But as America and Britain both recognise, globalisation and technology are increasing the frequency and efficacy of such activities, and the speed at which they unfold. Gray zone actions are not new and have long been the prevalent form of conflict across the world. They usually seek to avoid a significant military response, though are often designed to intimidate and deter a target state by threatening further escalation. They are intended to damage, coerce or influence, to destabilise target states or undermine the international status quo. Gray zone actions are aggressive and often ambiguous, deniable and opaque.

Actions in the gray zone are conducted by states often using proxies including terrorists, and also by terrorist organizations in their own right. The gray zone is the space between peace and war involving coercive actions that fall outside normal geopolitical competition between states but do not reach the level of armed conflict. Both leaders expressed concern over the increasing challenges in the gray zone and promised measures to respond more effectively. Across the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson presented the Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy to parliament. In March, US President Joe Biden issued his Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. If back then - in the face of the slaughter of dozens of their own troops - political leaders' fear of escalation and political fallout caused such paralysis, how likely is it that they will seriously contemplate violent gray zone operations today. The consequences of such weakness are still being played out in Iran's widespread gray zone aggression. Instead they relied on diplomatic dГ©marches - and the killings continued. more than a decade ago, the UK government would not even consider any form of gray zone military action, even non-lethal, against Iran, despite a clear capability to do so. How confident can we be that liberal democracies mean business in the gray zone? When British troops were being killed and maimed in large numbers in Iraq by Iranian proxies. But gray zone opponents who are willing to use military action must also be confronted with a credible military jeopardy to them, and not just a paper capability which will quickly be seen for what it is. Where possible, diplomatic, informational and economic actions are preferable in providing the necessary punishments. Broadly, options fall into four categories: diplomatic, informational, economic and military.Дemocracies' fear of escalation is a significant deterrent against the use of violent military options in the gray zone, and that is exactly the fear that authoritarian states like Iran wish to instil.ear of escalation is not the greatest obstacle to the use of a military option - transparency is.Дeterrence is not down to the military option alone. The objective should be to frustrate or deter, avoiding escalation that might lead to all-out conflict. Western nations have multiple pre-emptive and reactive options to respond to gray zone actions directed against them or their allies, most effectively involving multilateral coordination. Ut do liberal democracies in the 21st Century have the political will to do the dirty work that is necessary to win?

Misery the armed zone