How modern conflict weaponizes food

Conflict-driven hunger is not a new phenomenon, but it has taken on increasingly alarming dimensions in recent years, particularly in regions such as the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East. Gaza has more than 2.1 million Palestinians battling extreme food insecurity, while in Sudan, 25.6 million people face unprecedented hunger levels, the worst in its history. These distressing realities are not incidental fallout from wars, but are calculated strategies designed to subjugate and displace civilian populations.
Throughout history, from the Bolsheviks’ manipulation of grain in the Russian Civil War to America’s grain embargo during the Cold War, the functionality of food as a weapon has been evident. The players in today’s conflicts have perfected these tactics, with food used as a political and military tool in ways that disrupt global supplies and exacerbate civilian suffering. The war in Ukraine is a prime example, with Moscow’s blockades and bombings impacting global food prices and elevating the risk of starvation for millions of people worldwide.
The widespread use of such tactics highlights an urgent need for international treaties prohibiting the weaponization of food, encompassing modern complexities that historical frameworks never anticipated. Understanding the historical trajectory and modern escalation of this malicious strategy reveals a deliberate pattern of exploitation critically affecting millions of the most vulnerable worldwide.
The proliferation of proxy conflicts from the Sahel and the Horn of Africa to the wider Middle East has accelerated the use of starvation as a weapon of war, overwhelmingly affecting civilians. Moreover, these regions are not plagued by conflicts involving just two opposing sides. Instead, they are often battlegrounds for multiple actors with competing interests, including newly assertive middle powers, regional rivals, and the occasional interference of global actors, complicating any path to lasting peace. The naval blockade by Israel of Gaza, insidious attacks on Sudan’s fertile lands by warring factions, and the strategic targeting of humanitarian corridors are clear manifestations of how enforced food insecurity has become a tactical asset in modern warfare.
These shifting dynamics make it even more challenging to mount effective responses to forced food scarcity. Worse yet, in today’s protracted conflicts, where fragmentation and the multiplicity of actors have become standard, the pursuit of distinct and often conflicting goals renders negotiated settlements impossible to achieve. The resulting shared antipathy toward conflict resolution aggravates humanitarian crises, leaving millions without access to food, clean water, and other necessities.
The situation in Gaza is emblematic of how food scarcity is fast becoming the wartime weapon of choice. Gaza’s long-standing blockade, exacerbated by recent escalations, represents a deliberate strangulation of resources. This blockade cuts off essential agricultural imports and limits fishing areas, ensuring that food insecurity remains chronic. When the conflict intensifies, these existing vulnerabilities are manipulated with surgical precision. Bombing raids target the infrastructure critical for food distribution and production, such as bakeries and food stores, leading swiftly to mass hunger.

These attacks not only weaken the current population but also cripple future aspirations for self-sufficiency, creating generational dependence and despair. With an estimated 41,200 Palestinians killed by direct violence since Oct. 7 last year, and indirect consequences potentially driving the total death toll above 186,000, enforced starvation and its deadly ramifications become horrifyingly clear. In this context, such “engineered starvation” goes beyond the battlefield by sowing long-term devastation within civilian life, turning food into a potent tool of war.

The intentional denial of humanitarian aid thwarts peace-seeking efforts and vastly complicates conflict resolution.

Hafed Al-Ghwell

Meanwhile, in Sudan, a brutal power struggle between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces has resulted in armed confrontations shattering agricultural cycles and driving farmers from fertile lands. These devastating strategies cripple local food production and thrust entire populations into acute food insecurity. In North Darfur’s Zamzam camp for internally displaced Sudanese, famine conditions have taken root, worsened by the intentional blockade of humanitarian aid, leaving nearly 800,000 people with minimal assistance. This orchestrated starvation renders civilians wholly dependent on fluctuating and restricted aid supplies, creating a cycle of dependency and fear.
Assuming the international community is engaged in concerted efforts to get food and nutrition to where it is needed, most conflict zones are rendered virtually inaccessible to aid. In Gaza, such a devastating reality manifests acutely. Despite international intentions to provide relief, systematic blockades such as the closing of key crossing points prevent the delivery of essential aid, reducing its distribution to intermittent trickles. These impediments are compounded by targeted attacks on humanitarian workers, curtailing the reach and capacity of key organizations that are already grappling with funding shortfalls and dwindling workforces.
A further complication is the strategic use of food scarcity as leverage by conflicting parties that seek to control populations and political narratives. As a result, humanitarian paralysis becomes less an unfortunate by-product and more a deliberate objective of warfare strategy, effectively weaponizing the basic human right to food and amplifying the despair of the vulnerable. Such weaponization does not just escalate the immediate crisis. It also lays the groundwork for prolonged instability, necessitating a recalibration of international interventionism to protect and prioritize civilian welfare — not the “rights and interests” of belligerents — amid enduring conflicts.
Sudan also suffers its own crisis of humanitarian paralysis. Both factions continue to impose sieges, limiting the flow of food and aid to regions under rival control. Even when aid convoys attempt to bypass governmental constraints, they often face looting by militias, further curtailing the already scant supplies reaching desperate populations. Excess mortality could be at about 2.5 million due to restricted aid access and compounded crises.
Moreover, the intentional denial of humanitarian aid thwarts peace-seeking efforts and vastly complicates conflict resolution. As ceasefire negotiations falter, a woeful humanitarian situation in Sudan will impede peace processes, revealing yet again the extent to which food weaponization is almost fully integrated into conflict strategies in today’s hotspots. It denies immediate relief, dismantles local supply chains, and decimates agricultural capacities. In Gaza, for instance, more than half the farmland has been destroyed, along with vital infrastructure. Meanwhile, soil contamination and ruined ecosystems will undermine the agricultural viability of what little farmland is left for generations to come.
In these scenarios, the weaponization of food goes beyond immediate starvation — it represents a long-term strategy for debilitating entire populations physically, economically, and psychologically. The immediate loss of life from hunger is apparent, but the enduring consequences include stunted growth in children, rampant diseases due to malnutrition, and the breakdown of social structures dependent on food production. The displaced in Sudan and survivors crowding makeshift camps in Gaza are now haunting testament to the enduring misery of food deprivation, stripping away any semblance of normality or dignity.

• Hafed Al-Ghwell is a senior fellow and executive director of the North Africa Initiative at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. X: @HafedAlGhwell