Terrorism is a weapon of the weak. Israel has a more powerful military and far larger economy than Syria; the United States is more powerful than Iran; India is more powerful than Pakistan, and so on. Yet these powerful countries cannot, or at least do not, marshal their economic influence and military power to stop terrorism. Indeed, they resemble helpless giants, unable to use their massive strength to defend themselves against an elusive and ruthless adversary.

The previous chapters in this book suggest that stopping state sponsorship involves more than leveraging a state's military and economic power. Rather, the state sponsor's own priorities and limits, and the peculiarities of its embrace with a terrorist group, also are key determinants of whether outside pressure will succeed or fail. Recognizing both the dynamics of the sponsor and the states that oppose it are vital for understanding how to cut the ties that bind states to terrorist groups.

Several problems in particular hinder efforts to coerce sponsors into stopping their support. First, the sponsors of terrorists often anticipate the punishment they will receive for their support. Thus, they are prepared for it or find ways to manipulate their support to avoid it. Second, the stakes are often imbalanced, favoring the state sponsor. Sponsors may see their support for terrorism as linked to vital interests or to the survival of their regime, while the victim state may perceive the threat of terrorism less acutely, despite the lives lost.