Asymmetrical warfare has long been a defining feature of conflict in the Middle East, shaped by various factors, including sectarian divisions, power vacuums, external interventions, and the region’s complex geopolitics. The introduction of advanced technologies, particularly drones, has added new dimensions to this type of warfare, allowing both state and non-state actors to engage in conflict with different levels of military capacity. With Bush’s “war on terror” declaration and later on the Obama administration, which heavily followed his predecessor’s agenda of heavy involvement in the Middle East, the Obama Administration has displayed a forceful and eager use of drone warfare. During Obama’s terms, 563 strikes were carried out in different regions in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The main reason for adopting the drone mentality was because of their supposed precise strikes, as explained by the administration; however, the numbers of civilian casualties and injuries state otherwise. With these implications, the Middle East was hit with a new wave of destabilization resulting from external interventions and the targeting and surveillance of militant group leaders using multiple means, including drone strikes. Since then, a rise in drone warfare has been observed, leading to an asymmetrical arms race between both state and non-state actors, furthering the security risks in the region. These strikes directly cause numerous destabilization effects, including creating power vacuums that encourage rapid retaliation decisions and further play into the cycle of asymmetrical warfare.
The dynamics of warfare have been changing constantly, evolving alongside developed technology. This is evident in the military and security sector, especially with the new and upcoming technological revolution: Artificial Intelligence (AI), more specifically to today’s context, Machine Learning (ML) programs, which are incorporated into various weaponry, and so asymmetrical warfare takes on a new phase. The consistent gap between state and non-state actors widens, and actors find attacks more facilitated with these developments. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones especially, create new means for conflict to arise because drone strikes do not require a formal declaration of war, the attacks aren’t consistently tracked, do not give time for international intervention, and can—and do—very easily target civilian populated areas.
Drone Warfare in the Middle East
The United States pioneered drone warfare during the early 2000s, post 9/11, primarily in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Drones can be categorized under reconnaissance UAVs and armed UAVs. The former is used for surveillance and gathering intelligence, while the latter is fitted with bombs and missiles for targeted strikes. Drone strikes have regained relevance during the Russia-Ukraine war, wherein densely populated areas were struck. In a massive operation, Ukraine launched around 158 drones that struck multiple regions in Russia, including power facilities near Moscow and Tver. Another significant attack targeted an energy infrastructure facility in Lipetsk, causing power disruptions and prompting evacuations. Russian air defenses intercepted nineteen drones, but some managed to hit critical facilities, resulting in nine injuries and significant disruption. The relevance has continued with Israel’s ongoing aggression on the Gaza Strip.
Non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—sometimes supported by state actors—have taken advantage of drone technology to challenge far more powerful state militaries and to even out the overwhelming military power of intervening states such as the U.S. and Israel. These non-state actors, with the backing of drone-producing nations like Iran, use drones to launch strikes that would have otherwise been impossible without traditional air forces.
The uneven nature of drone capabilities, however, further complicates the landscape. States like the U.S., Israel, and Türkiye have access to highly sophisticated UAVs equipped with advanced sensors, precision-guided munitions, and AI that can autonomously identify and strike targets. These drones, while often framed and advertised to the masses as tools for counterterrorism and national defense, have had destabilizing effects. Drone strikes, especially in regions like Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, have often resulted in civilian casualties and have eroded the legitimacy of governments that allow or conduct such strikes.
Throughout the past year, the U.S. has conducted various attacks, mostly claiming them as retaliation or self-defense strikes. In October 2023, the U.S. carried out a series of strikes in Syria as retaliation for what was announced to be Iran-made drone attacks on military bases. Earlier in March, a U.S. contractor was killed and others wounded after a one-way drone “struck a maintenance facility on a coalition base,” believed to be of Iranian origin. In response, the U.S. carried out a series of strikes targeted at facilities believed to be used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). In May 2023, a U.S. strike that was announced to have successfully eliminated an Al-Qaeda leader killed a farmer in Syria. The claimed misidentification and numerous other civilian killings showcase the high risks surrounding drone strikes. Adding on to civilian casualties, drone strikes encourage the continuation of a non-traditional arms race that puts said arms to use and action instead of the classic stagnant in use but active in a development security dilemma.
Before October 7th, Israel had been continuously using drone warfare in its attacks on Palestinian territory, causing both civilian and journalist deaths. Israel’s continued aggression on civilian-populated areas post-October, with unprecedented numbers, further reflects how drone warfare exacerbates asymmetrical conflict dynamics. Israel’s military power, supported by a superpower like the U.S., plays into the asymmetrical warfare dynamics of the region, especially with the lack of effective sanctions and interventions from the international community. Civilians are caught in the crossfire with little to no consequences for the aggressors.
The Evolvement of Asymmetrical Warfare via Drone Warfare
The destabilizing effects of drone warfare are particularly evident in the way these strikes contribute to power vacuums, radicalization, and retaliatory violence. Drone strikes also fuel anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East, particularly when civilians are killed or when strikes occur without clear international legal justification. This fuels a continuous cycle of violence and heightens Islamophobic sentiments in the West, where media coverage often labels events as terrorist attacks and fuels nationalistic sentiments.
The evolution of asymmetrical warfare in the Middle East is intricately linked to drone warfare. Drones have empowered non-state actors, allowing them to attack more powerful militaries with minimal resources. This creates an ongoing arms race where state and non-state actors both adapt to counter one another’s drone capabilities. For example, Hezbollah and the Houthis have successfully used drones to attack military installations and even infrastructure in countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, challenging the traditional power balances in the region.
At the same time, state actors, particularly the U.S. and Israel, have been able to use drones to conduct targeted assassinations, surveillance, and bombing campaigns with less risk to their personnel. This shift in warfare has drastically lowered the threshold for engaging in military action, as drones provide a cost-effective and politically safer option compared to conventional military interventions. However, the technological gap between state and non-state actors, combined with the rapid proliferation of drones, has led to new destabilizing trends. The reliance on drones allows for quicker, less accountable interventions, creating a fertile environment for insurgencies and terrorism to thrive, particularly when civilian casualties occur.
The Impact of Drone Warfare
Drone warfare has significantly reshaped both governmental and societal dynamics. Societally, drones equipped with cameras have allowed non-state actors, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, to record and disseminate footage of strategic sites and military activities. This enables them to broadcast their capabilities, intimidate adversaries, and bolster support among followers by showcasing their deterrence capacity. However, their widespread use also raises privacy concerns, as drones can capture images without consent, prompting calls for stricter regulations to address potential violations. On a governmental level, drones have shifted power dynamics by granting non-state actors, like the Houthis in Yemen, the ability to target strategic locations and influence political agendas. In response, governments are incorporating drones into defense doctrines, developing their fleets, and investing in counter-drone technologies, such as electronic warfare and drone swarms, to overwhelm defenses. The rapid development of AI-powered drones complicates regulation efforts, as outright bans are deemed impractical due to the technology’s accessibility. Internationally, drone use, particularly by the U.S. in counterterrorism operations, raises concerns because of its violating nature to state sovereignty; in addition to that, the transfer of drone technology raises concerns about regional stability and misuse. These developments highlight the need for legal frameworks and further exploration of drones’ broader societal impacts, including their psychological and economic effects on civilian populations.
Comparative Analysis of Drone Usage in Different Regions
Key differences emerge in technological sophistication, with Middle Eastern actors like Türkiye and Iran showcasing advanced capabilities, including armed drones and swarms. At the same time, Africa and Southeast Asia primarily utilize drones for basic reconnaissance and improvised attacks. Non-state actors in the Middle East have a more prominent and developed role, challenging state authorities. In contrast, their counterparts in Africa and Southeast Asia remain in earlier stages of adoption. In Africa, drones have reshaped conflicts, such as in Sudan, where warring factions use drones to extend conflict zones and impose a constant sense of threat. Similarly, in Myanmar‘s civil war, both state and non-state actors use drones for surveillance and improvised explosive deployment, though technological sophistication remains limited. Furthermore, international influence is more pronounced in the Middle East, with technology transfers from the U.S., China, and Iran shaping the region’s drone landscape, compared to a greater reliance on commercial or indigenous developments elsewhere. This comparative analysis underscores the need for broader research to capture evolving trends and the full spectrum of drone warfare impacts globally.
The Legal Realm and International Law on Drone Warfare
The legality of drone warfare presents a significant challenge for international law, as current frameworks struggle to address the rapid evolution of drone technology and its applications. While specific international agreements like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the UN Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and the Wassenaar Arrangement provide some oversight, they are limited in scope, enforcement, and global participation. For instance, the ATT implicitly includes drones under “combat aircraft,” yet suffers from voluntary compliance and lacks participation from major producers like the US, China, and Israel. Similarly, the MTCR’s outdated classification and restricted membership fail to address the threats posed by modern, smaller drones.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly principles such as proportionality and distinction, governs drone usage during armed conflict. These principles aim to protect civilians by requiring military objectives to outweigh potential harm and ensuring combatants differentiate between civilians and military targets. However, the use of drones for targeted killings raises questions about compliance with these principles, particularly in cases of collateral damage or extrajudicial attacks. The emergence of new technologies, the changing nature of conflicts, and shifts in international consensus will likely shape future regulations. Current frameworks provide a foundation but fall short of adequately addressing the complexities of drone warfare, underscoring the urgent need for a more robust and enforceable legal framework tailored to this evolving challenge.
Conclusion
Technology evolves inevitably within the military sector, and the ongoing 4th technological revolution has shown how AI and machine learning advancements will play an increasingly dominant role in warfare. These tools are not only being used for combat but also for intelligence gathering, data analysis, and cyber warfare. The integration of AI into drone warfare is likely to deepen the asymmetry, as machine learning programs can enhance precision strikes, but also increase the risks of mistakes when AI systems malfunction. The Middle East, already a battleground for international geopolitical rivalries, may witness further destabilization as the AI arms race between the U.S. and China accelerates, as the region has previously seen influence rivalries from external powers. Drone warfare has fundamentally altered the nature of asymmetrical warfare in the Middle East, empowering non-state actors and shifting the nature of military engagement. However, its impact on regional stability has been overwhelmingly negative, fostering cycles of violence, radicalization, and geopolitical tensions that continue to embroil the region. In parallel with the international community’s initiatives on regulating nuclear weapons, a similar initiative ought to be taken for drone warfare. The facilitated nature of the usage of drones while simultaneously causing serious damage makes the necessity of regulations all the more important. Developing international standards tailored specifically for drones is a critical step. Clear mechanisms for accountability in cases of unlawful drone strikes that result in civilian harm should also be established. Safeguards such as pre-strike assessments and precision targeting requirements can help protect civilians. Building on the 2016 Joint Declaration on armed drones can serve as a foundation for shaping these international standards, with follow-up meetings and working groups translating its principles into actionable policies.