly attacks, including in Russia and Iran. In Africa, ISIS has expanded its presence, especially in West Africa and the Sahel. Al-Qaeda and similar groups are still active too, even without controlling land.
Power struggles also shape who works with whom. Iran supports armed groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shia militias to push back against U.S. and Saudi influence without being directly involved. Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have at times supported conservative Muslim groups to build influence, even while working with the U.S. against terrorism. Israel also plays a dual role — fighting Islamist groups but also worrying about growing influence from Iran-backed forces.
CT laws in many MENA countries are also used to suppress dissent. Egypt, a U.S. partner in fighting terrorism, uses anti-terror laws to silence opposition. Tunisia and Morocco crack down on activists under the CT banner too. Western countries sometimes ignore these abuses in exchange for stability, which may backfire in the long run.
South and Central Asia
This region is deeply shaped by the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban now rule Afghanistan again and the country has ISIS-K and others working. A 2023 U.S. report warned that Afghanistan could become a launchpad for global attacks once more. Pakistan is caught in a difficult spot: it helped create some of these groups and still tolerates their presence, even while claiming to fight terrorism. India and Pakistan constantly accuse each other of supporting terrorists — especially over Kashmir — showing how terrorism and rivalry are closely linked.
China is also heavily involved. It calls Uyghur Muslim militants in Xinjiang terrorists, using that to justify strict security policies. China trains Afghan and Pakistani forces and leads regional security groups like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), aiming to fight terrorism while also pushing back against Western influence.
Africa
Islamist violence is rising fast across Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in places like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Nigeria. These groups are linked to ISIS and al-Qaeda. France has led military missions in the region, partly to help fight terror but also to maintain its influence. Recent coups in the Sahel led to new governments taking a tougher line on militants while kicking out the French, using anti-terror talk to boost nationalism.
Many African countries struggle with weak governments and ethnic divisions — the real roots of extremism. Somalia’s Al-Shabaab is one of the most powerful al-Qaeda groups, fighting for control in Somalia and attacking Kenya and Ethiopia too. The U.S. responds with airstrikes and training missions.
In Nigeria, Boko Haram and ISIS-affiliated fighters are still active. The government’s response has been inconsistent — sometimes using force, sometimes negotiating. Corruption and poor services helped these groups grow in the first place. Other powers are also getting involved: China trains local forces to protect its economic projects, while Russia sends private security contractors under the CT banner. These foreign partnerships shift alliances depending on who offers the most support.
Europe
Terror attacks in Europe have gone down in recent years. Major Islamist attacks like those in Paris (2015) and Manchester (2017) are less common now thanks to better intelligence sharing and stronger cooperation with partners in the Middle East and Africa. But far-right and radical left groups are on the rise. Experts warn these domestic extremists could target politicians, immigrants, or infrastructure.
European countries are boosting coordination through agencies like Europol, but they face tough choices — like working with authoritarian regimes for intelligence, or funding controversial CT training in Africa. Europe’s fight against terror also includes managing civil liberties, migration, and rising nationalism.
The Americas
There haven’t been many jihadist attacks here recently, but the CT landscape is still complex. After 9/11, the U.S. built a vast counterterror system, including the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security. Critics say this sometimes went too far, with sting operations targeting Muslim Americans who wouldn’t have acted without FBI encouragement.
Today, U.S. intelligence says the bigger threat is domestic — from far-right groups or conspiracy theorists, especially around elections. Canada and Mexico work closely with the U.S. on CT, but in Mexico, the term “terrorist” is sometimes used to label violent gangs or militias.
In Latin America, past threats came from leftist rebel groups like Colombia’s FARC. Peace deals have reduced the danger, but new gangs and breakaway rebels remain. Recently, there’s been concern that groups like Hezbollah or ISIS could exploit weak states like Venezuela. Brazil and Argentina work with Israel and the U.S. to track these networks in border areas. Like elsewhere, the “terrorist” label is often used for political advantage, and CT efforts are closely tied to drug control, migration, and U.S. influence in the region.
Looking Ahead: What Terrorism and Counterterrorism Might Look Like by 2035
Terrorism and the fight against it will keep changing based on shifting global power plays, new technologies, and evolving beliefs. Here’s what experts think we should expect:
1. More Homegrown and Mixed Extremism
In Western countries, terrorism is becoming more homegrown, and the ideologies behind it are blending together. Far-right, Islamist, environmentalist, and anti-government views are overlapping more than before. A conflict in one part of the world—like the Israel–Hamas war—can trigger copycat attacks in completely different places, like Europe or the U.S. Intelligence agencies say big events like elections or pandemics could become triggers for extremist violence. Most attackers act alone or in small groups, which makes them hard to predict. This means authorities will put more effort into watching what’s happening at home, but this also raises concerns about privacy and civil rights.
2. Big Powers Using Terrorism to Compete
Counterterrorism will increasingly be used by major powers—like the U.S., China, and Russia—as part of their global power games. The U.S. might start relying more on regional allies like India and the Gulf states rather than sending its own forces. Meanwhile, countries like Iran and North Korea might use terrorist groups as a way to secretly cause problems for their rivals. In short, terrorism will be used as a political tool as much as a security issue.
3. Technology Changing Everything
Technology is going to make a big impact on both sides. Terrorists are using encrypted apps, cryptocurrencies, and social media to hide their activities, spread propaganda, and recruit people. Artificial intelligence (AI) might make it easier for them to create fake content or even guide attacks. Governments are also using new tech—like AI, drones, and big data—to track threats more efficiently. But this raises ethical concerns: facial recognition and mass surveillance can be abused, especially in authoritarian states. In the future, the digital world may become just as dangerous as physical battlefields, with information warfare becoming a key part of terrorism.
4. New Trouble Spots and Alliances
Places already dealing with conflict—like the Sahel in Africa, South Asia, and parts of Asia—will likely stay risky. Africa, especially, is seeing more activity from ISIS and al-Qaeda offshoots. Climate change and migration could make things worse, as governments lose control and extremists move in. In South Asia, things could go either way: the Taliban might try to stabilise Afghanistan, or things could fall apart again. Other regions, like Central Asia and Southeast Asia, may face rising risks too. Europe will likely focus more on protecting things like power grids and trains from sabotage. The Americas will mainly deal with homegrown threats, organised crime, and extremist ideologies, though overseas events can still spark unrest in diaspora communities.
Alliances will shift with these changes. The U.S. is expected to grow closer to countries like India, Israel, and those in the Gulf, while scaling back in places like Syria and Iraq. NATO might start working more with countries in Asia and the Pacific. China may try to export its strict Xinjiang-style “anti-extremism” policies to other countries as a model. According to long-term forecasts, jihadist groups will remain the main global threat, even as far-right and far-left groups grow more active regionally. Factors like local wars, climate disasters, and population stress will keep fuelling extremist recruitment. Intelligence sharing and global cooperation will have to evolve—less like old Cold War alliances and more like flexible, issue-based partnerships.
In Summary
Terrorism in the next decade will be closely tied to digital technology and global politics. Countries will use counterterrorism both as a defensive shield and an offensive tool. Expect to see more data-sharing, AI tools, and international forums working together. But also expect more covert actions and propaganda dressed up as counterterrorism. The big challenge for governments will be to separate real security needs from political games. As experts warn, terrorism isn’t going away—but it’s not one single thing, and it’s often shaped by the larger power struggles playing out behind the scenes. The most important task will be keeping counterterrorism rooted in facts and human rights, not just strategy.
———-
Geopolits Research Desk
————