Middle East

Please provide a clear, logical, coherent, and empirically supported answer to the following questions:1. The region is arguably the epicenter of world crisis. It appears, according to Hinnebusch, to be the area where the anarchy and insecurity remains most in evidence and where the realist paradigm retains its greatest relevance. Yet, Hinnebusch contend, neo-realism’s a-historical tendency to assume states systems to be unchanging, made up of cohesive rational actors, and the chief determining factor in shaping state behavior everywhere is quite inadequate to understand the area. Moreover, realism’s assumption that conflict is chiefly the inevitable byproduct of a states system’s anarchy misses the main causes of the Middle East’s exceptional war and instability. Hinnebusch further argues that while realism assumes the congruence of national identity and the state, and hence imagines states as cohesive units whose policymakers pursue the “national interest,” in the Middle East region no such national interest can be assumed.Indeed, foreign policy making in the region, proposes Hinnebusch, is immensely complicated by the high level of incongruence between states and identity. Among the consequences of this incongruence are pervasive presence of irredentism, an exceptional challenge imposed by the sub- and suprastate identities competition with state identity, which inspire transstate movements and constrain purely state-centric behavior. What does Hinnebusch means by the above arguments? Explain the nature and scope of the dynamic interaction between the state, substate, and suprastate identities and outline which paradigm/theory/perspective of international relation is applicable at which phase of the interaction.