1. Introduction
The Middle East has long been one of the most important arenas of geopolitical competition and security transformation. Strategic rivalries, prolonged conflicts, weak state institutions, foreign interventions, and the expansion of transnational networks have created a complex regional environment in which power is no longer exercised exclusively by states. The rise of armed non-state actors has challenged conventional assumptions about the relationship between state authority, military power, and regional security. Hamas, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and Ansarullah in Yemen represent three important cases of armed non-state actors that have developed influence beyond their immediate local environments. Hamas has affected the security calculations of Israel and regional actors through asymmetric warfare and the continuation of the Palestinian issue. The PMF has become an important component of Iraq’s security and political architecture following the rise of ISIS. Ansarullah has expanded its influence from Yemen to the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab, affecting the strategic calculations of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and external powers. The central problem of this study concerns the extent to which armed non-state actors can alter regional power relations and whether their influence can be explained solely through traditional state-centered theories. Accordingly, the study asks: Through what mechanisms, and relying on what capabilities, have armed non-state actors influenced the regional balance of power in the Middle East? The main hypothesis argues that asymmetric military capabilities, social mobilization, ideological cohesion, and external support increase the deterrence and strategic influence of armed non-state actors, enabling them to affect the distribution of regional power.
2. Theoretical Framework
The main theoretical framework of the study is realism and the concept of balance of power. From this perspective, regional order is shaped by competition among actors seeking security, survival, and influence. Although classical and structural realist theories traditionally emphasize states as the primary units of analysis, the contemporary Middle Eastern security environment demonstrates that non-state actors can also affect power relations by imposing costs, creating deterrence, and altering the strategic calculations of states. To address the limitations of a purely state-centered interpretation, the study employs the patron–proxy approach as a complementary perspective. This approach explains how states support armed non-state actors through financial, military, logistical, intelligence, and political assistance in order to pursue strategic objectives indirectly. Such support may reduce the costs of direct confrontation and expand a state’s regional influence. However, the relationship between patrons and armed groups is not necessarily based on complete control, since supported actors may possess independent interests, organizational identities, and autonomous decision-making capacities. The combination of the two approaches provides a multi-level explanation of regional power transformation. Balance of power explains why states seek to prevent the dominance of rivals, while the patron–proxy approach explains how these objectives may be pursued indirectly through armed non-state actors. In this framework, the independent variables are the power-generating capacities of armed non-state actors, including asymmetric military capabilities, social mobilization, ideological cohesion, and external support. These capacities increase deterrence, which functions as the main intervening mechanism. Changes in the security calculations of regional states consequently contribute to the dependent variable: transformation of the regional balance of power.
3. Methodology
This research adopts a qualitative descriptive-analytical method based on library and documentary data. The study uses a comparative case-study design to examine Hamas, the PMF, and Ansarullah during the period from 2008 to 2024. These cases were selected because they represent different organizational, political, and geographical contexts while sharing significant characteristics related to asymmetric military power, social mobilization, ideological cohesion, and external support. The analysis focuses on identifying the mechanisms through which these four capacities contribute to deterrence and strategic influence. The study evaluates the relationship between the internal and external resources of each actor and their ability to impose costs, influence state behavior, and affect regional security arrangements. The comparison also considers the limitations of these actors, including dependence on external patrons, domestic political constraints, institutional challenges, and the requirements of governance.
4. Results & Discussion
The findings demonstrate that armed non-state actors have become important participants in the redistribution of power in the Middle East. Their influence is primarily produced through the interaction of four power-generating capacities. First, asymmetric military capabilities enable these actors to compensate for their numerical and technological disadvantages in relation to conventional states. Hamas has developed rocket, tunnel, drone, maritime, and combined operational capabilities that have increased the costs of Israeli military action and challenged established assumptions about deterrence. The PMF has developed substantial military capacity through its role in combating ISIS and through the expansion of its organizational and operational capabilities. Ansarullah has similarly employed missiles, drones, naval operations, and asymmetric tactics to extend its influence beyond Yemen and affect maritime security in the Red Sea. Second, social mobilization provides organizational resilience and enables these actors to reproduce their human and political resources. Hamas has relied on social and religious networks, the PMF has benefited from popular mobilization and religious legitimacy in Iraq, and Ansarullah has developed support through tribal, ideological, and local networks. These social foundations allow armed groups to maintain their activities despite military pressure and leadership losses. Third, ideological cohesion contributes to organizational continuity and strategic commitment. Ideological narratives transform military resistance into a broader political and social project. In Hamas, Palestinian nationalism and Islamic resistance reinforce organizational identity. In the PMF, religious symbolism, resistance discourse, and collective identity have supported mobilization. Ansarullah has similarly combined religious identity, political grievances, and resistance narratives to consolidate its social and organizational base. Fourth, external support has increased the material and strategic capabilities of these actors. External assistance has provided access to weapons, training, financial resources, intelligence, and political support. However, the findings also show that external sponsorship does not eliminate the agency of armed non-state actors. Each case demonstrates varying degrees of autonomy, local interests, and organizational decision-making. Comparatively, the three cases reveal that the effects of armed non-state actors differ according to their organizational structure and regional environment. Hamas has primarily influenced the security balance surrounding Israel and Palestine; the PMF has affected Iraq’s internal security architecture and regional alignments; and Ansarullah has expanded the geographical scope of conflict by affecting the Red Sea and international maritime routes. Despite these differences, all three cases indicate that armed non-state actors can alter state calculations and increase the costs of unilateral power projection.
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
The study concludes that armed non-state actors have moved beyond the status of local or peripheral forces and have become significant components of regional power transformation. The findings largely support the main hypothesis: asymmetric military capabilities, social mobilization, ideological cohesion, and external support collectively increase deterrence and strategic influence, thereby enabling these actors to affect the regional balance of power. Nevertheless, their influence is neither absolute nor independent of broader structural conditions. Dependence on sponsoring states, domestic political constraints, institutional weaknesses, and governance requirements limit their capacity to establish autonomous and stable regional power. The study therefore suggests that future research should move beyond state-centered models and incorporate the interaction between states, armed non-state actors, transnational networks, and external patrons.The findings also suggest that regional security policies should distinguish between the military, political, social, and ideological dimensions of armed non-state actors. Sustainable regional stability requires addressing the structural conditions that facilitate their emergence, while recognizing that military pressure alone may not eliminate their organizational and social foundations.