The ongoing Iran war has resulted in insightful commentary ranging from the limits of American power to more hyperbolic claims of Iran being ‘fourth global power’, owing to Tehran’s ability in leveraging the Strait of Hormuz to influence global energy markets and potentially challenge the long-term viability of the U.S.-backed petrodollar system. Yet a broader conclusion may be drawn from these developments, one that extends beyond the familiar narrative of American decline and Iranian resilience. What is increasingly evident is a general global trend towards polycentrism that will fundamentally undermine attempts to dominate the planet by any singular power.
The Iranian example illustrates the core elements coming together. A state with roughly natural borders and defensive terrain can turn itself into a fortress, capable of withstanding a massive conventional attack even with an unpopular government and a deeply polarized society. Iran’s status as an ancient and culturally rooted historical entity occupying a specific and defensible location for countless generations creates a kind of amalgam that punches well above its weight in geopolitical competition.
It also creates a sense of national interest which is not tied to a particular faction of the ruling elites but rather puts the nation as a whole first, effectively making the country immune to any decapitation strikes. Historically, Iran has been conquered repeatedly throughout its history, by Macedonian, Turkic, and Mongol invaders alike, but such defeats generally occurred during periods of internal fragmentation, ossified leadership, imperial overstretch, or under dynasties unable to unify the broader political order.
The lesson Iran took from its modern history was that vassalage to outside powers from Great Britain and Russia to the United States compromises state viability. With the 1979 Revolution, Tehran decided never to outsource its security again. Only a political system integrating autarky and elite solidarity with a firm basis in the mountains and cities of Iran could turn the country as a whole into a fortress to preserve Iran’s sovereignty while making it more resistant to external manipulation.
This bitter reality has been learned anew by several Arab states in the Persian Gulf, whose attempt to offshore their defense did little to shield them from Iranian missiles launched from heavily fortified bunkers. Given its strategic depth, Iran is also uniquely positioned with a set of circumstances not everyone can recreate: its southern neighbors’ flat plains and open spaces are more difficult to defend, and they also suffer from an absence of solidarity around a national or cultural project that can sustain the kind of unity and willpower needed for defense.
The episode also revealed that certain middle powers such as Iran have distinct geographical, situational, and regional advantages that allow them to challenge conventional great powers in specific circumstances. Recent delusions fostered by the American monopoly on global force projection seem to have caused many to forget how frequent it is for relatively small actors with enduring resolve and capability to thwart the designs of stronger conventional powers.
During the Global War on Terror, non-state actors such as the Taliban proved this much under conditions of full-scale foreign occupation and state failure: much more can be expected from proper middle powers possessing sophisticated, modern state infrastructure.
Statesmanship matters too. History is replete with prudent and patriotic leaders such as Robert Bruce, George Washington, and Vo Ngyen Giap, who successfully turned their country’s tactical vulnerabilities into strategic dominance by adopting an indirect approach to war. They leveraged a greater understanding of the unique geography of their country into power projection that transcended simple military deployment. What this means for invaders is that once a political community is fully tethered to a specific geographic location, its adversaries cannot simply defeat the people to force their will upon them, but must overcome the very land they inhabit. This is a task which is far more difficult for an outsider than simply achieving victory on the battlefield.
Even minor states like North Korea can pull above their weight in their near abroad due to their unique spatial context. While policymakers in Washington often focus on Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal, that deterrent became viable largely because the country successfully exploited its geographic advantages in the first place: mountainous terrain, a narrow peninsular configuration, and maritime buffers on both coasts. North Korea also complemented those natural advantages through the political doctrine of Juche, gradually shifting away from its original internationalist communist worldview into a more sovereigntist, nationalist, and autarkic posture. Historically, many more nations have also made themselves regional hedgehogs, serving as stumbling blocks to great power schemes of expansion.
Furthermore, proper middle powers have been quietly marshalling their strength in preparation for a more multipolar world. Wrestling with its future grand strategy, Japan is expanding its defense industry as the nation specializes in defensive naval warfare. Turkey is leveraging its vital control over the Strait of Marmara and its defensible plateau in Anatolia to become a fundamental lynchpin of both Black Sea and Mediterranean power competition. As a long-lived culture complex that was reborn as a modern state in an act of resistance against foreign attack in the aftermath of World War I, the Republic of Turkey occupies a specific place in the world—independent of the ideological commitments of any particular government or leader. It is a legacy state, and this historical lineage gives it disproportionate regional weight comparable to Iran’s.
The larger lesson today is that the unipolar moment has ended, and global hegemony is ultimately a pipe dream. Given the rising costs of global interventionism, a clear pattern emerges: the more a great power engages in faraway military interventions in search of primacy, the more it confronts prohibitive expenses, overextends its resources, and risks geopolitical quagmire and inevitable embarrassment.
Taken together, these developments suggest that the dominant strategic trend of the twenty-first century is one of anti-globalism in security affairs and a renewed emphasis on regionalism. Regional states that are capable of hardening themselves into independent power nodes will prioritize strategic autonomy over abstract ideology and globe-spanning alliance networks that distract from their near abroad.
Increasingly, establishment Atlanticist narratives that attempt to frame geopolitics as ideological struggle such as “democracy against authoritarianism” or artificial binaries such as “a New Cold War” will ring hollow. The same goes for the Russian fixation on being a kind of reactionary counter-liberal force against a ‘decadent west’. Moving forward, spatial realism will be hard to ignore, shining the spotlight on regional relationships and how the embeddedness of power in a specific land offers advantages in one’s near abroad that fades with distance. The obvious strategic implication is that lesser/middle powers can check and limit the global reach of great powers in specific regions, helped by their unique geography and asymmetric strategies of war.
As such, geographic characteristics like mountains, harbors, straits, and forests are likely to gain a far larger strategic weight akin to the classical period, decentering the ideologues, lobbyists, and even defense contractors. The growing ability of countries with natural borders to defend themselves has put paid to the idea of endless securitized globalization. In such an environment, achieving (global) primacy by any single power will be an increasingly unattainable goal.
For great powers such as the United States, it’s imperative to adapt their grand strategy to work with various regional powers; in turn, this means abandoning the decades-old, post-Brzezinski neoliberal doctrine that was geared to undermine these regional anchors. Meanwhile, the globalists and Boltonians, who made a career out of waging wars of choice against middle powers of geographic endurance like Iran, must confront a stark reality: Tehran’s rising regional power is no accident, but a turning point fueled by decades of primacist overreach and blindness to geography.
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
