The following article was written by top dissertations

The violence and dynamics of politics that has shaped the present crisis in the region and the everyday occurrence in Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq and Iran dominate the current instability and violence course. There exist deep structure causes of violence and instability in these countries as well. Beyond politics, conflict, and terrorism, wars and upheavals have been shaped by key tribal, regional, sectarian, and ethnic variations in a certain country. The security, economic and demographic trends within MENA shape the public discontent and anger. Similarly, the same issues are true of the role of quality of social progress, justice systems, governance and security systems that are shaping the various countries’ problems. The region faces critical pressures of democracy, economic development failures, nepotism, corruption and discrimination. There is, therefore, now no progress in counterterrorism or repression that can enhance a lasting stability to any MENA country.

Key Judgments

From the analysis of the MENA region, it is apparent that it is marred with recurring violence and war, but peace and co-existence is also possible. The following are the key judgments reached after the analysis;

First, the wars and violence in the MENA region have seen many tactical victories, but without any strategic lasting victory. The lack of lasting strategic victory in the wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, and all others warring MENA countries, almost nullifies the occasional numerous tactical victories. That is, at one point in time, one of the warring sides experiences a conquest over the other, but the lack of strategies and plans on how to move on from the risks and causes of instability lead to the sides fall back in conflict or war soon after.

Second, the instability in the MENA region does not have generalizable causes, because almost every conflict or war has its own distinguished causes. Although Islamic extremism seems to be the most profound cause, the wars have been triggered by conflict over natural resources, such as water, religious differences, as in the case of Israel and Palestine, and, mostly, poor governance which results in many other individual causes. Therefore, there is no one right way of ensuring stability in the whole region because the instability has different roots. There is a need for case-specific consideration while designing for peace and conflict resolution in every country within MENA.

Third, despite the widespread perception of “failed governments in the region”, individual countries and their governments have been making military and defense progress through shifting from importing military supplies to producing them. From the recurring violence in these countries, noting military and defense progress in individual countries is a positive development which will increase the states’ capacity to deter and curb internal and external violence.

Fourth, migration within the region and across its borders to Europe is a cause for concern, as the welfare of the immigrants is at risk, while extremists use the immigration channels to infiltrate other regions and countries. The constant movement of migrants makes it difficult to keep the borders safe in the midst of war, giving leeway to extremists to move freely from country to country wreaking havoc. Trying to restrict the movement threatens the immigrants freeing the war, complicating tasks for law enforcers at the border between censoring criminals and risking innocents or giving a free pass to all.

Lastly, the dynamics of insurgency in the MENA region is changing to encompass more women with civilian behavior which go unnoticed by law enforcers. Unlike contemporary belief that women in the MENA region take a passive supportive role in the conflicts and war, in agreement with their submissive traditional roles as Muslim women, they are increasingly taking deliberate active roles, thus calling for different approaches by law enforcers while dealing with insurgence. Law enforcement agencies need to come with new ways of keeping tabs on insurgents, which will reveal both males and females involved, if there is any hope of successful counterinsurgency.

Strategic Environment

Israel-Palestine cooperation on security in the recent years was perceived as a rare successful story of the Middle-East process of peace. However, this does not appear to be the case because of the recent developments that have challenged the narrative. Thousands of Palestinians went into demonstration, demanding that peace cooperation between the two states to be suspended. Before the occurrence of this incident, the Palestine president legalized 4,000 Israel settlers who had built on the Palestinian territory. As a result, one key cornerstone of the known Oslo Accords appears threatened. Israel and Palestine have had problems with each other for many years. Each side has for long been increasing internal politics barriers to a conciliation peace. At the same time, the tensions amid Hezbollah, Iran and Israel are establishing new threats in military. The long-term pressures are unclear, even though a big range of overseas organizations such as IMF, World Bank and the UN have cautioned the specific forces that have been involved for decades. The experts of the Arab world have documented the high levels of the pressures in the reports of the UN Arab development since the year 2002, and numerous forces immersed have steady trends and can get quantified by country. The reports have greatly revealed radical variations amid the nations in this region, but outlined the fact that some nations combine a mixture of abusive and poor governance, sectarian and ethnic differences, self-seeking elites and corruption, failed or poor economic development, career problems and employment, as well as population pressures that pose a challenge to stability and national union leading to violent extremism.

MENA’s maritime stability and security is subject to the peace and stability in states surrounding the critical water ways. Political instability that has occurred in Yemen, Somalia and Egypt, has caused security risks to the planet’s shipping industry in the North Africa and Middle-East waters. While the regional governments are struggling to offer economic and physical security to populations that are impoverished, terrorists and pirates movements have taken full advantage of the power vacuums to generate risk for infrastructure and commercial vessels. Iran remains unpredictable, the Iranian-Gulf relations with Arab world is strained by the Syrian civil war; maritime could become the target for Iran forces when conflict occurs. The greatest risk to the maritime security in the region is the Egyptian terrorist proliferation, and its Suez Canal implications, Somali pirates’ threats and the Iranian forces risks.

The refugee immigration is one of the most impactful trends within MENA. The immigration poses the threat of transferring instability across the borders, as victims turn to perpetrators, they come accompanied by criminals or destabilize the transit nations. Some victims in Syria may change to be perpetrators, and, thus, undermine the major distinction in the global refugee regime. The ethnic groups that once got victimized by the central government of Syria have reneged on the promise to get out of the regions they liberated and are likely to attempt a state-building degree. There is another distinction that is set to erode with regard to refugee flow and the foreign affairs. After the combat is over, the die-hard overseas fighters can hide within the migration flows to gain the chance to move internationally, with the objective of seeking other destination apart from their places of origin, and heading to new places like Central Asia, Europe, Africa, and Yemen. The ultimate distinction to downfall is between transit states and safe developing nations. The European Union largely depends on Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to play the safe nations and contain the flow of refugees coming from Syria. Ankara has never been able to close the border with Iraq that moves upwards along the Turkey-Iran frontier, and into Europe. The regime for Lebanon’s border is characterized by a limited number of law enforcement agencies that are controlled by various religious groups that in turn use the opportunity to introduce their international alliances. Lebanon has been a key to barring the onward Syrian refugee flow to Europe, although Hizbullah itself controls the airports and never wants to jeopardize its cross-border networks.

MENA is an ending space regarding conflict and the sale of illegal weapons. Violence, persons and weapons freely move within the region, - a case that fosters instability. Conflicts feed each other in a symbolic manner as the end of a conflict leads to the transfer of people, weapons and fighters to a different site. The conflicts are thus bound together in a worsening violence. This case already existed before 2011, but the violence in Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iraq has increased weapon flow and risen the market. The two reasons are incapacity of the domestic governments in curbing illegal firearm trade and outside state sponsors delivering weapons to rebels. Light weapons, like man-portable air systems of defense and guided ant-tank weapons, are today in the hands of twenty different groups within the MENA region and at least half being active in Syria. The effects are fatal with Daesh and other four groups having weapons that can hit an enemy at a distance of six kilometers. Lebanon has also become a central market for weapons. The matter is even worse so that the weapon price in Lebanon can be accurately used to predict the Syrian fatality. State sponsors have played a key role in the rise of firepower of the non-state actors. Syria and Iran have armed Hizbullah for decades, and now Teheran has extended aid to Yemen.

Amid the skyrocketing budgets for defense, rising imports of firearms, emphasis on military training in addition to ongoing conflict involvement, there is a clear reason to believe that the Arab world is militarizing. Another vital feature of Arab states militarization is the renewed and new efforts in developing the national defense industrial bases and technology. The recent years have seen the defense industries of the Arab world undergo great changes: Egypt re-organized and relocated its factories, Saudi Arabia reoriented its ambitions and governance and finally, the UAE did restructure its industries. The alterations include fresh relationships with suppliers of defense products where the former arm clients in the Arab world have now become manufacturers, marking a shifting balance in the MENA region. The 1990s had Egypt scale the United States battle tanks, Saudi Arabia began manufacturing aviation components, while the UAE bought the SA UAS with the aim of jump-starting technological transfer. The UAE has commenced export of UAS to Russia while Saudi Arabia did unveil its initial co-produced large-scale aircraft. Arab states are in the middle of symbolic, economic, and strategic motivations to becoming arm manufacturers in the local industries to operationalize the mass weapon import. The move is taken as a road to independence and economy diversification in the region.

The relations of civil-military are a big part of the equation because armed forces oversight and actual democratic control are major factors of consideration in transparency in the security sector. The MENA region has been the most difficult when it comes to reforming. Many of the Middle-East political systems are partial democracies and relations of civil-military have become a matter of power struggle between military and civilian leaders. Coups have toppled governments, thus punitive measures and abortive coups have become a common denominator in the region for decades. The recent coup that failed in Turkey and the 2013 ousting of the Egyptian president Morsi are examples of this problem.

Women have not directly assumed key operative positions in the Daeshorchestrated attacks in Europe, but there is an expectation for them to become fully operational. Women are serving as vital links in the networks and have a great advantage over men which is the positive bias of the security. Women are generally subjected to less strict and relaxed security checks and can conceal weapons better than men since they have looser and longer garments. Terrorist laws, as well as counterterrorist measures that got introduced in Europe, place the profiling focus on males rather than females. The security prejudice is a key problem because violent attacks conducted by women have been lethal and less likely to be aborted. As a result, men disguise themselves as women to take advantage of the leniency of the laws.

Analysis

Considering the volatile nature of the region, there are several things that stand out which could be indicators that could be used to monitor relevant strategic trends and key issues in the future. As aforementioned, the MENA region is very diverse in relation to instability and its underlying causes, such that strategic trends and key issues ought to be considered on a state to state basis. Yet, as demonstrated, the region is connected as a conflict zone, making the occurrence in one state influential and impactful in several others if not the whole regions. Therefore, the indicators of change in the region are mostly on the state level, but there are some that are regional.

First, the movement of refugees or immigrants across the region and across its borders could be a strategic indicator. At the peak of the migration crisis of 2015, there were speculations that some state actors including Turkey would weaponize the migration flows for the purpose of pushing refugees onwards or keep them to have geopolitical gain. It also worried that the non-state players like Daesh could infiltrate and control the migration flows. However, the migrant numbers on the Balkan route went minimally, calming the fears, as none of the actors manipulated the refugee movement. The continuity of the situation complexity fuels humanity flow into the nation, as well as the neighboring region. The immigration takes three shifts; victims become perpetrators, mixed flow of victims and perpetrators, and the instability of transit states and safe developing states. Therefore, the flow of refugees to instable states could be indicative of a potential migration of conflict ideologies, and even perpetrators.

Secondly, civil-military relations are crucial indicators because they play an important role in the peace in the states and the region. Democratic civil-military relations would be indicators of the possibility of long-term stability, which has been absent in the region. The civil-military relations have been volatile in the region, fueling the continued wars and short spans of peace. Therefore, these relations would serve as indicators of changing trends, when they are volatile, they would indicate the onset of a possible war or longtime violence.

Thirdly, women involvement in the conflicts and wars has been underestimated in the region and understanding the full extent of it is a good indicator of strategic trends. There have been incidents of women actively fighting in war, but their profiling has not been thorough, giving them a leeway to execute terror with little interference from law enforcers. Understanding the facts about women’s contribution and involvement in the war would give crucial intelligence for strategic planning, and also serve as an indicator of shifting trends in the whole region.

Fourth, weapon movement within the region is a major indicator of key issues. The ability of security forces and law enforcers to curb weapon movement and black market could be an indicator of progress, since currently the movement is rampant. The availability of weapons in the black market, and the sponsoring of insurgents by other states through weapon provision have sustained the wars in the region. The free movement of weapon from one state to the other fuels the wars in a way that even state-actors in the warring states cannot curb because the non-state actors are equally armed.

Lastly, individual state governance stability could be an indicator of strategic trends in the region. While the region is united in conflict, some of the wars stem from poor governance within the state, such that the state of governance or its stability could indicate trends and key issues that are of importance to strategic planning. The ability of the states’ governments to offer employment, defense and security, as well as economic growth, could go a long way in fostering peace in the region. The closure of war, or attainment of peace in the region is dependent on the individual governments ability to gain trust from their nationals and work together with warring sides within their country. The regional stability can only be realized if individual states are able to run successfully without falling into internal conflicts, which affect the whole region’s stability.

Conclusions

The immediate instability sources are clear as most parts of the region bear some internal conflict, facing increasing external threats or dealing with extremism violence. The wars in addition to violence that took place in 2011 stemmed from the upheavals of politics and will at best leave a mark of lasting challenges for development and unity, even if the fighting comes to a stop. The 2011 occurrence of the Arab spring had many observers in Europe, Middle East and North Africa witness the famous uprisings as an opportunity to put in place region-wide reforms and then advance to more accountable, economically, and democratically sound societies. Nevertheless, the general view is different from what was expected, with everything looking bleak as most of the key factors that contribute to the common dissatisfaction that incorporate unemployment, increasing violence levels, and the political landscapes that are repressive worsening to worrying levels.

The many causes and sources of conflict and stability in the region ensure that there is no one solution that could yield stability or peace. The wars that have been ongoing for years show that single cases of victory are just tactical victories, which have little impact on the wars themselves or the region as a whole. The solution to the instability in the region would be strategic victory, which requires every states’ improved governance, and regional cooperation. The region is joined in the spread of violence and revolution ideologies, the supply of weapons and the hosting of war victims, such that one states’ efforts and strategic victory is not enough to bring regional strategic victory. It is true that the regional stability will need to start from individual states stability, but they must happen simultaneously, if there is any hope of regional stability. The immigrants who travel from one state to the other could wreak havoc in it, bringing it down to war, just like where they are escaping, thus underscoring the need for regional or transnational efforts at stability.

However, it is possible to have state stability since, despite the many wars and extensive conflicts, there are states that have shown developmental progress and nation state strategies. These cases of successful governance suggest that controlling insurgency is possible in the region and keeping tabs on insurgency trends could be one way of nation state strategic efforts. Such states should work with the others to reduce insurgence migration as well as weapon movement across borders to contain violence and violent ideologies within state borders.