How can we understand conflicts within a single framework — whether geographical, cultural, or political? Conflict is a constant in history, manifesting in different forms over time. For instance, how do we explain long-standing internal struggles? Why do conflicts persist, evolve and resurface in new ways?
Looking further back, similar conflicts arose between the Yemenis and the Nizari, the Qahtanis and the Adnanis, and even between northern and southern Arab kingdoms in the Arabian Peninsula. Though tribal alliances and interests have shifted, the core conflicts remained.
The most dangerous of these were armed confrontations, which fuelled hatred and division among people who shared the same land and culture. These struggles led to significant political, cultural and psychological transformations, making the region vulnerable to foreign interference — from Persian rule to British influence. However, the focus here is not on the consequences of these conflicts but on understanding their nature.
The nature of war is to weaken both sides. Although each party seeks to defeat the other, war ultimately destroys more than just the losing side. Decades of established structures and relationships are shaken, and even the so-called victor suffers losses. Consider World War II: the Allies defeated the Axis powers, yet at an immense cost. According to the United Nations, the war claimed 40 million civilian lives and 20 million military deaths — half of them from the Soviet Union, one of the victors.
Another example is the fall of the Baath regime in Iraq in 2003 following the American invasion. The collapse of the government created a power vacuum, exacerbated by US administrator Paul Bremer’s decision to dissolve the Iraqi army and security forces. This led to deep divisions, foreign interference and the rise of militant groups that spread beyond Iraq. Iran, once a bitter enemy, became the most influential force in Iraqi politics. This shift is striking, given that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, fought a devastating war against Iran from 1980 to 1988 — ironically encouraged by the US at the time.
Whenever a system collapses, internal and external instability follow. The resulting vacuum invites further divisions, power struggles and foreign manipulation. A clear example is Israel, which has exploited regional instability to launch repeated military campaigns against Palestinians. With neighbouring states weakened, Israel has acted with increasing aggression, justifying its war efforts under the pretext of combating resistance — resistance that is only natural given its occupation.
Even flawed political systems maintain a certain balance within the broader geopolitical structure. Their sudden collapse disrupts this balance, allowing fragmented groups to compete for dominance, often leading to prolonged internal strife. External forces exploit these divisions, preventing stability and progress. Without unified leadership, small factions remain weak, easily manipulated, and incapable of effective governance. Instead of fostering stability, they struggle for survival, fuelling further disorder.
Change is a natural force that affects individuals and societies alike. It drives movement and transformation, much like the Earth’s rotation and gravitational pull. Stability and movement coexist in a delicate balance — one pushing forward, the other maintaining order. If either collapses, the other follows. This dynamic applies to societies as well: the old gives way to the new, which in turn becomes old and is replaced again. However, for change to be meaningful, it must be continuous. Without movement, even the most promising new structures fail, and even the most established systems crumble.
Conflict follows a dialectical process, as Karl Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism suggests. This framework helps explain historical transformations. By recognising these patterns, we see that internal divisions are not simply acts of self-destruction but signs of change and renewal. Although conflicts may seem chaotic, they often drive progress, even when the immediate costs are high. However, resistance to change — whether due to rigid cultural or political structures — deepens struggles, widening the circle of conflict and causing widespread losses.
To truly understand conflict, we must acknowledge the common goal underlying both stability and change: the pursuit of what is best. Since this ideal is relative, it must adapt to shifting conditions. Achieving this requires honesty, self-reflection and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Real change comes through open criticism, acceptance of differences, correction of mistakes and the promotion of ethical values. Societies that uphold these principles foster stability and growth. Meanwhile, those that prioritise appearances over substance remain trapped in endless cycles of conflict and decline.
Translated by Badr al-Dhafari
The original version of this article was published in Oman Arabic newspaper on February 9, 2025
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
