Historically, religious conflict has occurred when two distinct religions meet at a specific geographic frontier or border (i.e. Ireland/England, Pakistan/India, Yugoslavia, etc.). In each of these cases, religion was not necessarily the exclusive source of conflict, but quickly established itself as the focal point around which individuals defined their identity. Although the differences between the two groups may have been numerous (political, economic, cultural, etc.), religion provided the easiest and most prominently accessible tool for mass mobilization and identity differentiation. Once this shift occurs, the religious identities become so salient that all future interactions tend to be defined along religious lines, which in turn lends itself to intractability. This paper argues that globalization has fundamentally changed the nature of international interactions and has eliminated geographic proximity as a necessary condition for the development of religious conflict. Groups previously isolated from one another now find themselves interacting to a degree never before seen in history. While much of the world has accepted globalization, certain groups (i.e. Al-Queda) have viewed it as a threat to their lifestyle and have reacted with force and religious rhetoric. U.S. response to these actions (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, support for Israel, etc.) has been perceived as overzealous by many in the Middle East and has sparked a growing frustration with U.S. foreign policy. Although many within the region may not have initially seen this conflict along religious lines, Islam provides the most prominent and convenient forum for articulating their frustrations. The similarities between the current U.S./Islamic tensions and the early stages of other historic religious conflicts are striking. In this paper, parallels are drawn between previous intractable religious conflicts (Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia) and the current developing conflict between the United States and the Islamic world. Although the United States has made a concerted effort to declare a war on “terror” and not Islam, the perceived threat associated with current U.S. foreign policy behavior is encouraging the redefinition of Middle Eastern identity in Islamic terms and creating the possibility of intractable religious conflict on a global scale. Ironically, it appears that the use of conventional military and political approaches to the war on terror will likely exacerbate and strengthen the Islamic identity of individuals in the Middle East contrary to the desires of the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]