By challenging security issues in the context of mainstream studies, critical scholars have opened up space for new understandings of conict and security in Middle Eastern regions.
Although the Gulf war's conflicts along with the Madrid peace process-opened the door for the Middle East peace talks, such developments created the context for seriously pursuing Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) in the early 1990s. It was clear that regional players in the post-Cold War period would be able to acquire this challenge of taking a more active role in ensuring their security in the regional context. However there were still some common security concerns that needed to be addressed through cooperative means.
The 1990 Damascus declaration was the start of new military alliances between the Arab states and West for which the talks inaugurated between the issue of Israel and Middle East (Barnett, 1996). In an effort to digest the constraints confronted in the Arab-Israeli conflict, there left no option other than for the national security policies to rely either on weapons build-ups or deterrence in their attempts to deal with conventional and non-conventional threats. Therefore scholars and practitioners in order to secure the security realm of the Middle East started exploring the notion of mutually beneficial cooperation based on the progress of the bilateral peace negotiations.
Since the think tanks were already taking keen interest in assessing the possibilities for creating some kind of regional security structure that would easily manage regional security threats in a comprehensive manner, therefore all they could engage themselves into was the analysis of conditions under which the Middle East could achieve regional security cooperation, or create a regional security regime.
All they decided was the deployment of new policies and implications regarding arms assessment, force planning, along with the defense budget (Stephen, 1996). The armed think tanks of Middle East after realising the weaknesses they confronted in Iraq's war, developed new assessment and force planning methodologies that highlighted the technical loopholes of Iraq's forces and resulted in the perception that such weakness is due to the immense difference between Iraq's skill imbalance and the inoperative latest technology (Stephen, 1996).
Such vigorous analysis on the part of Iraq's think tanks is criticised by many theorists among whom Zeev Maoz's analysis presents broad regional security conceptions which predicate on fundamental approaches to national security (Maoz et al, 2004, p. 3). He denies the above decision of deploying new policies and presents three such approaches in order to evaluate the complexities of the contemporary security problems in the Middle East, the neorealist, liberal and revisionist traditions. By connecting these approaches one comes to the conclusion of how regional security patterns should be progressed. Furthermore Zeev Maoz believes that making an assessment of regional security prospects merely on the basis of regional outcomes is insufficient as they may prove misleading. In this context what he