This trend isn’t new, but it is accelerating. For someone who has spent a career analyzing how states maneuver for power, it is clear that proxy wars are no longer a secondary option—they are becoming the dominant form of conflict.

Why Proxy Wars Dominate Today

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR avoided direct military confrontation because the stakes—nuclear annihilation—were too high. Instead, they fought through proxies in places like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Central America, and Africa. The template was set: fund and arm local allies, hire mercenaries, use intelligence assets, and let the fighting unfold at a safe distance.

Fast forward to today, and the same logic applies. Direct wars between major powers are unthinkable. The United States isn’t going to send a carrier group into direct conflict with China. Russia isn’t going to formally declare war on NATO. The risks are simply too high. But indirect conflict? That’s fair game.

That’s why we see proxy wars in Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, the Sahel, and the South China Sea. Major powers are backing local groups, deploying private military companies, funding insurgents, and leveraging technology—all while avoiding the political baggage of outright war.

The Rise of the Corporate Warrior

One of the most striking features of modern proxy conflict is the role of private military companies (PMCs). Groups like Wagner in Russia or a dozen smaller Western outfits blur the line between soldier and contractor. They allow governments to have boots on the ground without the official burden of accountability. If a mission goes wrong, it’s “deniable.” If it succeeds, it quietly advances national interests.

This isn’t far from the plotlines of novels like The Dogs of War, but it’s no longer fiction. It’s standard operating procedure. The corporate warrior is here to stay. And as natural resources—from rare earth minerals in Africa to oil and gas in the Middle East—become even more strategically important, PMCs will be at the center of these proxy struggles.

Technology as a Proxy Tool

Another critical element reshaping proxy warfare is technology. Drones, cyber operations, and artificial intelligence are redefining the battlefield. You don’t need an army division when you can fly thousands of cheap drones into enemy infrastructure. You don’t need spies on the ground when a cyber unit can cripple an adversary’s financial networks.  For the operators, one requires less time on the shooting range, and in the gym, and more time in the lab.

These tools are attractive for the same reason PMCs are—they’re cost-effective, scalable, and deniable. A cyberattack might take down power grids in another country, but it’s far harder to attribute than a missile strike. A drone swarm might cripple armored columns, but no one has to explain to Congress why U.S. soldiers are coming home in body bags.

The Human Element: Militias and Proxies on the Ground

At the same time, proxy wars still rely on people. Militias, insurgent groups, and local armies remain the backbone of this strategy. They provide boots on the ground and a degree of legitimacy that foreign powers can’t muster on their own.

Look at Syria and Libya: multiple militias, backed by different foreign powers, fought for years in overlapping proxy battles. Or consider Yemen, where regional players fuel local groups to wage war on their behalf. The human cost is devastating, but from the perspective of major powers, it’s a way to achieve geopolitical goals at arm’s length.

The Costs of Proxy Wars

Of course, proxy wars aren’t cost-free. They often spiral out of control. Afghanistan in the 1980s is a perfect example—the U.S. funded the mujahideen to counter Soviet influence, only to see some of those groups morph into the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Today’s proxies can become tomorrow’s threats.

There’s also the moral cost. By outsourcing conflict to PMCs or militias, governments sidestep responsibility. Civilians often pay the price, and accountability becomes murky. But the strategic appeal of proxy wars means states are unlikely to stop using them.

What the Future Holds

If history is any guide, proxy wars will only expand. Climate change, resource scarcity, and great-power competition are creating flashpoints all over the globe. Africa’s critical minerals, the Middle East’s energy routes, and contested waters in the Pacific are all fertile ground for this kind of conflict.

For intelligence officers, policymakers, and military planners, the challenge is clear: proxy wars aren’t sideshows—they are the main stage. Understanding who is funding whom, which companies are providing logistical support, and how technology is being deployed is now central to understanding global conflict.

Final Thoughts

We may never again see the massive conventional wars of the 20th century. Instead, the future of conflict looks more fragmented, more corporate, more technological, and more deniable. Proxy wars are here to stay because they give powerful nations what they want—leverage, influence, and control—without the direct risks of escalation.

For those watching the global chessboard, the message is simple: don’t just look at the armies and navies. Look at the militias, the contractors, the drones, and the money flows. That’s where modern war is fought, and won.

The post The Future of Proxy Wars: How Nations Fight Without Fighting appeared first on Dale Bendler.

As a retired intelligence officer, I’ve seen how nations use money and markets with the same precision once reserved for missiles and rifles. And while the world still builds military arsenals, the most powerful weapon in our time may be access—or denial—of resources, capital, and technology.  Think rare earth–and even water.

Sanctions: A Tool That Cuts Both Ways

The most obvious form of economic warfare is sanctions. Washington has leaned heavily on this tool for decades, weaponizing access to the dollar system to punish adversaries from Tehran to Moscow. On paper, sanctions are clean—they don’t require boots on the ground or a shot fired. No dead soldiers. But in practice, they often ripple far beyond their intended target.

Russia is a prime example. Western sanctions after the invasion of Ukraine were meant to cripple Moscow’s economy. Instead, they accelerated something U.S. policymakers didn’t anticipate: the rapid deepening of Russia’s economic ties with China, India, and other non-Western partners. In other words, sanctions pushed adversaries closer together while forcing much of the world to rethink their dependence on the dollar.

That unintended consequence should remind us that economic warfare is rarely a one-way street. Every action breeds a counteraction, and the global system is shifting as nations look for alternatives.  This is not 1995, when China and India did not count and the USSR recently came apart.

Rare Earths and the New Oil

If you want to understand where the next economic battles will be fought, look at critical minerals. Cobalt, lithium, and rare earths are no longer niche resources for electronics—they are the lifeblood of the green economy. Electric vehicles, solar panels, advanced semiconductors—all of them depend on these minerals.  Not to mention defense requirements.

Here’s the problem: the United States doesn’t control much of the supply. China has spent decades locking down global access, particularly in Africa. Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Zambia have for decades been courted by Beijing, not just with investment, but with infrastructure projects that bind their economies to China’s orbit.

This isn’t resource competition in the old sense. It’s strategic positioning. If China controls the flow of rare earths, it holds leverage over entire industries. That’s not just economic power—it’s coercive power. Imagine a future crisis where Beijing can throttle Western technology production without firing a shot. That’s not theoretical; it’s already in motion. Sun Tzu playbook.

Debt Diplomacy and Hidden Strings

Another front in economic warfare is debt. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has become one of the most ambitious geopolitical projects of the century. Billions poured into ports, railways, and power plants may look like generosity, but many of those loans come with hidden strings.

When a nation can’t pay, the Chinese state doesn’t simply forgive the debt. Instead, Beijing extracts concessions: long-term leases of strategic ports, preferential access to resources, or political influence that weakens local sovereignty. From Sri Lanka to Peru, the pattern is clear.

For the U.S. and its allies, the challenge isn’t just competing with China’s money—it’s offering an alternative that doesn’t leave nations trapped. That requires patience, investment, and an understanding that economic warfare isn’t measured in months, but decades.

Cyber and Financial Systems: The New Frontline

We can’t talk about economic warfare without discussing cyber. Banks, trading platforms, and global payment networks are now prime targets. A well-placed cyberattack on a financial system can cause more chaos in a week than an entire year of traditional fighting.

North Korea, despite being economically weak, has used cyber theft to fund its weapons program, stealing billions through attacks on global banks and cryptocurrency exchanges. Russia has used cyber tools to disrupt markets and test the resilience of Western economies. And China, with its vast cyber apparatus, has the ability to target both financial and industrial systems.

The battlefield of the future may not be a city block in some contested territory—it could be the digital infrastructure that underpins global commerce.

Why Economic Warfare Matters More Than We Admit

The great irony is that while militaries still prepare for tanks and planes, the true contest for power may come down to who can shape the flow of capital, resources, and technology. Wars today are less about seizing territory and more about seizing leverage.

That’s why nations like the U.S. cannot afford to think of economic warfare as a “soft” tool. It’s not. It’s the hard reality of how influence is gained and lost in the 21st century. When you can deny an adversary resources, collapse their currency, or isolate them from markets, you wield a power as devastating as any military strike.

The Lesson for the Future

Economic warfare isn’t new, but its scale and sophistication are unprecedented. Nations that adapt, diversify their supply chains, protect their financial systems, and invest in strategic industries will survive. Those that don’t will find themselves dependent, vulnerable, and easily coerced.

For intelligence officers, the lesson is simple: watch the flow of money and resources as closely as you watch the movement of spies and armies. Because in today’s world, the former often dictates the latter.

The calm you see in markets or trade agreements is deceptive. Beneath the surface, the battle is raging. And unlike conventional wars, this one won’t end with a ceasefire—it will simply evolve, shaping the balance of power for generations.

The post The False Calm: How Economic Warfare Has Become the Battlefield of the 21st Century appeared first on Dale Bendler.

I recently re-read The Day of the Jackal, Frederick Forsyth’s 1971 novel about a political assassination attempt in Europe. It’s an elegant piece of storytelling—meticulous, restrained, and grounded in realism. The assassin, known as “The Jackal,” is not a rough and tough former Special Forces Soldier in the mold of a typical Hollywood caricature, but a cold professional who plans and executes with precision. The target: Charles de Gaulle, the sitting President of France.

Forsyth’s ability to keep readers on the edge of their seats isn’t just literary skill—it’s situational accuracy. The book doesn’t romanticize violence. It illustrates how patience, anonymity, and bureaucracy can all become tools in the hands of someone determined enough to use them.  The book also speaks to the authorities’ investigative measures, civilian police and uniformed military cooperation, and liaison with foreign partners.

As someone who spent years studying threats—some theoretical, some horrifyingly real—I can say this: assassination is not an artifact of history or fiction. It’s still used today–as we have seen in very recent U.S. politics, and more often than most people want to believe. And the principles behind it haven’t changed much.

Assassination: Not Just the Stuff of Spy Novels

The idea that assassination belongs to the Cold War or some long-past era is a myth. Political killings remain a tool of statecraft for countries that either don’t respect norms or feel desperate enough to bypass them.

We’ve seen heads of dissident media outlets poisoned. We’ve seen journalists and defectors eliminated abroad. We’ve seen drone strikes used for “targeted killings” with plausible deniability. And we’ve seen supposed accidents that raise every red flag if you know where to look.

The motives haven’t changed. Remove a threat. Send a message. Influence a power vacuum. What has changed are the tools—and, in some cases, the thresholds of acceptability.  The Day of the Jackal was authored decades before iphones and the internet, but therein lies the novel’s value:  a smart assassin in 2025 will stay off his or her phone and not touch the internet, so the tradecraft we are exposed to by Forsyth applies today, in a scary way. 

The Thin Line Between Legality and Strategy

In the intelligence world, the line between “authorized lethal force” and “assassination” can be thinner than a cigarette paper. Countries that claim they don’t assassinate often engage in “targeted killings,” a term that’s legally flexible and strategically convenient.

And yes, the U.S. has been part of that evolution. I won’t get into sensitive stuff, but the general arc is public knowledge: 9/11 shifted how we think about preemptive action. High-value targets, drone operations, and cross-border strikes became central tools.

Still, there are risks—legal, ethical, and operational. When you normalize covert killing, you open the door for your adversaries to do the same. You set precedents. And you hope that nobody turns those tools inward.  (Think mini, one way, lethal drones supported by AI and defensive cyber).

The New Players: Authoritarians and Proxies

Russia has turned assassination into a political tool with almost industrial efficiency. From Litvinenko to Navalny to Prigozhin, the list is long—and the message is always clear: dissent has consequences, even thousands of miles from home.

Iran has done the same, targeting opposition figures abroad and orchestrating plots against foreign diplomats. North Korea, too, has shown it isn’t above using chemical agents in public airports.

Also concerning is the role of proxies—militias, criminal networks, or shadow operatives paid to carry out hits that the state can deny. These groups blur responsibility. They complicate accountability. And they make it easier to get away with murder. So very prescient, Forsyth’s Jackal makes regular use of the criminal underworld to prepare for his hit of de Gaulle.

Fiction Gets the Feel Right

What The Day of the Jackal does so well is show how assassination is as much about strategy as it is about the trigger pull. It’s about identities that don’t exist. Documents that don’t raise flags. Travel patterns that don’t draw attention.

That’s still how it works. You don’t need sci-fi gadgets or Jason Bourne acrobatics. You need planning, discretion, and patience. In fact, most real assassins aren’t elite martial artists. They’re more likely to look like quiet bureaucrats or traveling businessmen, as was the Jackal.

And that’s the real warning embedded in Forsyth’s work: It’s not the obvious threat you need to worry about. It’s the one who doesn’t fit the storybook image.

Why It Still Matters

You might wonder why any of this should matter to everyday citizens. Here’s why: when political assassination is normalized, democracy suffers. When states resort to murder to silence critics, rule of law evaporates. And when public discourse becomes dangerous, truth retreats into silence.

Understanding the mechanics of how these operations work—what makes them possible, and how they’re justified—isn’t just academic. It’s civic awareness. It helps us spot warning signs when our own institutions begin to slip.

Final Thoughts

Forsyth wrote The Day of the Jackal over 50 years ago, but its relevance hasn’t faded. In fact, it may be more important now than when it was first published. As technology evolves and the global order gets shakier, the tools of covert influence—assassination included—are being used in more subtle and deniable ways.

For those of us who’ve operated in the shadows, the story isn’t just fiction—it’s a cautionary tale. One that reminds us that behind every political killing, there’s a broader war being fought—not just over power, but over the rules we claim to live by.

The post Political Assassination in the Modern Era: Fiction, Fantasy, and the Facts Behind the Trigger appeared first on Dale Bendler.

For decades Special Operators from all branches were for the most part lean and mean. For the current generation the emphasis seems to be on muscle mass.  What happened? And why?

I joined USMC 2d Force Recon in the late 1970’s. Of course we had a few buffed Marines in our ranks, but the vast majority–author included–were on the lean side; very fit, but lean. Emphasis was on cardio because the Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test (PFT) favored stamina and a wiry body over brawn and power. All Recon Marines wanted to max the PFT:  run 3 miles under 18 minutes; 80 situps under 2 minutes; and 20 dead hang pull ups. Big guys can do pull ups, but the feat takes freaky strength. I posit there are other factors that have contributed bigger biceps.

Modernized ISR:  Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, and now mini drones deployed down to the squad or even team level.  What this means is that our forces will utilize fewer LRRP–Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols:  ground, air or maritime.  The target will be located via technology, and then the direct action force is transported to the objective. Patrolling is hard on the body, and the activity is a calorie burn just when chow and water are limited. Patrolling takes stamina, and if you are not lean and mean before an extended deployment–real world or training–where you hump, ruck, or patrol daily, you will be a tad thinner afterwards. 

A Special Operator freshly inserted onto or near the objective can rely on his physical strength as back up to Close Quarter Battle (CQB), e.g. kicking in doors, moving walls, physically handling prisoners, and a man’s sheer bulk might dissuade the enemy from even attempting desperate move.  And of course when it comes to hand-to-hand combat in close quarters, size matters.

Peer pressure:  it seems like the idea of the Special Operator—whether SEAL, Delta, Recon, or other—has shifted from trim and on the quiet side to big and branded. Walk through any gym on base and you’ll see massive physiques, logoed gear, and a social media-ready swagger. It’s a cultural transformation. Some females, too. I am not arguing there is a problem here–just that it is a curious shift that transpired in about a generation’s time.  One wonders if the advent of social media, what with selfies and even videos, induce troops to get that buffed look.

The Global War on Terror (GWOT) made a significant contribution from the cardio to muscle shift.  Fearing a terrorist attack or kidnapping, going for a 5 mile run outside the wire was not happening, ditto swimming in a local pool, or biking for a couple of hours.  Those events produce patterns terrorist spies pick up on.  As a result, troops were confined to the compound.  And the US Military being what it is, complete with excellent weight rooms as part of virtually any base in the world–cardio was tricky while barbells were aplenty. Even guys and gals who preferred cardio wound up pumping iron to get in a workout.  Again, treadmills and stationary bikes helped, but barbells dominated most forward deployed gyms.  (And black outs or brown outs make a treadmill a hazard).

Society at large:  of course our society produces our soldiers so the latter do not stray too far from what’s happening on the home front.  Over the past 20 years, and the last 10 especially, older folks have learned the value of weight lifting (and adding more protein to the diet–author included).  Weight lifting helps with balance, movement, and longevity. 

It should be mentioned bulk does come with drawbacks: if a Special Operator is on a low-visibility mission anywhere in the world, but especially in a poor part of the planet where food is scarce, and our boys are sporting 20” necks, even in local garb, they are anything but low-vis. 

And of course as we have seen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, drone warfare, especially mini drones, have disrupted battlefield tactics.  While the following may come across as sacrilegious in the Special Operator world, a drone operator really does not need a big bench press.  My point being, today’s Special Operator may require less time in the gym (and on the shooting range) and more time mastering tech. 

The Hollywood Effect

Finally, some of this evolution can be traced back to pop culture. Movies, streaming shows, and even memoirs (some of which were written too soon) have helped create a public image of the modern Special Operator as a physically dominating, tattooed warrior with a dramatic past and a heroic Instagram account.

There’s nothing wrong with public recognition. But when the image becomes more important than the effectiveness, we’re losing something vital.

Final Thoughts

I’m not really taking a side in the cardio vs muscle debate, just recognizing the shift in the culture in the Special Operator world. I guess men and women in uniform should do both (cardio and weights), and then favor the activity that works best for the individual:  time allowed, budget, security posture, and the all important mental benefits.

The post More to the Cult of the Special Operator: Guys are just bigger today appeared first on Dale Bendler.

While bullets aren’t flying, the struggle is just as serious. China and the United States are locked in a long-term contest for influence, and the tools aren’t tanks or aircraft carriers—they’re trade deals, infrastructure loans, port investments, and political partnerships. The outcome will determine not just who holds sway in the region, but how secure and stable the Western Hemisphere remains for decades to come.

The Chinese Playbook: Infrastructure, Debt, and Dependency

China’s strategy in Latin America isn’t hard to understand once you’ve seen it in action. It starts with money. Beijing offers generous loans to countries in need of cash. Then come the promises of roads, bridges, railways, ports, and power plants, all shiny, much-needed infrastructure projects. In places like Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela, China has made deep inroads with this approach.

But these projects often come with strings attached. Many of the loans are tied to Chinese contractors and suppliers. Some deals involve long-term access to natural resources or strategic infrastructure—like shipping ports, energy grids, or communications systems. Over time, this creates dependency. And that’s the real goal: long-term political leverage.

As someone who’s studied influence campaigns up close, I can tell you that this isn’t just about economics. It’s a soft-power offensive designed to tilt governments toward Beijing’s interests and away from ours. And in some cases, it’s working.

Why the Region Matters to the U.S.

Latin America isn’t just “our backyard.” It’s our neighborhood, and what happens there affects our economy, our borders, and our security. The region provides key imports, from agricultural goods to critical minerals. It’s also central to migration patterns, counter-narcotics operations, and global trade routes.

If China becomes the dominant economic partner in Latin America, it won’t just change trade flows. It will shift political alliances, military cooperation, and even voting patterns in international institutions. That undermines decades of U.S. diplomacy and opens the door to authoritarian influence just south of our border.

What We’re Getting Wrong

For too long, the U.S. has been inconsistent in its engagement with Latin America. We’ve made promises we didn’t follow through on. We’ve let domestic politics distract us from sustained foreign policy. And we’ve underestimated how attractive Chinese investment can be to governments desperate for development.

In intelligence, we learn that perception is often as important as reality. Right now, many Latin American countries see China as a more reliable partner, one that shows up with cash and doesn’t ask too many questions about governance or transparency.

That doesn’t mean they prefer China’s model. It means we haven’t offered a competitive alternative.

How the U.S. Can Compete Smartly

We don’t need to mimic China’s approach to win back influence. In fact, we shouldn’t. What we need is a smarter, values-based strategy that focuses on long-term partnerships and mutual benefit.  

First, think engineers, not Green Berets. We need to recommit to economic investment in the region, but on terms that are fair, transparent, and empowering. U.S. companies should be incentivized to build infrastructure and energy projects that support local economies, not exploit them.

Second, we need to strengthen diplomatic relationships with consistent, respectful engagement. This includes supporting anti-corruption efforts, judicial independence, and civil society—all things China tends to ignore.

Third, we should expand intelligence-sharing and security cooperation where it makes sense. Many governments are concerned about organized crime, trafficking, and instability. These are areas where the U.S. has experience and tools that can build trust.

Finally, we need to make it clear that our goal isn’t domination, it’s partnership. That message will resonate if we back it up with action.

From the Field: The Subtle Signs of Influence

During my career, I often looked for subtle indicators of shifting influence: who gets invited to high-level summits, whose equipment shows up in critical infrastructure, whose media outlets are shaping the narrative. In Latin America today, those signs increasingly point to China.

Chinese telecom firms are building out networks across the region. Chinese mining companies are buying up lithium rights. Chinese-funded think tanks are hosting conferences in Spanish and Portuguese, subtly nudging the region’s future leaders toward Beijing’s worldview.

This isn’t conspiracy, it’s competition. And the U.S. needs to start playing to win.

Final Thoughts

The battle for influence in Latin America won’t be won with threats or bravado. It will be won through smart policy, steady engagement, and meaningful partnerships.

As someone who’s spent a lifetime working in the shadows of global power struggles, I believe this one matters deeply—not just for our interests abroad, but for our future at home. Economic warfare may be quiet, but its consequences are loud. If we ignore this front, we do so at our own risk.

The good news? We still have time to act. But we need to move, not with panic but with purpose.

The post China–U.S. Economic Warfare in Latin America: An Intelligence Officer’s Perspective appeared first on Dale Bendler.

Not every conflict is marked by tanks, airstrikes, or televised press briefings. Some battles are fought quietly—in boardrooms, in trade agreements, and in the dusty corners of countries most people can’t find on a map. These are the battles for influence in resource-rich regions, and they matter just as much, if not more, than what we see on the evening news.

Throughout my years in the intelligence community, I witnessed how nations, especially the U.S., China, and Russia, compete in ways that are subtle, strategic, and often invisible to the public eye. The battleground is not just ideology anymore. It’s copper, cobalt, lithium, oil, and water. Control over these resources means control over the future.  It is Economic Warfare, and the U.S. – especially our national security establishment – has some catching up to do.

Why Resources Still Rule the Game

No matter how advanced our world becomes, it still runs on physical materials. Rare earth minerals power smartphones and missile systems. Lithium fuels electric vehicles and drones over warzones. Copper is the backbone of electrical grids. And oil, despite the push for renewables, still keeps the global engine running.

Countries with these resources hold leverage, especially if they’re willing to play one power off another. For nations like Peru, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or parts of Central Asia, their natural wealth gives them influence far beyond their borders. But it also makes them targets for external pressure and manipulation.

The competition over these materials isn’t just about economics. It’s about national security, technological dominance, and global influence. That’s what makes it a hidden battlefield—quiet, ongoing, and immensely strategic.  Geologists and logisticians are our front line soldiers:  not Navy SEALS.

China’s Long Game

No country has been playing this game more methodically than China. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has made major inroads into Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. It funds infrastructure projects—ports, roads, railways—designed to open up access to key resources. In return, Chinese companies often secure long-term contracts and political goodwill.

What makes China’s approach so effective is its patience. It doesn’t always push for immediate returns. Instead, it creates dependence. It loans money for development, then accepts minerals or ports as collateral when debt becomes unsustainable. This approach is subtle, strategic, and in many cases, permanent.

I’ve seen the results of this firsthand. In several African nations, China now effectively controls not only the mines but the means of getting those resources to global markets. That’s influence that can’t be ignored.  Imagine, China’s sells a product (e.g. EV) to an African country that produced the raw materials used in the car in the first place.  

The U.S. Must Catch Up

The United States still has immense capabilities that are economic, technological, military, and diplomatic. But we’ve been late to recognize the importance of competing in these quieter arenas. Too often, our foreign policy is reactive rather than strategic. We focus on immediate threats and headlines, while China and others quietly reshape global supply chains to their advantage.

It is not a secret:  to cite just one example, for a decade in Peru the U.S. focused on terrorism, while China was building a port.  The U.S. was tactical; China was strategic.

To remain competitive, we must take a more proactive role in supporting countries that hold the keys to the global economy. That means investing in infrastructure projects, not just military aid. It means supporting responsible private sector partnerships, and not backing off when things get complicated.

Just as importantly, we must approach these regions with respect and long-term vision. That means listening to what our partners actually need, not dictating terms. Influence is earned, not assumed.

It’s Not Just China

While China is the dominant player in the resource game today, it’s not alone. Russia, too, has used energy as a political weapon. Through its control of natural gas in Eastern Europe and oil partnerships in Africa, it seeks leverage wherever possible. Other countries, including Turkey and Iran, have also inserted themselves into resource deals as a means of extending regional influence.

Private military companies, sometimes backed quietly by governments, have entered the picture as well, protecting mines, pipelines, and shipping lanes. These aren’t just security operations; they’re strategic footholds.

The result is a patchwork of players, each trying to carve out influence in resource-rich regions. This makes the landscape complicated, and potentially unstable.

The Real Stakes

Why should any of this matter to the average American? Because what happens in a cobalt mine in Africa or a copper port in South America affects the price of the phone in your hand, the car in your driveway, and even the weapons we depend on for national defense.

More broadly, whoever controls the world’s critical resources will shape the rules of global trade, technology, and power. If we allow authoritarian regimes to corner these markets, we risk becoming dependent on nations that don’t share our values—or our interests.

This isn’t about going to war. It’s about being smart, strategic, and forward-thinking. It’s about recognizing that the world is changing, and we have to change with it.

Looking Ahead

The competition for influence in resource-rich regions is only going to intensify. Climate change, population growth, and technological demand will put even more pressure on limited supplies of vital materials. That’s why we can’t afford to sit on the sidelines.

We need a foreign policy that integrates economic strategy, private investment, and diplomatic outreach. We need to work with partners who want fair, transparent development, not exploitative deals. And we need to treat these relationships as long-term commitments, not short-term fixes.

Final Thoughts

The quiet battlefield may not make headlines, but it’s shaping the world we live in. As someone who’s spent his life observing discreet movements behind global events, I can tell you this: influence doesn’t always come with fanfare. Often, it arrives in the form of a signed contract, a new road, or a quietly negotiated mining deal.  A decade passes, and we ask ‘How did that just happen.’  It didn’t ‘just happen.’

If the U.S. wants to lead in this century, we need to understand where the real fights are happening—and be willing to show up.

The post The Quiet Battlefield: Superpower competition for Influence in Resource-Rich Regions appeared first on Dale Bendler.