Dealing with Terrorists: Should America Approach Terrorist-Designated Non-State Actors?

America’s avowed refusal to engage hostile non-state actors – particularly those labeled as terrorist – has limited our ability to shape our strategic environment. The United States can extend its ability to constrain and influence non-state actors through a concerted strategy that includes non-lethal engagement, such as dialogue. Dialogue, however, does not always entail negotiation. Contact ranging from coordinated clandestine and third-party talks to public diplomacy can provide valuable intelligence, help our key allies, including Israel, and advance our national security interests. Forsaking the options of engagement prevents America from seizing windows of opportunity to demilitarize non-state actors, and leaves our interests less secure.

The Capstone final paper provided concrete recommendations regarding engagement with terrorist-designated non-state actors Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq; some of the findings could be equally extended to additional groups as well. It explains the benefits and dangers of non-lethal engagement, and provides guidance for officials to pursue an effective and cohesive engagement strategy to advance U.S. interests. The findings of the paper take into account the domestic political considerations of engagement, and are based upon a historical analysis of case studies in which the United States has considered dialogue with terrorist-designated non-state actors.