Du bon usage de la terreur
What is the role of terror in wars in general and in asymmetric conflicts in particular? Why have democratic countries such as France and the United States been confronted to torture in Algeria and Irak? Do terrorists have to be "terrorized"? That article aims at exploring some lines of enquiry in order to answer those particularly sensitive issues.
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Du bon usage de la terreur
Author(s)
Marc HECKER
Executive Director of Ifri, Editor-in-Chief of Politique étrangère, and Research Fellow at the Security Studies Center, Ifri
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
Finland: The Ally Who Came in from the Cold
Among all European countries, Finland is perhaps the one whose strategic culture and military model have changed the least since the end of the Cold War. Built after the end of the Second World War to deter a potential new Soviet invasion, this model enabled Finland to serve as an example of European rearmament.
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.
Strategic Shift in NATO’s Support for Ukraine. A Study of NSATU and PURL Initiatives
French Forward Deterrence: What Is in It for the Baltic States?
For what may be its most significant stress test since the end of the Cold War, European deterrence is under strain. Russia’s war against Ukraine has demonstrated Moscow’s willingness to use force and its ability to combine conventional operations with nuclear signalling, coercive rhetoric, and hybrid actions. At the same time, the gradual deterioration of transatlantic relations has revived concerns about the reliability of extended deterrence.