Obstacles to Peace and Drivers of War in the Middle East: A Neorealist Approach

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Department of International Relations, Ahlul Bayt International University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Peace in the Middle East—a profoundly complex issue—has fundamentally been
a function of a realist and negative definition of the concept. This construal of peace may be considered a shared understanding across various strands of realism. In relation to
the Middle East, this approach adopts a structural perspective, viewing the region as a subsystem of the international system. Accordingly, shifts in the overarching structure
of the global order directly influence war and peace at the regional level. Against this backdrop, the primary question is: From a neorealist perspective, what are the most critical obstacles to peace in the Middle East? One might argue that, at the subnational unit level of analysis, irrational actor behavior, the absence of systemic balance, and uneven capability distribution operate in ways that perpetuate instability. Moreover, the Middle East’s geopolitical and strategic significance has invited interventionist actors, significantly disrupting regional equilibrium. This occurs even as extraregional powers’ reluctance
to engage in regional issues could otherwise compel local actors to resolve conflicts themselves. Employing a descriptive-analytical approach based on documentary data collection, this study meticulously examines the barriers to achieving peace in the Middle East. Focusing on a negative definition of peace, it analyzes these obstacles through neorealism and proposes solutions—within the framework of the theory—for attaining minimal peace in the region. The first variable that might obstruct peace is the emergence of subnational actors in political agency. Contrary to neorealism’s primary focus on states, these actors have played a pivotal role in regional politics, particularly over the past two decades. The nature of state–substate relations has, in practice, rendered behavioral predictability in the Middle East exceedingly difficult, as subnational actors are largely beyond oversight and control. The second critical variable is irrational agency. In neorealist terms, a rational actor is one who identifies the structure and direction of power and aligns behavior accordingly, while calculating interests in terms of material cost-benefit analysis. This leaves little room for ideological approaches; indeed, geopolitics predominates over ideology. Thus, as long as intensely ideological agency persists in the region, achieving peace in its positive sense remains highly improbable. Another factor is the presence of interventionist actors and the lack of systemic balance. The Middle East constitutes a centripetal security complex that, due to its geopolitical and geoeconomic allure, draws major extraregional powers. Meanwhile, regional actors have increasingly recognized that—given domestic fragility and volatile regional dynamics—they must align with powerful external players. This behavior prevents the regional power structure from naturally gravitating toward equilibrium, resulting in persistent instability and fluctuation around specific poles of power, sustained by great-power backing. Consequently, these interventionist actors themselves generate instability, or their support for regional powers fosters aggressive behavior. In conclusion, Middle Eastern states must acknowledge that as long as interventionist actors disrupt the balance of power, subnational actors wield significant influence, and agency fails to adhere to neorealist rationality—defined by material cost-benefit calculation—the prospect of achieving peace in its positive sense will remain exceedingly remote.

Keywords

References

Abosedra, S., Fakih, A., & Haimoun, N. (2021). Ethnic divisions and the onset of civil wars
in Syria (IZA Discussion Paper No. 14348). IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/14348
Akcay, E. Y., & Kanat, S. (2017). Carrot and stick approach in international relations: A
new evaluation throughout Turkey’s accession negotiations with the European Union. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, (29), pp. 1–20.
Al Sarhan, A. S. (2017). United States foreign policy and the Middle East. Open Journal of Political Science, 7(4), pp. 454–472. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2017.74036
Alghashian, A. (2024, Month Day). Saudi Arabia’s diversified support for a two-state solution. Middle East Institute. URL=        
https://www.mei.edu/publications/saudi-arabias-diversified-support-two-state-solution
Altoraifi, A. (2012). The rise and demise of Saudi–Iranian rapprochement (1997–2009). Doctoral dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science.             
URL= http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/503/
Behravesh, M. (2018). State revisionism and ontological (in)security in international politics: The complicated case of Iran and its nuclear behavior. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21(4), pp. 836–857. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0149-x
Browning, N., & Irish, J. (2015, December 15). Saudi Arabia announces 34-state Islamic military alliance against terrorism. Reuters. URL=         
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security-idUSKBN0TX2PG20151215
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2009). Manāṭiq va qudrat-hā [Regions and powers] (R. Ghahramanpour, Trans.). Tehran: Strategic Studies Research Center. [In Persian]
Dalay, G., & Yousef, T. (2023). The Middle East’s fragile reset: Actors, battlegrounds and disorder. Middle East Council on Global Affairs.
Darwich, M. (2018). The Saudi intervention in Yemen: Struggling for status. Insight Turkey, 20(2), pp. 125–142. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2018202.08
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2013). International relations theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
European Parliament. (2020). US 'peace plan' for the Middle East (EPRS Briefing). URL= https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-AaG-646166-US-peace-plan-Middle-East-FINAL.pdf
Falk, O. T. (2021, July 16). Saudi-UAE: Despite turmoil, geopolitical goals remain steadfast. Al Jazeera. URL= https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/16/saudi-uae-despite-turmoil-geopolitical-goals-remain-steadfast
Farihat, I. (2020). De-securitisation and pragmatism in the Persian Gulf: The future of Saudi-Iranian relations. Edinburgh University Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3),
pp. 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301
Giegerich, B., Hokayem, E., & Jagtiani, S. (2022). Regional security and alliances in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific: Implications for European security. International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Goldsmith, L. T. (2015). Syria: The security dilemma of religious minorities [Conference paper]. Wars and Wars' Ending, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon.
Greif, A., & Rubin, J. (2022). Political legitimacy in historical political economy (ESI Working Paper No. 369). Chapman University.
URL=https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_working_papers/369/
Grewal, B. S. (2003). John Galtung: Positive and negative peace. Building Peace Forum. URL=https://www.buildingpeaceforum.com
Heron, A. (2025, March 29). Regional neorealism: Rethinking geography and geopolitical competition. E-International Relations. URL=       
https://www.e-ir.info/2025/03/29/regional-neorealism-rethinking-geography-and-geopolitical-competition/
Hiro, D. (2018). Cold war in the Islamic world: Saudi Arabia, Iran and the struggle for supremacy. Oxford University Press.
Hoogensen, G. (2012). Security by any other name: Negative security, positive security, and a multi-actor security approach. Review of International Studies, 38(4), pp. 835–859. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000221
Iqbal, A. (2024). Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar’s quest for power in the Arab Gulf: Role of ideational factors and economic rivalry in diverging foreign policy choices. Electronic Journal of Social and Strategic Studies, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.47362/EJSSS.2024.5101
Joseph, A. (2020, September 25). The neo-neo debate in understanding the geopolitics of
outer space. E-International Relations. URL= https://www.e-ir.info/2020/09/25/neo-neo-debate-in-understanding-the-geopolitics-of-outer-space/
Juneau, T. (2016). Iran’s policy towards the Houthis in Yemen: A limited return on a modest investment. International Affairs, 92(3), pp. 647–663.      
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12608
Kateb, A. (2025, April). The Abraham Accords after Gaza: A change of context. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. URL=            
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/04/the-abraham-accords-after-gaza-a-change-of-context?lang=en
Keersmaeker, G. (2017). Polarity, balance of power and international relations theory: Post-Cold War and the 19th century compared. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The world in depression, 1929–1939. University of California Press.
Kivimäki, T. (2021). The fragility-grievances-conflict triangle in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): An exploration of the correlative associations. Social Sciences, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10040120
Lemke, D. (2005). [Review of the book Perspective on politics]. American Political Science Association, 3(1), pp.149–150.
Marshall, M. G., & Elzinga-Marshall, G. (2017). Global report 2017: Conflict, governance, and state fragility. Center for Systemic Peace.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton.
Mirela, A. (2021). Middle Eastern proxy wars waged on the background of civil wars. Vojenské Rozhledy, 30(1), pp. 5–18.
Ren, Y. (2023). Root causes of conflict in the Middle East: Analysis and solutions to the conflicts. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies (pp. xx–xx). https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxx
Schmidt, B. C., & Wight, C. (2023). Rationalism and the “rational actor assumption” in
realist international relations theory. Journal of International Political Theory, 19(2), pp.131–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882221145678
Sevilla, H. A. (2024). The Abraham Accords and peace in the Middle East: Regional reception and implications. Center of Middle Eastern Studies (CMES), 17(1), pp. 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.20961/cmes.17.1.85649
Sharma, P., & Tripathi, A. (2024). From unipolar to multipolar: China’s role in a shifting world. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 4(3), pp.1–10.
Shields, P. M. (2018). Limits of negative peace, faces of positive peace. Parameters, 47(3),
pp. 5–12. https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.2868
Soimaru, D. (2020). The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: The evolution of the strategic partnership with Israel. Strategic Impact, (74), pp. 45–56.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.
Waltz, K. N. (1986). Reflections on Theory of international politics: A response to my critics. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 322–346). Columbia University Press.
Wardhani, N. F. (2021). The concept of polarity and centers of power in international relations. Jurnal Politik Indonesia, 7(2), pp. 145–160.
Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Ed.). Free Press.
Williams, M. C. (2003). Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics. International Studies Quarterly, 47(4), pp. 511–531.  
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00277.x
Zakaria, F. (1992). Realism and domestic politics: A review essay. International Security, 17(1), pp. 177–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539162

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics