Apply ONE theory of the causes of political conflict to ONE case of actual conflict to help explain why/how the conflict occurred.IntroductionAlthough there are many theories which can be relied on to explain the context and the emergence of a political conflict, this article will focus on the “misperception theory”. The main objectives of this article are to clearly document and explain the different facets of misperception theory, to effectively explore the different means by which decisions based on this theory can affect state policy and the good -be of the state, and reveal how exactly the theory of misperceptions can help. researchers to understand how and why conflict arises. This article will use misperception theory to illustrate how and why the United States and Britain overestimated the military pedigree and threat of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Their misperception of the situation ultimately led the two superpowers to combine forces and invade the Gulf State in 2003. Introduction to Misperception TheoryTo understand and clearly explain how the US invasion of Iraq United and Great Britain in 2003 can be seen as an example of misperception theory. , we must first understand precisely what misperception theory entails and encompasses. It is essential that we understand exactly how misperception theory can lead to conflict and how an influential head of state can misperceive a situation/event. A common definition of misperception theory describes it as "the gap between the world as it actually exists and the world as it is." exists in the mind of the perceiver” (Duelfer and Dyson, 2011). This definition, however, depends on a crucial assumption, namely that there is both a single objective reality and multiple subjective realities. The key difference...... middle of paper......our is then taken as evidence of this malicious intent. The “image of the enemy” becomes resistant to change and extremely difficult to discredit. Therefore, information received by state leaders that is consistent with this “enemy image” must pass a much lower threshold of perception to attract the leader's attention (Duelfer and Dyson, 2011). The subsequent consequence is that the decision maker, usually the head of state, can then make a decision based on this information. The “image of the enemy” has become so ingrained and the response so automatic that the head of state may inadvertently misperceive the situation and view the enemy as posing a much greater threat than he realizes. actually is. President Bush fell victim to this process in his assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and launched an invasion of Iraq based on this misperception 2003.