Although the (conflict approach) is the main factor that shaped the features and determinants of this region, it has multiplied in a frightening and terrifying way for more than thirty years, and the lines of conflict and engagement have become intertwined in a way that is difficult to even describe, let alone sort them out and determine their causes. This complexity is due to: (the number and type of influential actors, the size and nature of the intended goals and objectives, the cultural, religious, political and security characteristics of the region and its peoples, the extent of the influence of external factors in it, the relationship of power with the peoples, its uniqueness in a number of features and characteristics), which made every approach that provides an explanation for what is happening in it carry some truth, but it does not provide a complete and comprehensive explanation. Moreover, expectations and forecasts seem almost impossible in light of the profound transformations that occur during close times, so looking at them from a distance capable of seeing the scene in its appropriate size seems a great challenge for those who want to draw a picture of the present and future of the region. There are thousands of approaches that try to grasp the main axis of this conflict, and with this wide diversity, it can be said that they are represented in two main trends. The first: sees that energy, specifically oil, is the center of the region’s conflicts, and the second: says that religion is the center and around it all other conflicts revolve. There is no doubt that each of these two trends enumerates other centers of conflict, but considers them secondary in comparison to the center. Based on these two trends, readings, analyses, and approaches to solutions come. Those who believe in the centrality of energy find it easy to describe and dissect the scene, as a set of objective data appears that helps with this ease, while the second trend suffers from the difficulty of grasping the evidence and data that indicate the centrality of religion, and the approaches to solutions are difficult, and almost impossible in many cases, as pragmatism is widely available based on the energy/oil approach, but it is difficult and impossible for the second trend, as there we talk about interests and here we talk about principles, and the general path in the perspective of the centrality of energy tends towards the necessity of maintaining the rhythm of the conflict, while religion as a center of conflict in the second trend feeds the state of tension and escalation to the maximum possible, and works to mobilize with all the means it has.

You can download the article in full