Usually, any civil war is accompanied by a side discussion battle, which revolves around the primary cause of it. During which each side goes to absolve itself of the sin of the first reason that led to the catastrophe of the war in an effort to hold the other responsible for what happened. The continuum of causation becomes a major feature of these discussions. However, these verbal battles do not reach an agreed-upon reason about who led everyone to the labyrinth of war. With attempts to research the actions and responses of war, the discussion becomes more like the famous dilemma "Who came first: the egg or the chicken?" What is certain is that the failure to stop before the war, to prevent events from slipping into violence, is what worsens the reality and makes the parties continue to march until they reach the result of violent confrontations.

While emphasizing the importance of examining the causes of war, as a prelude to setting up treatment mechanisms and ways to prevent similar ones in the future, however, during the bloody war period and the continuous loss of casualties, the talk about who launched the first embers of war seems to be a worthless talk, at least from a practical point of view. Because at that time the conflict would have rolled into new areas that generate multiple reasons every day for the continuation and fueling of hostilities. And every violation that accompanies the course of the conflict becomes a full circle of war bearing its own reasons and motives. Thus, the issue of the proliferation of war circles seems to be what deserves discussion and deliberation. That is: how to reduce this sequence of reproduction and stop the spawning of causes, and not waste time in a side battle to answer a question withdrawn retroactively.

In fact, civil wars are a very complex phenomenon in which many social, psychological, economic and, above all, political causes overlap. It is established that every entity seeks to obtain an ideal situation, in its view, through which it achieves its aspirations, and tries to ward off the danger generated by its circle of fears.

 To some parties, especially those fascinated by their own power, the war appears at first glance to be a short course; She sees that she achieves many of those aspirations in a shorter time. In reality, however, it extends like a boundless holocaust, leaving many victims, both within and without, and creating a state of constant instability. At the same time, it represents a dangerous case of failure, which affects some societies, suspending the paths of soft understandings. The line of fire becomes the way to express needs and fears.

The darkest parts of civil wars fall when external causes are included in the bank of their causes, so they become hybrid wars without features, in which the original causality is lost and its motives are replaced by others. In this case, the parties involved in the wars do not know where to stop

This does not mean that we lose sight of the range of civilians affected by these wars, who pay an expensive bill, either for the aggressiveness of the conflicting parties who do not care about human losses, or because these groups share common affiliations with the parties to the conflict; Thus, they become vulnerable to serious violations. This motivates some of those who rejected the war at its beginnings to become - forcibly - part of it; Because the violations committed against him created sufficient grounds for him to go to war. These reasons may not have anything to do with the main causation of the war.

The darkest parts of civil wars fall when external causes are included in the bank of their causes, so they become hybrid wars without features, in which the original causality is lost and its motives are replaced by others. In this case, the parties involved in the wars do not know where to stop; Because the conflict for the same conflict becomes the dominant feature of the course of events, and the decisions of peace and war become in the hands of external parties who do not see the contexts of the conflict except through their own interests, and not for the benefit of the state of general peace in the society in which the war takes place. And because the conflict is far from its territory, it usually does not matter when it stops.

There is incubation of interests generated by these wars, which with the passage of time becomes the most logical causation; It is the interests and revenues reaped by the war champions. The length of the war produces new dynamics that generate a network of interests from which the leaderships involved in it benefit. The perpetuation of war leads to greater returns where its cessation means nothing but cessation of interests and revenues. Therefore, warlords from the conflicting parties have common reasons that make them maintain the vitality of conflicts and work to prevent them from ending.

In returning to the answer to the chicken-egg dilemma of conflict, we may not know which came first at the outbreak of war; But the facts prove to us that the egg of the interest and its chicken come together in the priority of warlords, who do not care about the numbers of casualties, no matter how extended.