Crisis management and conflict resolution can be viewed as complementary, consecutive sequences of activity to which superpowers resort in order to constrain and then mitigate acutely threatening “adversary crises of the local balance. The superpowers assigned priority to the requirements of prudent crisis management when they were intimidated by the potential for escalation; containing the global crisis made it necessary to manage the local crisis. The structural realities of the Middle East were conducive to “influence parity” relationships between the superpowers and their regional allies. The reluctance to become engaged indiscriminately in Third World areas obviously implies that future security commitments by both superpowers will be limited to the indispensable minimum. Forging a superpower bloc in order to tackle the basic sources of turbulence and conflict in a given area required a broad base of external and internal support. The most basic and essential of these is that neither superpower shall initiate military action against the forces of other superpower.
|Title of host publication
|Conflict Management in the Middle East
|Taylor and Francis
|Number of pages
|Published - 1 Jan 2019
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 1992 by Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Social Sciences