Anticipating Adversary Military
Interventions
Jennifer Kavanagh, Bryan Frederick, Nathan Chandler, Samuel Charap, Timothy R. Heath,
Ariane M. Tabatabai, Edward Geist, and Christian Curriden
www.rand.org/t/RRA444-1
e authors explore where, how, and how often U.S. adversaries have intervened militarily
since 1946 and identify why these adversaries initiated military interventions and why
they might do so in the future. ree companion reports consider Chinese, Russian, and
Iranian military intervention behavior in detail. e insights and signposts identied
in these reports can inform U.S. decisions about military posture, partnerships, and
investments.
✭
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Where, how, and how often have U.S. adversaries intervened militarily since 1946?
• What factors drive U.S. adversaries to use military forces abroad?
KEY FINDINGS
Concern over adversary interventions should be tempered—for now
• Overall, adversary military interventions, in number and in scale, remain far below the levels that the
United States had to contend with during the Cold War.
• Several factors could contribute to a shift toward substantially more-aggressive and larger-scale
interventions, including intensication of U.S. rivalries with key adversaries (e.g., Russia or China),
adversary perceptions of the threats posed by U.S. actions, or dramatic domestic changes in China or
Iran that alter how these adversaries think about and use their military forces.
Intervention signposts should be prioritized
• Adversaries are most likely to intervene in response to threats to interests in their home regions,
including through military interventions involving combat.
• Analysts may benet most from watching for evidence of a shift in the regional balance of power or
continued on back
C O R P O R A T I O N
