On Saturday 14th October 2017, at a busy intersection in the Hodan district of the Somali capital of Mogadishu, a truck bomb exploded, killing at least 587 people and injuring hundreds more, and permanently changing the lives of thousands.
Almost eight years later, the intersection is known as October 14 Junction and a monument marks the spot where the blast occurred, ripping apart buildings and causing devastating damage to thousands of lives forever.
No group formally claimed responsibility for the attack, and thus the motivations and intended target can only be assumed, but the Somali government placed the blame on the militant group Al Shabaab.
Whilst this attack was one of the most injurious in AOAV’s records, and the deadliest attack Somalia has witnessed, with each life lost or injured causing immeasurable suffering, the location and context in which the attack took place, unfortunately does not make it unique.
The attack is one of thousands which list similar contexts, making it part of a global pattern which continues to threaten the lives of thousands of civilians around the world. In fact, AOAV has recorded 10,376 incidents of IED use from 2015-2024 across 94 countries (as depicted in Figure 1), resulting in 83,529 civilian casualties. More specifically, 52% of such incidents occurred within a populated area, and 93% of civilian casualties from IEDs similarly occurred within a populated area, such as the 14 October Junction in Mogadishu.
While AOAV’s Explosive Violence Monitor (EVM) indicates that the number of IED incidents has declined since 2015, their use remains persistent, widespread, and devastating. Civilians continue to bear the overwhelming burden of harm, particularly when IEDs are deployed in populated areas, and within countries categorised as non-international armed conflicts.
This article summarises the key findings from AOAV’s data monitoring the use and impact of IEDs between 2015 and 2024, whilst understanding this use within the wider context of where these IEDs are being used, why and by who, as well as emerging trends which have arisen within the last two years.
Firstly, it is important to understand the definition of an IED and why they are typically used.
What are IEDs?
- A type of bomb that is constructed using materials not typically used for military purposes.
- Easy to acquire – often constructed from readily available materials, such as fertilizer or propane tanks.
- Components may vary depending on the design and intended use of the device
- Common components will always include explosive material, a detonator, a power source, and a casing or container to hold the explosive.
- Designed to be detonated remotely or by a victim triggering the device or by a suicide bomber.
Why are they used?
- Used in asymmetrical warfare as a low-cost, adaptable tactic to offset military disadvantages, disrupt state operations, and maximise impact, often in populated areas – whilst avoiding direct confrontation.
- Used to target infrastructure, military convoys, and populated areas, which maximises their impact and minimises direct engagement with their adversaries.
- Concealable, inexpensive to manufacture and act as a force-multiplier.
In order to understand the harm caused by IEDs across the last decade, AOAV has examined the worst impacted countries in terms of both incidents of IED use and numbers of civilian casualties (as illustrated in Figure 2). Among the countries with the highest numbers of IED use, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan possess the highest numbers within the decade. Additionally, 87% of all civilian casualties from IEDs occurred within just ten countries, all of which were classified as non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) under the Geneva Academy’s Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts (RULAC) framework. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Lebanon, Turkey, Yemen, and Cameroon were consistently among the most affected.
Whilst IED incidents were also recorded in western states such as the United Kingdom, Belgium and the United States, these cases are less frequent, but have typically had very high casualty rates.
The contexts in which IEDs are being used within these countries is largely related to anti-government insurgencies, such as within Afghanistan in the earlier part of the decade (prior to 2021), as well as in the context of sectarian and religious violence.
Not surprisingly, civilians consistently represent the majority (73%) of casualties from IEDs, and whilst this is an average for the decade, it is important to note that AOAV did not record one year where the numbers of armed actor casualties from IEDs exceeded the number of civilian casualties.
The lasting and reverberating consequences of these devices are devastating, it includes life-long injuries, displacement, long-term psychological trauma, and destruction to infrastructure.
Intended Target
When the intended target was reported (shown in Figure 3), attacks targeting civilian groups caused 19% of civilian casualties. However, the majority of the time, the intended target is not reported, but often perpetrators are targeting civilians in busy populated areas in order to cause the most damage.
Even when civilians were not reported as the explicit intended target, they were harmed in attacks targeting all other categories, illustrating the persistent harm to civilians regardless of intended target.
Types of IED
In reference to the types of IEDs being examined (as seen in Figure 4), the broadest category AOAV records are non-specific IEDs, which refers to all explosive weapons made from non-traditional means of manufacture, this includes suicide attacks. This category refers to any IED which are not categorised as car bombs or roadside bombs.
Due to this, non-specific IEDs account for 57% of civilian casualties. Followed by car bombs, roadside bombs and multiple explosive weapons, which refers to the use of IEDs in conjunction with other types of weapons.
The use of car bombs and roadside bombs has decreased over the decade, but despite this decrease are still causing harm to civilians each year.
Suicide attacks are the most injurious form of IED across the decade. They are almost exclusively used within populated areas, with 96% of civilian casualties from suicide attacks occurring within a populated area. These areas include places of worship, markets and public gatherings, and have been recorded most frequently in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria across the decade.
Suicide attacks have caused the most casualties out of the activation methods we record, accounting for 50% of all civilian casualties from IEDs within the decade.
Perpetrators
The vast majority of IED incidents were attributed to non-state armed groups (as illustrated in Figure 5), with the most prolific users including:
- The Islamic State, were the most prolific users of IEDs, accounting for 32% of civilian casualties from non-state actor use of IEDs. The IS were also responsible for 44 of the most injurious incidents within the decade.
- The Taliban in Afghanistan, whilst the Taliban were a prolific user of IEDs throughout the earlier half of the decade, their last recorded use of the devices was in 2021, according to AOAV data.
- Al Shabaab in Somalia and surrounding countries.
- Boko Haram within Nigeria and surrounding countries
Additionally, whilst state actor use of IEDs accounted for less than 1% of IED use between 2015 and 2024, the use of IEDs within the pager and radio device attacks by Israel in September 2024 in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon, caused 58% of civilian casualties from IEDs that year according to AOAV data.
Whilst this is an extreme case, with this specific use of IEDs not conforming to any trend or pattern monitored by AOAV since the beginning of our records in 2010, such use of inanimate objects as a weapon used by states is alarming and should be noted.
In terms of non-state actor use, the Islamic State (IS) group has continued to be the most prolific and widespread user of IEDs across the decade, year on year. Between 2015 to 2024, the IS focused its use of IEDs within Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, with ⅓ of civilian casialties occurring in Iraq.
However, in recent years, AOAV is recording far less civilian harm within Iraq, more recently, more cases of unexploded ordnance in addition to IEDs are being found, but the frequency of these incidents is far less in comparison to 2015 and 2016 when IED use in the country was at its peak.
Emerging Trends
This article has focused on the use of IEDs throughout the last decade, to understand the overall trends of IED use and the harms caused. However, to understand the current and emerging threat of IED use, AOAV looked at data from the previous two years (2023-2024).
The five countries (as depicted in Figure 6) with the worst civilian harm from IEDs within the last two years are Pakistan, who suffered 1,174 civilian casualties in the two year period, followed by Somalia (699), Syria (538), Nigeria (524) and Afghanistan (445).
Moreover, the use of IEDs in east and west Africa, such as Somalia and Nigeria specifically, has become more prominent in recent years, with groups such Al Shabaab among other non-state armed actors continuing their use of the devices to target adversaries or civilians.
Additionally, the highest rates of suicide attacks recorded in 2024 were in Pakistan, Somalia and Nigeria, an alarming trend which continues to threaten and devastate civilian populations.
In terms of the worst recorded perpetrators (shown in Figure 7) we are seeing use IEDs in recent years, are ISIS: Afghanistan, Al Shabaab in Somalia, ISIS (referring to IS in Syria and Iraq), ISIS: Pakistan, and the Balochistan Liberation Army in Pakistan.
Although the perpetrators listed have not caused the highest number of incidents, the level of civilian harm their attacks have caused is extremely high. For example, ISIS: Afghanistan has a ratio of 37 people killed or injured per incident.
Other formerly prolific groups such as Boko Haram continue their use of IEDs, but we are recording this far less often and with far fewer civilian casualties in recent years.
We have however seen an emergence in IED usage from armed groups in Myanmar, such as the People’s Defense Force. IED use in this conflict is typically against the Myanmar military, causing fewer civilian casualties and a higher rate of armed actor casualties.
Challenges
The challenges associated with addressing the threat of IEDs are broad and varied.
The challenges include:
- The ease of accessibility to materials for non-state actors and their ability to adapt and acquire new materials.
- The varied contexts of use, meaning the devices are easily concealable and usable in a wide range of contexts. For example, they can be used in both rural and densely populated areas, meaning they can be used to target any group in ways which can be extremely difficult to predict.
- In terms of monitoring and data limitations, there is difficulty in recording the global use of IEDs – this can be due to the decentralised and unconventional manufacturing of the devices, as well as the difficulty in attributing the use to specific perpetrators.
- Often incidents can go unclaimed or there may be little information surrounding the context in which the device was used.
Conclusion
A decade of data shows that improvised explosive devices remain one of the most injurious forms of explosive violence worldwide. Their overall frequency may have declined since 2015, yet their lethality endures, especially in non-international armed conflicts where civilians are caught in marketplaces, mosques, or on city streets. In Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria and beyond, IEDs continue to shape the rhythms of daily life through fear, disruption and mass casualty attacks.
Non-state armed groups remain the principal users, though the rare deployment by state actors, as in Lebanon in 2024, signals worrying new directions in weaponisation. Suicide bombings, in particular, still stand out as the most destructive method, overwhelmingly targeting populated areas.
For all the technical detail—the casings, triggers and chemical mixes—the human story is blunt: civilians suffer most. They bear the injuries, displacement, psychological trauma and destruction of infrastructure that ripple long after an attack.
AOAV’s findings make clear that better monitoring, stronger international cooperation, and more consistent protection measures are urgently required. As debates continue within the UN and the CCW, AOAV will press for these voices—the victims of IEDs—to remain at the centre of international policy.
This article discusses the findings of research presented as part of a panel at the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Meeting of Experts of Protocol II on Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) on Tuesday 9th September 2025. The presentation was part of the session entitled ‘Setting the scene: The threat of IED and new types of IED’.
This presentation can be found here.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate