Why West Asia’s Wars Keep Repeating, According to Analysis

DID Press: A new analysis by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that the persistence of conflicts in West Asia is not merely the result of unresolved disputes, but of a deeper power structure in which both internal and external actors derive strategic and political benefits from instability—turning war into a semi-permanent condition.

The latest escalation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has once again brought terms such as “stability,” “deterrence,” and “preemptive security” to the center of regional security discourse. While Washington and Tel Aviv justify escalation as necessary to prevent larger crises, and Tehran responds through deterrence-based rhetoric, the analysis argues that a more structural reality lies beneath these immediate calculations: prolonged wars persist not because solutions are absent, but because instability itself is politically useful and actively managed by key actors.

The report stresses that focusing on any single actor obscures the broader framework—one built over decades on the perception of permanent threat, heavy reliance on military power, and the assumption that coercion can generate security.

The United States, it notes, has approached the region through this logic since the end of the Cold War. From the 2003 Iraq invasion to the Afghanistan war, US policy has relied on military intervention, sanctions, and strategic containment—approaches that often intensified the very crises they aimed to resolve. The collapse of Iraqi state institutions contributed to sectarian violence and the rise of ISIS, while two decades of war in Afghanistan ended in withdrawal and state collapse. Despite these outcomes, the underlying assumptions remain largely unchanged: instability can be controlled through force.

Israel, meanwhile, has institutionalized a permanent security framework in both domestic and regional policy. From military strategies against regional actors to governance dynamics in Gaza and the West Bank, security has become the central organizing principle of state policy. However, repeated wars in Gaza and cycles of destruction demonstrate that military superiority alone cannot produce lasting stability. The occupation of the West Bank has also created a system that normalizes indefinite control while undermining the possibility of a political settlement.

At the regional level, local elites also benefit from sustained crises. In Lebanon, political paralysis is intertwined with sectarian networks. In Syria, the transformation of reform demands into a devastating war turned the country into a theater of external competition. Within such structures, war becomes a tool of legitimacy for governments, a source of power for armed groups, and an instrument of influence for external actors. Peace, unlike managed escalation, offers limited political returns.

The core tragedy, the analysis argues, is that regional populations are treated as spectators rather than political actors. Societies are often framed through security labels such as “threat,” “refugee,” or “extremism,” rather than as citizens demanding accountable institutions and economic dignity.

Ultimately, the report concludes that endless wars are not a failure of diplomacy alone, but the outcome of a worldview that prioritizes military management of threats over political solutions. Until this framework shifts in Washington, Tel Aviv, and regional capitals, cycles of escalation will continue to reproduce themselves.

A different future, it argues, requires abandoning the assumption that military power alone can generate stability or legitimacy, and instead prioritizing inclusive governance, effective institutions, economic opportunity, and accountability for state violence.