Recent Posts
External Appearances, Middle East and North Africa, Press Room
External Commentary, Middle East and North Africa, Press Room
SECTION
logo
mobile-logo

Engineered Vulnerabilities: How U.S. Grey Zones Undermine Canadian Autonomy

In-Depth
Through ambiguity, incrementalism, and hybrid blending, the United States can systematically erode Canada’s authority, legitimacy, and capacity while preserving the outward appearance of cooperation.
Written By:
Share:
A “Best Case Scenario” has been prepared by the author in response to the engineered vulnerabilities report. The scenario  provides a useful forecast of Canada’s Strategic Symmetric Interdependence.
 
Canada becomes a country that possesses the Authority to decide, the Legitimacy to lead, and the Capacity to act independently. The “Best Case Scenario” can be found here, along with a detailed vulnerabilities impact assessment here. 

There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the possibility that the Trump administration might take control of Canada by force. This perceived threat of “invasion” arises against the backdrop of  U.S. intervention in Venezuela, Donald Trump’s desire to seize and occupy Greenland, and ongoing efforts to destabilize Iran. 

The threat of the U.S. relying on military coercion to control a NATO ally has become front-page news in Canada and elsewhere, suggesting that Canadians are deeply concerned about this issue. However improbable a war with America might be, the reality is that the U.S. already has in place a number of strategies that can and will be leveraged to its advantage to achieve its strategic objectives.

These levers of influence fall within the grey zone of conflict and render the  need to formally occupy Canada redundant. The grey zone refers to coercive statecraft that operates between war and peace, using ambiguity, incrementalism, and unconventional tactics to achieve strategic objectives without triggering full-scale military responses. 

The grey zone refers to coercive statecraft that operates between war and peace, using ambiguity, incrementalism, and unconventional tactics to achieve strategic objectives without triggering full-scale military responses. 

U.S. grey-zone pressure would likely manifest through non-kinetic strategies that exploit the blurred boundary between alliance cooperation and coercion. Rather than overt confrontation, these actions interact with Canada’s existing vulnerabilities, steadily constraining Ottawa’s policy autonomy while remaining below the threshold of a diplomatic crisis.  Open societies like Canada, defined in part by transparency, free markets, and civil liberties, are especially vulnerable to disinformation and the manipulation of social divisions.

We have already witnessed how the U.S.  leverages shared institutions, such as NORAD and CUSMA, to its advantage. With 76% of its exports going to the U.S., Canada’s heavy reliance on the U.S. market is a source of leverage. The threats of trade disruption pressure Ottawa to adopt U.S.-aligned positions on third countries, a dynamic evident during NAFTA/CUSMA renegotiations. 

Legal avenues, such as requests for Meng Wanzhou’s extradition or pushing for Huawei 5G bans, allowed the U.S. to shift political risk onto Canada, making it the “front line” of U.S.-China disputes. Similarly, access to security cooperation and research funding through initiatives like USICA and NORAD modernization remains conditional on following U.S.-defined rules, effectively constraining Canadian control over national security and innovation policy.

The U.S. exploits Canada’s normative and credibility challenges by positioning itself as a more reliable partner. In response, Canadian policies that limit scientific collaboration with U.S. adversaries like China, such as those under STRAC and NSGRP, ensure that sensitive data and intellectual property flow primarily to Five Eyes partners, reinforcing a U.S.-centric research ecosystem. 

Highlighting Canada’s selective application of counter-interference measures, focusing on U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia and India while ignoring others, allows Washington to argue that Ottawa is an unreliable partner unless it aligns with the U.S., pressuring Canada to adopt U.S.-style counter-interference laws. Domestic influences on Canadian foreign policy, including diaspora lobbying, are framed as compatible with U.S. guidance, reducing the perceived loss of Canadian independence.

The U.S. also leverages Canada’s capacity vulnerabilities, including R&D funding gaps and reliance on international partnerships, to integrate the country into U.S. supply chains and innovation networks. By replacing foreign funding with U.S. research grants, Washington gains control over Canadian research agendas and outputs. 

Funding restrictions and USICA priorities encourage top researchers to move to the U.S. and elsewhere, draining Canada’s scientific talent. Investment screening reforms, such as Bill C-34, further limit Canada’s economic options, ensuring that alignment with U.S. supply chains becomes the only viable path forward.

Looking ahead,  this paper identifies three grey zone strategies that are likely to be deployed by the U.S. to strengthen American control over Canada. These three strategies are Ambiguity, Incrementalism and Hybrid Blending, a combination of military and non-military tools. At stake is Canada’s economic, political and military sovereignty. 

The ALC Framework – Authority, Legitimacy and Capacity

The following summarizes how each of these strategies would impact Canada. The analysis draws on the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP)  project’s Authority, Legitimacy and Capacity (ALC) state fragility framework. 

The ALC framework can be used as an analytical bridge between grey zone strategies and concrete state vulnerabilities, adapting the CIFP authority–legitimacy–capacity model to assess how allied coercion operates below the threshold of war. Authority captures the degree to which Canada retains sovereign decision-making autonomy in the face of U.S. ambiguity, incrementalism, and hybrid tactics. This is focused particularly on Ottawa’s ability to set independent economic, legal, and security policies without being structurally compelled by U.S rules, sanctions, or institutional dominance. 

Legitimacy refers to domestic and international confidence in the Canadian government’s right and ability to govern. In turn, these elements can be eroded when U.S pressure, disinformation, or selective enforcement makes Ottawa appear incapable of defending national interests or controlling internal cohesion. 

Finally, capacity measures the material and institutional resources Canada can mobilize to respond to coercion, including economic resilience, defence readiness, innovation ecosystems, and administrative bandwidth. All of these elements of governance can be hollowed out through dependency, resource diversion, and strategic overextension.

 In sum, the ALC framework systematically traces how grey zone strategies translate into cumulative harm to sovereignty by showing where pressure enters the system, how it degrades state functions, and why traditional alliance assumptions fail to capture these dynamics.

The ALC framework systematically traces how grey zone strategies translate into cumulative harm to sovereignty by showing where pressure enters the system, how it degrades state functions, and why traditional alliance assumptions fail to capture these dynamics.

Interpretation and Examples of U.S.-Induced Ambiguity

1.  Weakening Authority: Sovereignty Erosion through Policy Uncertainty

Ambiguity weakens state control when the U.S. creates confusion over response thresholds, forcing Canada into a reactive stance that compromises its sovereign decision-making. The U.S. currently exploits constraints on Canadian autonomy to align Ottawa with Washington’s priorities, effectively using Canadian decision-making bodies as extensions of its regulatory reach. By making compliance with U.S. secondary sanctions and export controls a de facto requirement for Canadian entities, Washington can limit Canada’s policy independence without direct negotiation. 

 

 Key issues here include:

  • The “Zombie CUSMA” Scenario: In early 2026, experts have warned of a “Zombie CUSMA” where the U.S. refuses to renew the trade pact while not explicitly withdrawing, instead triggering constant annual reviews. This creates a permanent state of economic ambiguity that prevents the Canadian government from establishing long-term domestic industrial policies.
  • Targeted Resource Demands: The U.S. may demand “poisonous concessions” regarding drug trafficking or illegal migration in exchange for tariff exemptions, forcing Canada to choose between its own legal frameworks and economic survival. 

2. Undermining Legitimacy: Support for Internal Destabilization

Ambiguity undermines public trust when citizens perceive their government as unable to protect national interests from a supposed “ally”. 

  • Grey MAGA Funding & Disinformation: A plausible scenario involves U.S.-based “grey MAGA money” fuelling independence movements (e.g., in Alberta) or anti-government protests. If Washington provides tacit approval or refuses to acknowledge these as foreign interference, it creates a “grey zone” where the Canadian government looks ineffective in managing its own borders and internal cohesion.
  • Questioning Election Integrity: U.S. political leaders could publicly label Canadian electoral results as “fake” to support sympathetic domestic factions, directly eroding the legitimacy of the Canadian democratic process. 

3. Straining Capacity: Strategic Abandonment & Resource Denial

Ambiguity strains intelligence and security resources when the U.S. intentionally obscures its level of commitment to mutual defence. 

  • Restrictive Access to Critical Tech: The Canadian Armed Forces are heavily dependent on American technology for the F-35 fighter jet and the North Warning System. By “ambiguously” delaying software updates or spare parts—perhaps citing “national security reviews”—the U.S. could degrade Canada’s military readiness without a formal break in relations.
  • Territorial Provocations: The U.S. might increase unilateral actions in disputed areas like the Northwest Passage or the Arctic, treating them as international waters while maintaining a superficial alliance. This forces Canada to exhaust its limited naval and surveillance capacity to monitor an ally that is acting like a competitor. 

CIFP Indicator

U.S. Ambiguity Tactic (2026 Scenario)

Resulting Harm

Authority

Refusing to clarify CUSMA renewal status.

Prevents sovereign economic planning.

Legitimacy

Refusing to condemn U.S.-based funding for Canadian separatists.

Erodes trust in federal governance.

Capacity

Delaying software/parts for US made military hardware.

Cripples military operational readiness.

Interpretation and Examples of U.S.-Induced Incrementalism

In 2026, Grey Zone Incrementalism is interpreted as a “boiling the frog” strategy where the United States applies continuous, low-intensity pressure to force Canadian concessions. Unlike a sudden shock, these actions are designed to  steadily hollow out Canadian autonomy. 

1. Eroding Authority: 'Salami-Slicing' Trade Sovereignty

Incrementalism erodes state sovereignty by making small, ‘salami-sliced’ demands that gradually transfer regulatory control from Ottawa to Washington.

  • Sectoral Tariff Creep: Rather than a blanket trade war, the U.S. would repeatedly impose “minor” tariffs on specific sectors like autos, steel, and aluminum to use as leverage in ongoing, never-ending negotiations.
  • Regulatory Harmonization Pressure: The U.S. has incrementally pushed for greater access to Canada’s protected markets, such as dairy (supply management), by challenging specific tariff-rate quotas one by one rather than the whole system at once. This forces Canada to make “poisonous concessions” piecemeal to maintain market access. 

2. Reducing Legitimacy: 'Thickening' of the Border

Legitimacy falls when the public loses confidence in the government’s ability to maintain a functional and secure border without American permission.

  • The “Border Crisis” Rhetoric: Continued negative rhetoric from Washington about the security of the Canada-U.S. border is predicted to lead to a “thickening” of the 49th parallel in 2026. This gradual increase in inspections and delays at crossings like the Windsor-Detroit Ambassador Bridge makes the Canadian government appear incompetent at managing the country’s most vital economic artery.
  • Forced Policy Shifts: Under the pressure of incremental border slowdowns, the Canadian government may be forced to adopt U.S.-style immigration or security policies, making it look like a “vassal state” in the eyes of the public. 

3. Diverting Capacity: 'Strategic Hollowing' of Defence and Industry

Incremental actions divert resources by forcing Canada to spend heavily on “reactive” measures, depleting funds that would otherwise go to sovereign development.

  • Maintenance of Legacy Systems: By slightly delaying or making more expensive the upgrades for shared systems like the North Warning System and related military equipment, the U.S. forces Canada to divert its limited defence budget into maintaining aging infrastructure rather than innovating.
  • Capital Flight Due to Uncertainty: Prolonged, incremental uncertainty surrounding the 2026 CUSMA review acts as a constant “drag on investment”. Canadian businesses are forced to divert capacity toward legal compliance and “trade war” contingency planning instead of R&D and expansion. 

CIFP Indicator

U.S. Incremental Tactic (2026 Scenario)

Cumulative Harm

Authority

Sectoral tariffs (steel, aluminum, autos) used as negotiation leverage.

Gradual loss of control over domestic industrial policy.

Legitimacy

Intentional “thickening” of the border through slow-walking inspections.

Public perception of government inability to protect trade.

Capacity

Prolonged dependence on legacy defence systems  and uncertainty on trade leads stalling business investment.

Long-term hollowing out of Canadian productive capacity.

Interpretation and Examples of Hybrid Blending 

In 2026, the Blending of Military and Non-Military Tools (Hybrid Tactics) by the United States would manifest as “Multi-Domain Coercion.” This strategy involves synchronizing economic pressure, informational warfare, and military positioning to force Canadian concessions while avoiding a traditional conflict. 

1. Overwhelming Authority: Weaponizing Interdependence

The U.S. challenges Canadian governance by leveraging its control over critical systems on multiple fronts simultaneously, leaving Ottawa with no clear domain to counter-escalate.

  • The “Digital Joint Fire Support” Lever: Canadian Army projects, such as the Digital Joint Fire Support C2 software, are being restricted to U.S.-only technology and software updates. By blending this military dependency with trade threats, the U.S. can force Canada to adopt American foreign policy—such as specific Arctic stances—to maintain its basic defence operability.
  • “Pay-to-Play” Market Access: The U.S. uses its National Security Strategy to demand “sole-source contracts” for American firms in Canada. This blends economic statecraft with security arguments, effectively press-ganging Canada into becoming a “vassal” for U.S. industrial goals. 

2. Exploiting Legitimacy: Disinformation as a Trade Tool

The U.S. exploits societal divisions to weaken public trust in the Canadian government’s ability to protect the nation’s interests.

  • Narrative Warfare on Drugs/Migration: U.S. officials have been noted to use disinformation campaigns—claiming Canada ‘subsidizes’ its own economy while ‘pouring drugs’ into the U.S.—to justify punitive tariffs. This hybrid tactic turns the American public against Canada while making the Canadian government appear ineffective at home for failing to stop the “ever-moving target” of U.S. demands.
  • Support for Internal Dissent: In 2026, planners are wary of U.S.-based “grey MAGA money” fuelling separatist movements in Alberta or elsewhere. If the U.S. then labels the resulting Canadian government response as “oppressive” or the elections as “fake,” it directly attacks the legitimacy of the Canadian state. 

3. Overextending Capacity: Strategic Distraction and Resource Depletion

Hybrid tactics force Canada to respond to multiple crises at once, draining resources and diminishing overall national resilience.

  • Coordinated Border & Energy Stress: The U.S. might combine a managed migrant surge at the border with threats to displace Canadian heavy crude exports using Venezuelan oil. This forces Ottawa to exhaust its intelligence, security, and diplomatic capacity across three distinct but related crises: border security, energy economics, and refugee management.
  • The Arctic Chokehold: By increasing unilateral military posturing in Greenland and disputed Arctic waters while simultaneously imposing sectoral tariffs on autos and steel, the U.S. forces Canada to choose between spending its 2026 budget on defending northern sovereignty or bailouts for its manufacturing sector. 

CIFP Indicator

U.S. Hybrid Tactic (2026 Scenario)

Harm Realized

Authority

Restricting F-35/C2 software while demanding sole-source contracts.

Forces Canada into U.S.-aligned policy for defense survival.

Legitimacy

Disinformation about “drug flows” to justify tariffs.

Public loses faith in the gov’s ability to manage the U.S. relationship.

Capacity

Managing border surges while responding to oil export displacements.

Exhausts national security and economic reserves.

The Path Forward

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the primary threat to Canadian sovereignty does not stem from the prospect of overt U.S military coercion, but from the cumulative effects of grey-zone strategies embedded within an asymmetric alliance. Through ambiguity, incrementalism, and hybrid blending, the United States can systematically erode Canada’s authority, legitimacy, and capacity while preserving the outward appearance of cooperation. These strategies exploit structural dependencies in trade, defence, innovation, and institutional governance, forcing Ottawa into a reactive posture that constrains independent policy making without triggering formal diplomatic rupture. The result is not conquest, but managed subordination. This is an outcome that is politically deniable yet strategically consequential.

These strategies exploit structural dependencies in trade, defence, innovation, and institutional governance, forcing Ottawa into a reactive posture that constrains independent policy making without triggering formal diplomatic rupture. The result is not conquest, but managed subordination.

The application of the ALC framework underscores why traditional alliance assumptions are insufficient for understanding contemporary Canada–US relations. Authority is weakened not by direct coercion but by policy uncertainty and regulatory entanglement; legitimacy is undermined when allied pressure and disinformation make the Canadian state appear ineffective or dependent; and capacity is hollowed out through sustained resource diversion, technological dependency, and strategic overextension. Taken together, these dynamics reveal how sovereignty can be degraded incrementally, even among close allies, through the weaponization of interdependence.

The central policy implication is that Canada must recalibrate how it conceptualizes and manages its relationship with the United States. Rather than treating the alliance as inherently benign, Ottawa must recognize it as a strategic relationship that carries both benefits and risks. Reducing critical dependencies, diversifying economic and research partnerships, strengthening domestic democratic resilience, and developing clearer thresholds for allied coercion are essential steps toward restoring strategic autonomy. Future research should focus on identifying concrete counter–grey zone strategies that Canada can deploy to preserve sovereignty while sustaining cooperation based on Ottawa’s terms. 

Reducing critical dependencies, diversifying economic and research partnerships, strengthening domestic democratic resilience, and developing clearer thresholds for allied coercion are essential steps toward restoring strategic autonomy.
The CIFP Framework section of this analysis was completed using information collected by Gemini.
Author
csm_david-carment_2_ff4555d8fa
David Carment
David Carment is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy and a Professor at Carleton University.
Panel 4: Pathways to Manage Non-Proliferation in the Middle East (4:30 PM - 5:45 PM ET)

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)

Panel 3: Trade and Business Diplomacy in the Middle East (3:00 PM - 4:15 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

Panel 2: Arms Race and Terrorism in the Middle East (12:00 PM - 1:15 PM ET)

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

Panel 1: Future of Diplomacy and Engagement in the Middle East (10:30 AM-11:45 AM ET)

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

Panel 4: Humanitarian Diplomacy: An Underused Foreign Policy Tool in the Middle East (4:30 PM - 5:30 PM ET)

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

Panel 3: A Review of Canada’s Middle East Engagement and Defense Strategy (3:00 PM - 4:15 PM ET)

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

Panel 2: The Great Power Competition in the Middle East (12:00 PM - 1:15 PM ET)

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

Panel 1: A New Middle East Security Architecture in the Making (10:30 AM -11:45 AM ET)

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