The Aramco attack and the rise of nonstate actors
The attack against Saudi Arabia's Aramco facility points to a crucial change on how one traditionally understands armed conflict in the Middle East.
In the early hours of Sept. 14, a bizarre attack, the perpetrator of which is still officially unknown, hit at the heart of Saudi Aramco, the company that earns over half of Saudi Arabia's annual gross domestic product.
This drone-supported cruise missile attack not only demonstrated just how vulnerable Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter and the country with the highest defense spending per capita in the world, is to an asymmetric attack as such, but also shockingly revealed how a violent nonstate actor, if equipped with sophisticated military technology and expertise, can have an impact. No matter who the suspects — say, Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen or Iran-backed proxies in Iraq — an analysis of the attack and its aftermath points to crucial changes on how armed conflict in the region is traditionally understood.
The characteristic of the attack that made it so unusual is that although the targeted oil facility was a strategic military target, it was badly damaged through the use of a simple tactical design.
If the harm inflicted on Aramco targets had been done by a country’s task force of warplanes, it would be a “casus belli” — a reason for war. That is, the United States and Saudi Arabia would have definitely responded with a counter air attack. But when the perpetrator is not firmly identified, strategic numbness prevails. Saudi Arabia and the United States have been passive in the attack's aftermath, while also saying Iran is to blame.
