Introduction
The Middle East is often described through the lens of oversimplified frameworks. This article analyzes the region's crisis based on the perspective of Nawaz A. Gerges, rejecting single-factor explanations.
The reader will discover why traditional approaches to security are failing. They will be introduced to the concept of the great betrayal and the role of civic agency as the only foundation for lasting peace in the region.
The Regional Crisis as a Convergence of Factors
Simple explanations that attribute blame solely to religion, culture, or oil are flawed, as they reduce a complex tragedy to a single element. The alternative is Gerges' relational model.
The region serves as an arena of interaction between external powers and local elites. Foreign interventions have strengthened autocrats, who in turn deepened their dependence on patrons and crushed the agency of ordinary people.
An example of this is the mechanism where the suppression of protests leads to civil wars. These, in turn, exacerbate sectarianism, which legitimizes further repression and new external interventions.
The Illusion of Stability Based on Force and Fear
An approach based on the interests of great powers and the iron fist of dictators does not ensure peace, as it confuses short-term control with long-term stability. Stability without legitimacy is merely a delayed explosion.
Supporting autocrats in the name of order produces radicalization and waves of migration. Dictators often dig the abyss of chaos themselves, only to later blackmail society by claiming they are the only alternative to the precipice.
In this context, the 2026 Israel-USA-Iran war is not a sudden outburst, but the result of decades of the securitization of politics. It is the outcome of attempting to force a new balance of power over the heads of citizens.
Conflicts as a Result of Politics, Not Religion or Economics
Religion and market reforms have failed to solve problems because they became tools in the hands of elites. Sectarianism is a political product rather than an ancient hatred; it requires patrons and funding.
Democratization interventions failed because military force can topple a regime, but it cannot write a new social contract. Meanwhile, the market in a crony state becomes nothing more than an auction of influence for oligarchs.
The failures of the Arab Spring do not end the drive for change. They are the first act in the process of building citizenship. In these processes, religion provides the vocabulary, but political conditions determine how it is used.
Summary
Lasting stability requires the restoration of citizen dignity and the dismantling of crony capitalism. Without inclusive institutions, any new security architecture will remain nothing more than a fragile scaffold.
Will the elites stop sabotaging the agency of people whom they claim lack maturity? This is a dangerous illusion: first, you break someone's legs, and then you announce a theory about their innate limp.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are simple explanations for the causes of conflicts in the Middle East wrong, and what is the alternative?
Simple explanations are wrong because they reduce the complex drama of the region to a single factor, leading to the essentialization of culture or the omission of the agency of local elites. The alternative is a multi-factor model that describes the Middle East as a field of interaction between foreign power interventions, the actions of authoritarian governments, and the grassroots agency of the people.
Why does an approach based on the interests of great powers and the strong hand of dictators fail to ensure lasting peace in the Middle East?
An approach based on the interests of great powers and the strong hand of dictators confuses short-term control with long-term stability. The lack of social legitimacy and the destruction of institutions by autocrats lead to radicalization, uprisings, and state fragility, which ultimately generates chaos instead of lasting peace.
Why have religion, democratization interventions, and market reforms failed to solve the problems of the Middle East?
Religion in itself is not the trigger for conflict, but rather a tool used by elites and great powers in the struggle for resources. Democratization interventions often failed because they destroyed dictatorships without understanding local institutions or creating a new social contract, while market reforms in crony systems led only to the transfer of public assets to private clients.
Why do the failures of the Arab Spring not signify the end of aspirations for change, and what is the role of religion in these processes?
The failures of the Arab Spring do not mean the end of aspirations for change, but are part of a long process that shapes collective memory and defines future demands. The role of religion in these processes is twofold: theology provides the vocabulary and language, but it is political conditions and history that activate and transform it into a political phenomenon.
How should the Middle East be analyzed to avoid stereotypes and simplifications?
One should apply relational thinking and operate on contradictions, avoiding simple labels and categories. The analysis should combine the perspective of the historical political economy of citizenship while simultaneously considering multiple scales: global, regional, state, local, and individual.
What is the actual value of Fawaz A. Gerges's approach in the context of analyzing the Middle East?
The value of F. A. Gerges's approach lies in a better problematization of the analysis of the Middle East and in stripping convenient simplifications of their impunity. The author restores moral proportions in research, reminding us that behind theoretical concepts of social sciences stand real people and their suffering.
Why are traditional explanations of Middle East crises flawed, and what does Fawaz A. Gerges propose instead?
Traditional explanations are flawed because they rely on simplifications and attribute crises to the nature of the region, rather than examining institutions of violence and the systematic stripping of people's agency. In their place, Fawaz A. Gerges proposes a theory of anti-fatalism, which integrates facts and processes, rejecting cultural determinism in favor of analyzing the responsibility of local elites and external powers.
Why is the pursuit of citizenship and dignity by ordinary people crucial for understanding the stability of the Middle East?
The desire for dignity and citizenship is crucial because a state devoid of social trust and a civic foundation is unstable. The failure to recognize the agency of ordinary people leads to a crisis of legitimacy, which, in the face of shocks, can result in the rapid collapse of even the most brutal regimes.
Why does fighting terrorism and ensuring state security alone not bring lasting peace to the Middle East?
Focusing solely on state security is insufficient because the region remains susceptible to the logic of security without justice. Lasting peace requires combating mechanisms of radicalization, such as exclusion, torture, and the lack of civil rights, while ensuring people have dignity and material citizenship.
What specific changes are necessary for the Middle East to break the cycle of crises and achieve lasting stability?
Key conditions include the demilitarization of politics, the restoration of laws protecting citizens, and the dismantling of crony economies. It is also essential to include youth, transition toward civic equality, resolve the Palestinian issue, limit external patronages, and implement transitional justice.
Is Gerges's model merely a theoretical utopia, or a realistic alternative to the current state of affairs in the Middle East?
Gerges's model is not a utopia, but a response to the cynicism that assumes it is possible to rule permanently through fear and by supporting autocrats. It represents a real alternative based on citizenship, dignity, and justice, pointing out that stability without these elements is merely the silence before the next crisis.
Who is the actual guarantor of the Middle East's future, and how should the outbreak of the Israel-USA-Iran war of 2026 be understood in this context?
The future of the Middle East belongs to those who can build institutions capable of upholding human dignity. The Israel-USA-Iran war of 2026 was not a sudden event, but rather the result of years of tension and the failure of negotiations regarding the Iranian nuclear program.
What are the actual reasons and goals of the war between Israel and Iran in the context of Gerges' theory?
The actual reasons for the war are crises of non-proliferation, deterrence, and the internal legitimacy of both states. The goal of the USA and Israel was to force a new balance of power and limit Iran's capabilities, while Iran sought to protect its founding myth and sovereignty.
What are the actual goals of the USA and Iran in this conflict, and how do they fit into the mechanism of citizens' lack of agency?
The USA seeks to secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, limit Iran's nuclear program and influence, and confirm its security guarantees for allies. Iran fights for deterrence against opponents, maintaining a network of regional influence, and the survival of a regime that uses a state of siege to silence internal opposition. The mechanism of citizens' lack of agency is manifested in the fact that the Iranian authorities use the rhetoric of national sovereignty while simultaneously repressing their own society.
What is the dynamics of the contemporary conflict over the Strait of Hormuz, and what interests drive the great powers and Middle Eastern states in this situation?
The conflict centers around the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran uses as leverage, while the USA attempts to secure energy trade through blockades and escorts. Gulf states strive for de-escalation to protect their modernization visions, while powers such as China push for a ceasefire to ensure stable energy supplies.
What are the actual causes and consequences of contemporary conflicts in the Middle East in the context of the role of great powers and citizens?
The actual cause of the conflicts is the struggle between great powers and regional states for hierarchy, strategic advantage, and the role of security arbiter. The consequence of these actions is the enormous cost borne by citizens, such as repression, existential fear, rising energy prices, and a lack of social agency.
