Foreign policies of Hamas and Hezbollah during the Syrian civil war: Sectarian dynamics and material considerations

Hamas and Hezbollah have adopted divergent foreign policies during the Syrian civil war, despite their historically close relations and strategic collaborations among themselves and with Syria. The prevailing academic literature posits that sectarian factors predominantly account for this disparity. Nonetheless, this study contends that material considerations, rather than sectarian dynamics, were the primary determinants in this divergence. In line with this argument and drawing upon the theoretical framework of the "Ideational vs. Material" debate, this study conducts a comparative analysis using the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) to analyze the primary research question — What explains the divergent foreign policy choices of Hamas and Hezbollah during the Syrian civil war? The findings of the empirical study challenge the notion that Hamas' alignment with Sunni opposition groups was primarily sectarian. Instead, it was driven by pragmatic assessments of strategic interests expected from changing regional dynamics, like the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, support provided by Hezbollah to the Assad regime, often perceived as sectarian loyalty, was also underpinned by material and strategic imperatives, particularly in relation to its ties with Iran. Overall, this research demonstrates the primacy of material considerations, contrary to prevailing arguments that attribute the divergence to sectarian affiliations, i.e. ideational priorities of these non-state actors. This study also offers new perspectives on how both ideational and material factors influence the foreign policy decisions of non-state actors within comparable geopolitical environments.