The persistence of political violence in the Middle East raises a fundamental humanitarian and political question: to what extent can the political survival of authoritarian, populist, nationalist, or religiously oriented leaders become structurally connected to the continuation of military confrontation? This article examines the hypothesis that, in political systems where leaders derive legitimacy from permanent insecurity, national mobilisation, religious polarisation, or external confrontation, peace and comprehensive social welfare may constitute a political challenge rather than merely a humanitarian objective. The argument does not claim that every regional leader consciously creates war solely for personal enrichment or political survival. Rather, it proposes that political systems can develop incentives in which prolonged conflict strengthens executive power, suppresses political opposition, redirects public attention away from domestic failures, expands security institutions, and generates economic opportunities for state-linked actors.
