Many perceptions of the Middle East are dominated by images of violence. Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon frequently appear in news reports, creating an impression of constant turmoil, especially after the 7th of October.
However, when compared to other conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine, the level of violence in the Middle East, while significant, is not always proportionally higher. Like any region, the Middle East’s conflicts have unique patterns shaped by local, national, and regional politics.
MENA Conflict Shaped by Three Key Elements:
Impending Transformative Change: The region is poised for significant change, and this transformation will likely be accompanied by violence, though not solely determined by it.
Persistent Threats: Long-standing threats remain. Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and ISIS, though diminished in influence, have exploited regional instability and their violence has reverberated globally. Despite recent setbacks, these groups retain the potential to reconstitute themselves.
Regional Power Plays: Middle Eastern regimes are not confining their violent politics to their own borders. Increasingly, they leverage their growing status as Middle Powers to influence conflicts across Africa, leading to broader destabilisation.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in Gaza, dominates headlines since Hamas’s attacks on 7 October, 2023. Political violence has been concentrated both in Gaza, but also Syria, Iraq, and Yemen where Iranian-backed groups coexist. Such patterns follow a uptick in U.S.-led airstrikes on insurgent targets in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Political Violence in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and the Red Sea: 1 January – 29 November 2024 (ACLED)
While this conflict is significant, it’s crucial to remember it’s one of many in the region. The recent war has devastated Gaza and drawn unwanted attention from the United States. The current death toll in Gaza is about 50,000, while the West Bank has seen a significant increase in violence in recent months.
President Trump’s suggestion of direct U.S. control and development of Gaza has had alarming repercussions, potentially jeopardising the fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel as of 19 January 2025.
Hamas responded to the proposal by threatening to end hostage exchanges, prompting Trump to issue further threats of military action if all hostages are not released by mid-February.
Reportedly, Trump is also pressuring Egypt and Jordan to accept approximately two million Gazan refugees, threatening punitive measures if they refuse.
Trump’s Plan: Two Pending Scenarios
Firstly, this outrageous plan of ethnic cleansing may be a negotiating tactic intended to be withdrawn later, creating the illusion of a deal being struck with Saudi Arabia and within the context of the Abraham Accords.
Secondly, President Trump may be proposing this plan to make Netanyahu’s control of the situation appear to be a more palatable option.
However, Saudi Arabia publicly rejected the plan. This entire situation highlights a critical dynamic in many Middle Eastern conflicts: major political decisions and their underlying motivations are often obscured, with violence serving as a supporting element rather than the primary driver of outcomes.
At the heart of plans for Gaza’s rehabilitation, the potential displacement of Gazans, the Abraham Accords, and U.S. interests in reshaping the Middle East lies a history of destructive U.S. involvement in the region.
From the U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 (resulting in the deaths of 286 US Marines) to the estimated one million deaths directly caused by the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, U.S. actions have often been accompanied by immense suffering. While Israel is currently taking the lead in actions in Palestine, Lebanon, and across Syria and Iran, the threat of overwhelming U.S. military force remains a significant factor.
Old Problems, New Players
Despite shifts in power structures in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, violence persists. These countries continue to harbour diverse armed groups and governments that readily employ violence to achieve political goals. Peaceful resolutions remain elusive, as the very process of forging new political structures fuels the ongoing conflict. Replacing a leader doesn’t alter the fundamental objective of conflict: seizing power—locally, regionally, or nationally—to extract concessions and authority from rivals.
In Yemen, insurgents prevailed; in Lebanon, they exert significant control over state functions; and in Syria, the recent rebel alliance’s triumph merely adds to the nation’s myriad violent conflicts. Across these cases, problems endure, with armed groups adapting to changes rather than being eliminated by them.
External Influence on African Conflicts
While the Middle East grapples with internal strife, commentators across Africa observe that diplomatic, economic, and political support is reshaping the trajectories of violent groups and their government adversaries.
Numerous African nations, especially in the Horn of Africa, face similar challenges. Countries like Türkiye and GCC actors are increasingly involved, providing bilateral economic, military, and diplomatic assistance.
However, in regions like Sudan and the Sahel, where violence is rampant, the objectives of external engagement with armed groups remain ambiguous. African conflicts and politics differ significantly from those of the Middle East, notably because violence is often a determinant of political power in Africa.
Consequently, Gulf or Turkish aid can have profound implications, influencing whether a political system or armed group continues to wield violence for its own ends, rather than pursuing negotiated ceasefires. The central question is whether violence will cease on the terms of those who endure it or those who profit from it externally.
