Abstract:
This thesis examines conflicts in the Middle East through the theoretical lens of Raymond Hinnebusch’s core-periphery (C-P) structural dichotomy of conflict. The core represents the weak Arab states while the periphery is the powerful non-Arab regional states. Hinnebusch’s theoretical proposition implies that the weakness of the core fuels regional ambitions and instigates transnational regional conflicts. By mapping the Syrian war, this thesis unravels the dynamics of the violence and reveals regional power struggle for control, primarily that of Turkey and Iran over Syria.
This research exercise reveals the extent to which Hinnebusch’s C-P conception of the Middle East is relevant in Syria. The main hypothesis examined suggests that the greater the C-P imbalance, the greater intensity and protraction of social conflicts at the core. Such a proposition synthesizes the regional and the social views of protracted conflicts as formulated by Raymond Hinnebusch and Edward Azar. Accordingly, conflict resolution interventions are forecasted within this theoretical framework. Given structural deficiencies in state and social construct at
the core, this thesis suggests that management rather than resolution will remain the realistic choice for conflict transformation throughout the years to come.
