Abstract: In the midst of the Middle East's intricate geopolitical landscape, Johan Galtung, a pioneer in peace and conflict studies, reframed the region's conflicts as not merely clashes between "chosen peoples" but as struggles among "persecuted peoples." Throughout history, Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf states, and the United States have engaged in various conflicts, perpetuating a tense atmosphere despite occasional periods of relative calm or strategic cooperation.

Presently, Iran views the United States as an overbearing superpower exploiting oppressed nations, while the United States perceives Iran as a supporter of terrorism. This underlying animosity shapes the dynamics of conflicts in the region. On one hand, the conflict between Iran and many Gulf countries is marked by ideological, geopolitical, military, and economic concerns. On the other hand, the conflict between Iran and Israel holds significant geopolitical implications in the volatile Middle East. This paper aims to elucidate the key stakeholders, attitudes, and behaviors embroiled in the conflicts of the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran, Israel, the Gulf countries, and the United States. It will trace the evolution of their relations, positions, and underlying interests and needs. Drawing upon Galtung's transcend theory for peace, the paper will propose potential measures for peace-building in the Middle East.

I. Introduction

Conflicts in the Middle East have garnered consistent attention in international media, academic discourse, and global politics. The region not only experiences various forms of violence but also finds itself surrounded by other longstanding conflict zones. However, there exists a narrative of Middle East exceptionalism, often highlighting the region's perceived resistance to democratic ideals, social development, and respect for human rights.

Amidst this intricate backdrop, a multitude of conflicts shape the region. These include the struggle between Sunnis and Shiites, the clash of Arab and Persian civilizations, debates over the legitimacy of the State of Israel within the Muslim world, and the deep-seated animosity between Iran and the United States. These conflicts are marked by numerous incompatibilities, resulting in diverse attitudinal and behavioral consequences.

The complexities inherent in these conflicts have given rise to various forms of violence and have hindered peace-making efforts for decades.

II. From the Origin of an Irreconcilable Sunni-Shiite Split: The Killing of Al Husayn

Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, approximately 90 percent identify as Sunnis, while the remaining 10 percent adhere to Shiite beliefs (Pew Research Center, 2009). The roots of the Sunni-Shiite split, which plays a pivotal role in current Middle East conflicts, can be traced back to events following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. At that time, differing beliefs emerged regarding the succession of leadership, leading to a schism within the Muslim community.

One faction, known as Shiites or "Shiaatu Ali" in Arabic, believed that leadership should be passed down exclusively to descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, particularly through Ali Bin Abi Taleb, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Conversely, the other faction, known as Sunnis or "Sunnat Al-Nabi" in Arabic, advocated for the selection of leaders based on their virtues, irrespective of lineage.

The split over the succession of the Caliphate eventually escalated into violence, culminating in the killing of the last direct male descendant of Prophet Muhammad, Al Husayn. This tragic event occurred in the city of Karbala, where Al Husayn and his companions were slain by troops dispatched by Muhammad Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan, a member of the dynasty of the third Caliph Uthman.

The killing of Al Husayn became a foundational narrative for Shiite Muslims, symbolizing their perceived deprivation of rightful leadership within the Muslim world. This event entrenched an irreconcilable division, if not outright animosity, between Sunni and Shiite factions, which continues to reverberate in the conflicts of the Middle East to this day.

III. Arab-Persian Rivalry: Historical Overview

Approximately two decades after the death of Prophet Muhammad, in 651 AD, Arab Sunni Muslims conquered the Persian Empire, which had stood for four hundred years. This conquest led to the conversion of Persians, predominantly adherents of Zoroastrianism, to Islam (Melamed, 2016). Subsequently, a power struggle ensued over the governance of the Arabian Peninsula, ultimately resulting in the end of Sunni rule in Persia and the ascendancy of Shiite non-Arab dynasties, which ruled from 1500 to 1979.

The year 1979 marks a significant turning point in Arab-Persian relations, particularly with the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Following this event, Shiite clerics, known as Mullahs, ascended to political power under the leadership of the country's Supreme Leader, Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The establishment of the Shiite Mullah regime, leading to the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, intensified the existing Sunni-Shiite and Arab-Persian rivalries.

Since 1979, tensions between Arab Sunni states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and Iran, along with its Shiite proxies, have escalated. This rivalry has manifested in continuous conflicts and various forms of violence, perpetuating a cycle of animosity and distrust between Arab Sunni and Persian Shiite factions.

IV. Iran-Israel Relations: from a "Strategic Alliance" to "Death to Israel"

The Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 marked a significant shift in the country's foreign policy, particularly in its relations with Israel. During the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1941–1979), Iran and Israel enjoyed close ties, characterized by what could be described as a strategic alliance (Menashri, 2013). Iran, as a predominantly Shiite state in a region dominated by Sunni powers and historically hostile to its Muslim neighbors, saw Israel as a natural ally. Similarly, Israel, seeking legitimacy in the Muslim world, viewed Iran as an ideal partner. Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion even developed the concept of "the peripheral states," advocating for Israel to cultivate friendships with nations like Iran and Turkey, given its lack of diplomatic relations with immediate neighboring countries. These mutual interests fostered a strategic alliance between Iran and Israel prior to 1979.

However, with the rise of the Islamic regime in Iran, this era of close cooperation came to an abrupt end. The revolutionaries opposing the Shah regime viewed the United States, along with its staunch ally Israel, as supporters of the oppressive regime, thereby opposing the Westernization efforts backed by the Shah. This sentiment became a fundamental aspect of the revolution, emphasized repeatedly by Ayatollah Khomeini before and after the revolution. The chant "Death to Israel" became central to Iran's revolutionary rhetoric, especially following Israel's forceful response to the Palestinian intifada that began in late 1987, resulting in significant casualties on both sides (Pearlman, 2011).

Several factors have contributed to the deep animosity between Iran and Israel, including Iran's ideological rejection of Zionism and its alignment with the Palestinian cause, Israel's nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, and the pragmatic interests of other states and global superpowers. These factors have entrenched hostility between the two nations, shaping their interactions on the regional and international stages.

V. Iran, the United States, and the "Great Satan"

Historically, the United States was initially perceived positively in Iran as a counterbalance to the imperial ambitions of Great Britain and the Soviet Union. This perception dates back to World War I when President Woodrow Wilson advocated for self-determination for Persia at the Versailles Peace Conference (Harrison, 2020). Similarly, after World War II, President Harry Truman pressured the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from northern Iran, where they were supporting separatist movements (Ibid).

However, this positive perception began to change after the United States-backed overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. Mossadegh, seen as vulnerable to manipulation by Moscow amid the Cold War, was ousted, and the United States supported the Shah of Iran to maintain power, fearing Soviet influence in Persia (Soltaninejad, 2015). Many Iranians opposing the Shah's regime viewed the United States as complicit in his repression of the Iranian people. The anger towards the United States peaked during the Islamic Revolution in 1979 when many Iranians depicted America as "the Great Satan" (Harrison, 2020).

This sentiment was further exacerbated when Iranian students supporting the revolution seized the United States embassy in Tehran, holding fifty-two American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days (Ibid). Additionally, during the Iran-Iraq War, when Iraq invaded Iran out of fear that the 1979 Iranian Revolution would incite rebellion among its Shiite majority, the United States heavily supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with financial aid, political influence, and intelligence gathered by American spy satellites (King, 2003). This further fueled Iranian animosity towards the United States, viewing Washington as complicit in the Iraqi invasion of Iran.

VI. Conflicts in Turbulent Middle

In the preceding sections, we've delved into the key players involved in the conflicts emanating from the Middle East, their conflicting interests, and how their attitudes and actions have evolved over time based on their goals and aspirations. We've also discussed how these conflicts have manifested in regional warfare, political and financial support for certain regimes, as well as diplomatic maneuvering, revolutions, conspiracies, or coup attempts aimed at toppling others. Building upon this foundation, let's now examine the central components shaping the ongoing conflicts and the quest for regional dominance in a geostrategic context.

Both Iran and Israel embarked on early endeavors to acquire nuclear weapons, viewing them as strategic assets, especially in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. From Israel's standpoint, Iran's expanding influence in the region through proxy groups poses a significant threat to its security, territorial ambitions, and military supremacy in the region. Through targeted military operations in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, as well as wielding considerable lobbying power in Washington, Israel seeks to safeguard its geopolitical interests and maintain its legitimacy within the Muslim world. To further these objectives, Israel has even lent support to Sunni militants opposing Iranian proxies, notably aiding groups like the Nusra Front, an offshoot of Al Qaeda, in southwestern Syria's Golan Heights. This assistance has included medical aid and logistical support to Nusra Front fighters while they combat Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Syria and the Syrian government (Maher, 2018).

Concurrently, Iran's expanding regional activities have introduced a new dynamic into the Middle East, leading Gulf countries to increasingly rely on the United States to counter the perceived Iranian threat. This has resulted in an unprecedented convergence of interests between the Gulf states and Israel (Ibid). The collective aim of undermining Iran's growing presence in the region aligns the interests of the Gulf regimes, Israel, and the United States. The ongoing Iranian-Saudi rivalry has transformed Saudi Arabia into the largest importer of US weaponry, with arms deals totaling 13 billion USD over the past five years (Armistrong, 2020).

On the other hand, Iran has cultivated a robust network of allies, prominently including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, and Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Palestine. In Lebanon, Iran provides extensive support to Hezbollah, supplying them with thousands of rockets and financial assistance, which has contributed to political instability in the country. For instance, the assassination of Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, a close ally of Saudi Arabia, was linked to four Hezbollah operatives, according to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established by the United Nations Security Council. Hezbollah militants are actively engaged in conflicts in Syria and Yemen, with some receiving training in countries such as Iraq and Libya. Iranian support also extends to the Assad regime in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen's civil war. Moreover, following Iran's direct involvement of military forces in the Syrian and Yemeni conflicts and the signing of the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2015, tensions between Iran and Arab states have escalated, triggering an arms race in the Middle East.

The Ongoing Iran-United States Conflict: A Cold War Doctrine Perspective

The ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States is rooted in a Cold War-era strategic doctrine. The United States maintains a military presence in the region and imposes economic sanctions on Iran to deter its influence and weaken its capabilities. Conversely, Iran has expanded its strategic power through proxies, particularly in the aftermath of the Arab Spring and subsequent civil wars in the region (Maher, 2018).

The fall of Saddam Hussein provided Iran with an opportunity to advance its strategic defense doctrines, leveraging its ties to Shiite political leadership in Iraq. However, it was the Arab Spring and conflicts in Syria, Libya, and Yemen that further bolstered Iran's strategic position. Additionally, the mobilization of Shiite populations in Bahrain and Iraq, traditionally governed by Sunni minorities, and proxy conflicts in Pakistan have challenged Saudi Arabia and US interests in the region (Harrison, 2020).

The United States views Iran as a primary threat to its interests in the Middle East, exemplified by President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018. This decision was followed by the reinstatement of US sanctions, prompting provocative actions by Iran in the Persian Gulf. Since mid-2019, Iran and its proxies have attacked and seized commercial ships, targeted critical infrastructure in Arab Gulf states, launched missile attacks on US military facilities in Iraq, and supported proxies across the Middle East.

Given the complexity of these conflicts, the following paragraph will explore potential measures to facilitate peace efforts in the region.

VIII. Navigating Paths to Peace: Insights from Transcend Theory

Johan Galtung's transcend theory offers a nuanced approach to conflict resolution, emphasizing the importance of understanding, legitimacy, and creativity in peacemaking endeavors. Let's delve into a detailed exploration of practical measures inspired by Galtung's framework, tailored to address the complexities of various conflicts while upholding principles of international law, ethics, and human rights.

For Israel, the journey towards reconciliation involves:

• Embracing the reality of Israel's existence while acknowledging the shared land with Palestinians as more than just Jewish territory.
• Avoiding actions that exacerbate divisions among neighboring Arab states.
• Striving for equitable and respectful relations with Arab nations, including recognizing the significance of the Islamic faith.
• Considering border adjustments within the framework of the 1967 agreement to foster stability and inclusivity.

On the Palestinian and broader Arab front:

• Embracing a forward-looking mindset that prioritizes future prospects over lingering historical grievances.
• Demonstrating readiness for direct engagement in constructive negotiations.
• Envisioning a future founded on a two-state solution and actively collaborating to realize this vision.
• Exploring innovative approaches, such as leasing land from neighboring countries, to facilitate peaceful coexistence.

In the context of U.S.-Iran relations:

• Initiation of high-level diplomatic dialogues to cultivate mutual understanding and trust. - Recognition and reconciliation of historical tensions, including acknowledging past actions such as the Mossadegh coup.
• Exploring avenues for cooperation in mutually beneficial sectors like renewable energy. - Commitment to resolving disputes through diplomatic channels, refraining from resorting to military aggression.

Within the Gulf region:

• Commitment to non-interference in the internal affairs of fellow Arab nations, including conflicts in Syria and Yemen.
• Advocacy for inclusive solutions in Syria that respect the diverse sectarian makeup of the nation.
• Rejecting divisive strategies that seek to fragment Syria for strategic gain.
• Fostering a shift in media narratives away from portraying Iran as a perpetual adversary of the Sunni Muslim world.

In addressing conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen:

• Upholding the rights of all ethnic and religious groups to self-determination and autonomy.
• Prioritizing dialogue and negotiation over military intervention to achieve lasting peace.
• Taking proactive steps towards reconciliation and compensation for past harms and injustices.

Iran's role in regional stability entails:

• Cessation of support for militant groups in neighboring countries.
• Demonstrating openness to direct engagement and dialogue with relevant stakeholders.
• Pursuing internal reforms to promote democratic governance and transparency. - Adopting a pragmatic approach towards acknowledging Israel's presence in the region while fostering trust-building measures through reciprocal actions.

IX. Embracing Complexity: A Call for Peace

Throughout this discourse, we embarked on a journey through the intricate web of conflicts involving Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf states, and the United States. We delved into the historical roots of the Sunni-Shiite schism, the enduring Arab-Persian rivalry, and the evolving dynamics shaping relations among these nations over time. Our exploration revealed the myriad attitudes and actions of the involved parties, exposing the deep-seated disparities in interests and aspirations.

Drawing upon the insights of Galtung's transcend theory of peace, we endeavored to chart a course towards reconciliation in the Middle East. Through a series of proposed measures, we sought to offer pathways that could potentially pave the way for constructive peacemaking efforts. Yet, we remain acutely aware of the inherent limitations of this endeavor.

The complexities inherent in the region's conflicts defy easy resolution, and the scope of this paper only scratches the surface of a multifaceted landscape. Comprehensive understanding and sustainable solutions demand a depth of analysis that exceeds the constraints of these pages. Indeed, to adequately map the ongoing conflicts and prescribe viable pathways to peace, volumes of discourse may be required.

In conclusion, while our exploration has illuminated potential avenues for progress, it is but a small step in a much larger journey towards reconciliation and harmony in the Middle East. May it serve as a catalyst for deeper inquiry, constructive dialogue, and collective action aimed at realizing a future where peace prevails over strife.

.    .    .