The Regional-Supremacy Trap and Middle Eastern Disorder

Researchers Seyed Masoud Mousavi Shafaee and Vali Golmohammadi define the current Middle East instability as the "regional-supremacy trap."
The "trap" occurs when a power vacuum seduces influential actors into pursuing regional hegemony, resulting in a series of endless, cumulative conflicts.
The Middle East has transitioned into a "battle zone," which is an area of chronic instability where no single party holds full control and external powers refrain from direct engagement in order construction.
In the absence of consensual norms, institutions, or balancing mechanisms, the region is characterized by failed states, sectarianism, refugee crises, and humanitarian disasters.

The international system is transitioning from a unipolar structure characterized by American unilateralism ( $1990$ - $2005$ ) to an "age of entropy" or fragmented multipolarity.
US involvement shifted towards "offshore balancing" under the Obama and Trump administrations to reduce military overextension and pivot to Asia.
While Russia and China have increased engagement (trade, energy, and security), they serve as competitors rather than architects of a new regional order.
The Middle East occupies a weakened position in the global economy, characterized as an absentee from the "space of flows" and the global value chain, making external powers less sensitive to its internal crises.

Saudi Arabia: A status quo power with a GDP of $740$ billion that utilizes "omni-balancing" with Western patrons to contain threats from non-Arab rising powers like Iran and Turkey.
Turkey: A revisionist actor pursuing "geopolitical exceptionalism" and "neo-Ottomanism" to position itself as a central, order-instituting actor in the Arab world.
Iran: A counter-hegemonic power that has established the "Resistance Front" (including Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon) to challenge the Western-structured order and delegitimize rivals like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The conflict in Syria ( $2011$ - $2019$ ) demonstrates that none of these actors possess the resources to dictate priorities to their rivals, leading to prolonged stalemate.

Prioritization of Region over Power: Leaders wrongly assume that geography is the sole determinant of their power projection and that they must be the regional hegemon to improve international status.
Misperception of Absolute Dominance: Aspirants fail to recognize they lack the necessary financial superiority, ideational resources (non-ethnic/non-racial attractions), and institutional capacity required for true hegemony.
Inefficiency of Strategies: Powers pursue dominance in all areas simultaneously, leading to zero-sum games that erode material capabilities.
The quest for supremacy focuses on becoming the "strongest power in a weak region" through military deterrence rather than building "efficient states in a stronger region," ensuring the syndrome of disorder continues for the foreseeable future.