Why is the Middle East the least peaceful region in the world research paper help

Why is the Middle East the least peaceful region in the world research paper help

Why is the Middle East the least peaceful region in the world and what can be done to improve stability and peace going forward? Explain and support your argument with evidence and citations.

Curious about why the Middle East faces so much unrest? At Reliable Assignments Help, we break down the reasons behind its lack of peace in simple terms. Our research paper assistance digs into historical events and current issues, using clear evidence to explain the situation. We don’t just stop there – we also suggest practical ways to make things better. With our help, you’ll understand the Middle East’s challenges and how to promote peace in the region.

Why is the Middle East the least peaceful region in the world research paper- Structure of a Paper

7-10 Page Research Paper – Structure

Introduction (1/2 to 1 page) (1/2 page)

State the problem and all (or both) sides, (Scholar A argues this, scholar B argues that), then take a side and tell how the paper will support that argument.  State what you’re going to say. “In this paper I will give supporting evidence to demonstrate that scholar A has the more compelling argument based on case studies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.”

Background (1-2 pages) (1/2 – 1 page)

State the history of the problem, the first time the problem arose or was realized… and bring us to the present.

Supporting Evidence (3-4 pages) (2 – 3 page)

Say it.  Give arguments from majors thinkers in the field for your argument.  Give historical examples and empirical evidence as to why your argument is correct.

Arguments against (1-2 pages) (1/2 – 1 page)

Give arguments from major thinkers in the field AGAINST,  and historical examples against.  Are they exceptions to the rule or have these examples been misinterpreted?

Conclusion (1-2 pages) (1/2 page)

Wrap it up.  Say what you said. “In this paper I have given supporting evidence to suggests the most effective policy in dealing with_____ is______ as demonstrated by_____, ______, _____ and ____…”

Avoid colloquialisms:  common, conversational everyday phrases

“when push comes to shove”, “all hell breaks loose”, “First of all…”

“a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, “a fate worse than death”

“a picture is worth a thousand words”, “a piece of the action”

“all that glitters is not gold”, “busy as a bee”, “accidents waiting to happen”

“bite the hand that feeds you”, “raining cats and dogs”

“heard it through the grapevine”, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”

“like a chicken with its head cut-off”,  “Not only that…”

“the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing”

“there’s more than one way to skin a cat”, “gazillion”, “off the hook”, “to be honest”

“Personally speaking…”  “For me…”  “It is hard to believe…”  “Let’s say…”                    “no big deal”, “hot off the heels”

No informal language: Do NOT write like you speak!!!!!


He is intent on following this policy.          NOT    He’s going to follow this policy.


Avoid anecdotes:

“My grandpa two years ago had this problem and he says…”

Other common problems:

“I think…”, “In my opinion”…  State which scholars are making the argument…. Everyone knows it’s YOUR opinion… YOU WROTE IT!!!!!

“John Stoessinger argues that the individual level of analysis in war studies is more productive analytically since it is the individual leaders who make the final decision to go to war.  Geoffrey Blainey disagrees.  He makes the case that it is the long-term, underlying forces that lead to war and thus, the system-level of analysis is a more fruitful predictor of war behavior in the international system.”

“I think Blainey’s argument is more compelling on several fronts….”          NO!

“Blainey’s argument is more compelling on several fronts…”                     YES!!!

“In my opinion, Stoessinger’s argument is more sound as I will demonstrate in…” NO!

“Stoessinger’s argument is more sound as I will demonstrate..                  YES!!!!

NOTHING IS “PROVEN“… There is “compelling evidence to demonstrate…”  

                                                                “the preponderance of evidence suggests…”

                                                         “the empirical data to establish ______ is conclusive…”

www.thesaurus.com – keep this site open whenever you write!!!

AVOID absolute terms such as “always”, “never”, “only”, “any”, “every”, “everyone”, “no one”, “no doubt”, “perfect”, “entire”, “none”, “just”, “all” etc.

Avoid using “SAID” as an adjective as it is business/legal term that means “aforementioned”  and is not appropriate for a paper that is not a legal document… It is pretentious… you could just as easily use the word “that”…  

AVOID OBVIOUS STATEMENTS – “Throughout history many events have happened.”   “War is terrible.”  “War leads to many deaths and destruction”

‘than’ is a comparative term… it is used to compare things… “THIS rather than THAT”… ‘then’ is used when referring to time…  “Don’t worry about doing it now.  It was already done then.”

adverse                    averse

cease                        seize

allude                       elude                             CHECK YOUR VOCABULARY!!

lose                           loose                             Check your HOMOPHONES!!

success                     succession

too                            to, two

eminent                   imminent

accept                      except

Be Clear Write Precisely

Bad:  “People don’t know things and they vote for the wrong thing and people’s issues suffer the consequences.”

Good:  “Voters are ignorant of public policy and they vote for demagogues who exploit their ignorance, employ destructive public policy and national problems get no solutions.  The result is increased taxes, inflation and high public debt.”


Human beings are social creatures needing to live in groups.  As a society we have to solve problems.  As humans evolved solving the problem of living in groups led to the necessity for solving collective action problems.  One of the most difficult collective action problems to solve is the puzzle of distributing resources.  Among the most difficult policy problems to solve in the distribution of resources is energy.  While we all need energy, sustainable energy is needed so that the world has an energy source that won’t be depleted or exhausted.  One such energy source that is underappreciated as a sustainable energy source is nuclear energy.


Nuclear energy is an underappreciated source of sustainable energy.

AVOID TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT – We all need sustainable energy so that the world has an energy source that won’t be depleted or exhausted.

Tautology – Using different words to state the same thing twice in the same sentence, usually the thing and its definition.   

Professorspeak:  needlessly complex, convoluted and intricate writing that obfuscates rather than clarifies – The Best writers fall victim

NO:   The inimitable research of Stoessinger’s text literalizes the signifiers of dismantling the concepts and the idolatrous deception of prevailing movements within war theory’s transcendent attachment to the reification of the global context as a skeletal framework for the analysis of individual-level assessments on the plane of misperception in the decision-making sphere.

YES: Stoessinger’s research emphasizes the individual-level of analysis in war making decisions.

Not keeping track of the subject of your sentence…

NO:   Stoessinger’s analysis in his case study of World War I showing alliance patterns were not the cause, could have been avoided as wars are initiated by individual humans beings, not alliance patterns.

Stoessinger’s analysis could have been avoided??? 

YES: Stoessinger’s analysis demonstrates that WWI could have been avoided as individual human beings were making the decisions, not abstract concepts such as alliance patterns

“Marx’s alienation is when workers are deprived of freedom by the division of labor.”


“Marx’s theory of alienation deprives people of their freedom in the division of labor.”


It is interesting to see

With that being said

It is hard to believe

Stoessinger’s approach is interesting

most, if not all (well, which is it?  most or all?  this indicates you don’t know…)

Avoid simplistic, one-dimensional arguments:  “This war was caused by oil.”  “Religion is the reason for Middle East Conflict.”  “The economy is in recession because Republicans are evil.” (or Dems… I’m not being partisan).

“The 2008 financial crisis was caused by greed.” “Arms races cause wars.”

Avoid phantom causes such as the nebulous idea of “greed”… what SPECIFICALLY caused those chain of events and what were the PROXIMATE vs. the ULTIMATE cause??  Are you arguing only PROXIMATE and NOT ULTIMATE causality?

Have an analyst MINDSET… Don’t moralize:

“War is bad… Bad things happen in war… And it’s started by bad people who hate… and so don’t be bad and don’t hate.  And we have to realize how bad these bad, hateful people are… and how very bad war is… and the good people like me have to stop these bad, hateful people.  Because those bad, hateful people love war and have hate.  So don’t hate and be bad.   Be enlightened by my moralizing and pontification about how bad and hateful war is and how very bad, bad, hateful people are, and be good like me.  Not bad, like those bad, hateful people.  Because war is bad.” 

“The evidence demonstrates that those who are against minimum wage are racist.”      

 …  “This is not FAIR.”

Please note… “fairness” is NOT an objective concept… what’s fair to you may not be fair to me…  It’s NOT SO OBVIOUS.  So don’t make arguments along these lines.  That’s moralizing.  Rather, be more precise and outline policies that will achieve specific policy results. Something like…

“Therefore the most compelling evidence demonstrates that incremental increases in minimum wage will result in the reduction of long-term, persistent poverty for the targeted demographic across the varied economic conditions in our case studies.”

YOU DON’T NEED TO MAKE THE “FAIR” ARGUMENT because it’s already presumed that the argument you are making is for the greater good.  Otherwise you would not be making it.  So don’t waste your time moralizing… It’s already understood that you think it’s “FAIR”

Avoid “Good vs. Evil”  EVEN IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY… stay disciplined… and unemotional…

“Those who disagree with me are misogynist, homophobic, racist, ignorant or malevolent.”   

There are no perfect solutions… so stop trying to find one… and certainly don’t claim that your solution is perfect…   There are only optimal, not perfect solutions.


Don’t TRUST.. verify… DATA doesn’t lie… Politicians do…