One of Joe Biden’s last consequential decisions as president was allowing Ukraine to strike deep within Russia using advanced American missile technology. This action marked a significant step up the escalation ladder. Vladimir Putin has warned that such actions could place Russia on a war footing with NATO. Biden’s risky decision reflects a broader problem of deterrence failure and the absence of military restraint in an increasingly multipolar world. Complicating matters further, Russia’s response—such as deploying advanced missile systems and tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus—signals a significant escalation using more advanced technologies that upend traditional deterrence frameworks.
Deterrence has long been a cornerstone of international security. Yet in today’s multipolar world, where power is decentralized and alliances are fluid, maintaining effective deterrence is increasingly challenging. This does not mean that multipolarity and deterrence are inherently incompatible. Instead, new deterrence strategies are needed to address the complexities of a gray-zone conflict environment characterized by incrementalism, asymmetrical power dynamics, attribution problems, and rapid technological change.
The foundational works of political scientists like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have shown how multipolar systems reinforce power asymmetries and rapid shifts in alliances. These dynamics also create uncertainty about adversaries’ resolve, complicating risk assessment. Stronger states, less deterred by weaker adversaries, may become emboldened to act aggressively. Moreover, technological advancements such as near-zero-miss precision-guided weapons—including Russia’s hypersonic missiles—make escalatory strategies more tempting. These technologies blur the line between conventional and nuclear strategic doctrines, while emerging capabilities like electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons and drones further complicate military strategy and operations.
In today’s geopolitical landscape, characterized by a multi-nodal world of regional theaters, fundamental shifts in the balance of power rarely result from outright military conquest. While major powers still rely on their conventional forces, they often fail to achieve broader geopolitical goals through the use of force alone. U.S. interventions in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), and Libya (2011), as well as Russia’s intervention in Ukraine (2022), highlight this trend.
The divergent priorities and different values among NATO members, EU states, and the United States have complicated efforts to confront Russia. This discord has shifted collective action from deterrence to “compellence” and ultimately to a proxy war. The lack of consensus on end goals and prioritized actions within the Western alliance underscores this challenge. For instance, while the United States expects other NATO members to align with its strategy of opposing Russia, countries like Poland and the UK adopt far more hawkish stances, even courting direct war with Russia. Conversely, Turkey and Hungary pursue multi-aligned strategies to avoid unnecessary confrontation with Moscow. These diverging approaches and a general disregard for the strategic autonomy of member states have enabled more bellicose NATO members to draw reluctant states into a prolonged proxy war with no clear diplomatic resolution — a classic case of alliance entrapment.
President Biden’s Ukraine policy has often appeared inconsistent and incoherent. Influenced by figures like Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, the administration pursued a confrontational stance against Russia and China simultaneously. This approach reflects the Blob’s dissatisfaction with how the Ukraine crisis was managed under Obama and Trump, as well as concerns over Europe’s greater economic and energy integration with Russia, exemplified by the bipartisan opposition to Nord Stream II. Even before Russia’s 2022 intervention, the U.S. sought to punish and isolate Moscow through sanctions for its annexation of Crimea. These actions, while non-military, fall within the “gray zone” of conflict, characterized by propaganda, sanctions, and cyber tactics. However, weaponizing the gray zone often risks unintended military escalation.
Ethnic dynamics have also played a significant role in the Russia-Ukraine war as exploiting sectarian divides and identity politics is a hallmark of gray-zone conflicts. Moscow justifies its actions as necessary for protecting ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking populations in Crimea and the Donbas from alleged threats posed by Ukrainian nationalists. While this narrative serves broader strategic aims such as maintaining Russia’s interests and civilizational expanse in its near-abroad, it underscores how ethnic and nationalist tensions coupled with a state’s aggressive geopolitical reorientation can produce and escalate security dilemmas. Russia’s intervention reflects its perception that acting now outweighs the risks of long-term inaction.
One reason for the breakdown of deterrence between Russia and the U.S. lies in the logic of escalation. While the threat of higher costs is meant to deter hostile actions and encourage diplomacy, both sides seem locked in a game of brinkmanship, repeatedly testing each other’s tolerance for risk. This uncoordinated escalation increases the likelihood of catastrophic outcomes. Failures of deterrence often stem from failures in coordination and communication, underscoring the importance of clear red lines. The U.S.-led Global West’s repeated disregard for Russian red lines about NATO expansion and its supply of advanced military equipment and training to Ukraine only made Russia’s intervention in 2022 more likely.
A critical factor in deterrence breakdown is the absence of strategic empathy—the ability to understand an adversary’s distinctive geopolitical situation and historical perspective. Since 1989, cognitive biases, a Manichaean belief in the triumph of liberal ideology, and universalist thinking have shaped a primacist U.S. policy, leading to misinterpretations of Russian behavior. Instead of attributing Russia’s actions to intrinsic hostility, permanent imperial ambition, or Putin’s state of mind, Western policymakers must consider situational and geopolitical factors and take ownership of their own role in provoking the conflict. This shift is essential for reducing tensions and avoiding strategic missteps.
The transatlantic security community must recognize that rival powers like Russia cannot be decisively defeated nor fully isolated; they must be effectively deterred. With a credible threat of retaliation, deterrence dissuades adversaries by convincing them that the costs of aggression outweigh the potential benefits. Unlike strategies of absolute victory or “new containment” however, deterrence avoids the pitfalls of overreach, exorbitant spending, and heightened risks of global war.
Policies aimed at total victory demand high-risk strategies like escalation dominance, which depend exclusively on military readiness and proactive use of force. These approaches are destabilizing and ill-suited to engaging in realpolitik and economic competition with a host of great and middle powers ascendant in today’s polycentric world. Conversely, effective deterrence integrates robust military capabilities with diplomacy, negotiation, and clear communication channels with adversaries to manage gray-zone conflicts and prevent miscalculations and escalation spirals. A shift toward military restraint emphasizes the complementary power of strength and peace and allows America to recalibrate a foreign policy establishment that has struggled with unrestrained and poorly executed interventions over the past two decades. By embracing these changes, the U.S. and its allies can better navigate the complexities of a multipolar world.
The Western powers have failed to effectively manage the increasing threat of proliferation in the Middle East. While the international community is concerned with Iran’s nuclear program, Saudi Arabia has moved forward with developing its own nuclear program, and independent studies show that Israel has longed possessed dozens of nuclear warheads. The former is a member of the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), while the latter has refused to sign the international agreement.
On Middle East policy, the Biden campaign had staunchly criticized the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal and it has begun re-engaging Iran on the nuclear dossier since assuming office in January 2021. However, serious obstacles remain for responsible actors in expanding non-proliferation efforts toward a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.
This panel will discuss how Western powers and multilateral institutions, such as the IAEA, can play a more effective role in managing non-proliferation efforts in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Peggy Mason: Canada’s former Ambassador to the UN for Disarmament
– Mark Fitzpatrick: Associate Fellow & Former Executive Director, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
– Ali Vaez: Iran Project Director, International Crisis Group
– Negar Mortazavi: Journalist and Political Analyst, Host of Iran Podcast
– David Albright: Founder and President of the Institute for Science and International Security
Closing (5:45 PM – 6:00 PM ET)
What is the current economic landscape in the Middle East? While global foreign direct investment is expected to fall drastically in the post-COVID era, the World Bank reported a 5% contraction in the economic output of the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries in 2020 due to the pandemic. While oil prices are expected to rebound with normalization in demand, political instability, regional and geopolitical tensions, domestic corruption, and a volatile regulatory and legal environment all threaten economic recovery in the Middle East. What is the prospect for economic growth and development in the region post-pandemic, and how could MENA nations promote sustainable growth and regional trade moving forward?
At the same time, Middle Eastern diaspora communities have become financially successful and can help promote trade between North America and the region. In this respect, the diaspora can become vital intermediaries for advancing U.S. and Canada’s business interests abroad. Promoting business diplomacy can both benefit the MENA region and be an effective and positive way to advance engagement and achieve foreign policy goals of the North Atlantic.
This panel will investigate the trade and investment opportunities in the Middle East, discuss how facilitating economic engagement with the region can benefit Canadian and American national interests, and explore relevant policy prescriptions.
Panelists:
– Hon. Sergio Marchi: Canada’s Former Minister of International Trade
– Scott Jolliffe: Chairperson, Canada Arab Business Council
– Esfandyar Batmanghelidj: Founder and Publisher of Bourse & Bazaar
– Nizar Ghanem: Director of Research and Co-founder at Triangle
– Nicki Siamaki: Researcher at Control Risks
The Middle East continues to grapple with violence and instability, particularly in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Fueled by government incompetence and foreign interventions, terrorist insurgencies have imposed severe humanitarian and economic costs on the region. Meanwhile, regional actors have engaged in an unprecedented pursuit of arms accumulation. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have imported billions of both Western and Russian-made weapons and funded militant groups across the region, intending to contain their regional adversaries, particularly Iran. Tehran has also provided sophisticated weaponry to various militia groups across the region to strengthen its geopolitical position against Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel.
On the other hand, with international terrorist networks and intense regional rivalry in the Middle East, it is impractical to discuss peace and security without addressing terrorism and the arms race in the region. This panel will primarily discuss the implications of the ongoing arms race in the region and the role of Western powers and multilateral organizations in facilitating trust-building security arrangements among regional stakeholders to limit the proliferation of arms across the Middle East.
Panelists:
Luciano Zaccara: Assistant Professor, Qatar University
Dania Thafer: Executive Director, Gulf International Forum
Kayhan Barzegar: Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the Science and Research Branch of Azad University
Barbara Slavin: Director of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council
Sanam Shantyaei: Senior Journalist at France24 & host of Middle East Matters
The emerging regional order in West Asia will have wide-ranging implications for global security. The Biden administration has begun re-engaging Iran on the nuclear dossier, an initiative staunchly opposed by Israel, while also taking a harder line on Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. Meanwhile, key regional actors, including Qatar, Iraq, and Oman, have engaged in backchannel efforts to bring Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table. From a broader geopolitical perspective, with the need to secure its energy imports, China is also expected to increase its footprint in the region and influence the mentioned challenges.
In this evolving landscape, Western powers will be compelled to redefine their strategic priorities and adjust their policies with the new realities in the region. In this panel, we will discuss how the West, including the United States and its allies, can utilize multilateral diplomacy with its adversaries to prevent military escalation in the region. Most importantly, the panel will discuss if a multilateral security dialogue in the Persian Gulf region, proposed by some regional actors, can help reduce tensions among regional foes and produce sustainable peace and development for the region.
Panelists:
– Abdullah Baabood: Academic Researcher and Former Director of the Centre for Gulf Studies, Qatar University
– Trita Parsi: Executive Vice-President, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
– Ebtesam Al-Ketbi: President, Emirates Policy Centre
– Jon Allen: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Israel
– Elizabeth Hagedorn: Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor
Military interventions, political and economic instabilities, and civil unrest in the Middle East have led to a global refugee crisis with an increasing wave of refugees and asylum seekers to Europe and Canada. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has, in myriad ways, exacerbated and contributed to the ongoing security threats and destabilization of the region.
While these challenges pose serious risks to Canadian security, Ottawa will also have the opportunity to limit such risks and prevent a spillover effect vis-à-vis effective humanitarian initiatives in the region. In this panel, we will primarily investigate Canada’s Middle East Strategy’s degree of success in providing humanitarian aid to the region. Secondly, the panel will discuss what programs and initiatives Canada can introduce to further build on the renewed strategy. and more specifically, how Canada can utilize its policy instruments to more effectively deal with the increasing influx of refugees from the Middle East.
Panelists:
Erica Di Ruggiero: Director of Centre for Global Health, University of Toronto
Reyhana Patel: Head of Communications & Government Relations, Islamic Relief Canada
Amir Barmaki: Former Head of UN OCHA in Iran
Catherine Gribbin: Senior Legal Advisor for International and Humanitarian Law, Canadian Red Cross
In 2016, Canada launched an ambitious five-year “Middle East Engagement Strategy” (2016-2021), committing to investing CA$3.5 billion over five years to help establish the necessary conditions for security and stability, alleviate human suffering and enable stabilization programs in the region. In the latest development, during the meeting of the Global Coalition against ISIS, Minister of Foreign Affairs Marc Garneau announced more than $43.6 million in Peace and Stabilization Operations Program funding for 11 projects in Syria and Iraq.
With Canada’s Middle East Engagement Strategy expiring this year, it is time to examine and evaluate this massive investment in the Middle East region in the past five years. More importantly, the panel will discuss a principled and strategic roadmap for the future of Canada’s short-term and long-term engagement in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Ferry de Kerckhove: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Egypt
– Dennis Horak: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
– Chris Kilford: Former Canadian Defence Attaché in Turkey, member of the national board of the Canadian International Council (CIC)
– David Dewitt: University Professor Emeritus, York University
While the United States continues to pull back from certain regional conflicts, reflected by the Biden administration’s decision to halt American backing for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen and the expected withdrawal from Afghanistan, US troops continue to be stationed across the region. Meanwhile, Russia and China have significantly maintained and even expanded their regional activities. On one hand, the Kremlin has maintained its military presence in Syria, and on the other hand, China has signed an unprecedented 25-year strategic agreement with Iran.
As the global power structure continues to shift, it is essential to analyze the future of the US regional presence under the Biden administration, explore the emerging global rivalry with Russia and China, and at last, investigate the implications of such competition for peace and security in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Dmitri Trenin: Director of Carnegie Moscow Center
– Joost R. Hiltermann: Director of MENA Programme, International Crisis Group
– Roxane Farmanfarmaian: Affiliated Lecturer in International Relations of the Middle East and North Africa, University of Cambridge
– Andrew A. Michta: Dean of the College of International and Security Studies at Marshall Center
– Kelley Vlahos: Senior Advisor, Quincy Institute
The security architecture of the Middle East has undergone rapid transformations in an exceptionally short period. Notable developments include the United States gradual withdrawal from the region, rapprochement between Israel and some GCC states through the Abraham Accords and the rise of Chinese and Russian regional engagement.
With these new trends in the Middle East, it is timely to investigate the security implications of the Biden administration’s Middle East policy. In this respect, we will discuss the Biden team’s new approach vis-à-vis Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The panel will also discuss the role of other major powers, including China and Russia in shaping this new security environment in the region, and how the Biden administration will respond to these powers’ increasing regional presence.
Panelists:
– Sanam Vakil: Deputy Director of MENA Programme at Chatham House
– Denise Natali: Acting Director, Institute for National Strategic Studies & Director of the Center for Strategic Research, National Defense University
– Hassan Ahmadian: Professor of the Middle East and North Africa Studies, University of Tehran
– Abdulaziz Sagar: Chairman, Gulf Research Center
– Andrew Parasiliti: President, Al-Monitor