During the twentieth century's second half, the Middle East knew more international wars, repression, civil wars, terrorism, and revolutionary insurgencies than any other area in the world. Aside from its quantity and wide distribution, Middle Eastern violence was most distinguished by two factors. First, compared to that of other regions, far more of it was inspired and supported by cross-border rather than by purely domestic factors. This does not negate the importance of ethnic, ideological, and factional struggles for control of specific countries elsewhere, but cross-border sponsorship of subversion in the Middle East far exceeded that in any other region. Second, while violence elsewhere in the world tended to occur in specific countries at particular points in time, conflict – government, intergroup, and interstate – was a far more universal and long-term phenomenon in the Middle East.

Why is force and violence so pervasive in the region? There are, of course, a number of unresolved issues; but, after all, disputes can also be resolved by negotiations or compromise without resort to violence. The most important answer to this question is that the methods used in handling conflict depend on the attitudes and goals of the parties involved. In a situation where individual states, groups, or ideologies seek regional conquest or reject other countries' sovereignty, force will be an important aspect of interstate relations. Where revolutionary forces believe themselves to possess absolute truth and reject the existence of other communities, violence is a favored option. When peaceful reform is blocked and when political goals are absolutist, bloodshed is a likely outcome.