Structural conflict in the Middle East persists due to geopolitical interests and militarized foreign policies
Original framing: “Former US defence chief says more war won’t bring peace to Middle East” — Al Jazeera
The original framing omits the role of historical colonialism in shaping modern Middle Eastern borders, the influence of non-state actors, and the potential of indigenous and regional diplomatic mechanisms. It also fails to consider the perspectives of local populations and the impact of economic sanctions on conflict dynamics.
High structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
This narrative is produced by a former US defense official and reported by Al Jazeera, which serves a global audience but is based in the Middle East. The framing reinforces the idea that US military involvement is central to regional stability, obscuring the role of other global powers and the impact of colonial-era borders on current conflicts.
The roots of modern Middle Eastern conflict can be traced back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers. These decisions created artificial states that lacked cohesive national identities, contributing to long-term instability.
The persistent conflict in the Middle East is not a result of a lack of military action, but rather the systemic consequences of colonial legacies, geopolitical competition, and the marginalization of local voices.
Indigenous and cross-cultural peacebuilding methods offer viable alternatives to militarized approaches, while scientific evidence supports the need for inclusive diplomacy and economic development. To move toward sustainable peace, global powers must reform their foreign policies to support regional cooperation and empower local actors. Historical parallels from other regions demonstrate that lasting peace is possible when power structures are reformed to include diverse perspectives and prioritize long-term stability over short-term strategic gains.