Six Takeaways on the War and the Arab World
Six Takeaways on the War and the Arab World
Scholars convened by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law’s Program on Arab Reform and Development identify six ways the conflict is testing the limits of Arab states' alliances, economic ambitions, and prospects for reform.
As the U.S.-Israel war with Iran escalates, Arab governments find themselves navigating one of the most difficult and delicate security challenges in decades. At a recent panel hosted by the Program on Arab Reform and Development at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), scholars examined how Arab states are responding to the conflict and what it reveals about the evolving regional order.
The panel brought together Sean Yom, Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University and Senior Fellow at Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN), Lisa Blaydes, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, and Hesham Sallam, Senior Research Scholar and Associate Director for Research at CDDRL and Associate Director of its Program on Arab Reform and Development, who reflected on the geopolitical, economic, and institutional consequences of the war. Their discussion converged on six key takeaways about how the conflict is reshaping the political landscape of the Arab world.
1. The War Reflects a Long Pattern of U.S. Intervention in the Region
From the perspective of many governments in the Arab world, the confrontation with Iran fits into a long-standing pattern of American military intervention in the region.
“This is the fifth decade in a row,” Yom observed, “where the United States at some point has tried to overthrow some sovereign government in the Middle East and North Africa.”
From Libya in the 1980s to Iraq in the 1990s and 2000s and Libya again in the 2010s, the region has repeatedly been drawn into cycles of U.S. military involvement.
The persistence of great-power intervention means that Arab states must constantly navigate the risks of aligning with global power politics.
2. U.S. Security Partnerships Can Make Arab States Targets
Yom highlighted a paradox shaping the strategic environment of Arab states: the closer their security ties with the United States, the more vulnerable they may become in a regional confrontation.
“For the most part,” Yom explained, “the intensity of Iranian counterstrikes and retaliation on Arab states covaries with the degree of their relationship with the United States.”
States hosting American military bases or deeply integrated into U.S. security strategy are more likely to find themselves on the frontlines of Iranian retaliation.
“The more of a client state they are, the more troops they host, the deeper their foreign policies are tied to the demands of American grand strategy — then the more likely they are going to be struck.”
This dynamic creates a fundamental strategic dilemma.
For decades, small and medium-sized states in the region have relied on alliances with Washington to enhance their security. The current conflict illustrates how those same alliances can also increase their exposure to regional escalation.
3. Arab Governments Are Trying to Avoid Being Seen as Participants in the War
Arab governments today face a difficult balancing act: responding to Iranian attacks while avoiding the perception that they are fighting alongside the United States and Israel. Many Arab governments must navigate public opinion that is deeply skeptical of Israel and wary of Western military intervention in the region.
As Sallam put it, these governments are trying to avoid creating “the impression that they are fighting alongside the United States and Israel in this war.”
The result is a diplomatic tightrope: condemning attacks on their territory without being drawn into the broader conflict.
4. A Regional War Threatens the Gulf’s Economic Transformation Projects
A fourth major takeaway concerns the economic stakes of regional stability.
Blaydes emphasized that wars can have far-reaching political economy consequences. Major conflicts reshape investment patterns, redirect state resources toward security priorities, and increase global perceptions of risk.
When governments must divert resources toward defense spending and crisis management, economic diversification plans can quickly lose momentum.
For Gulf regimes that have tied their political projects to visions of economic modernization, prolonged regional instability therefore represents a serious political challenge.
“Suddenly, when you have a conflict that disrupts the flow of investments, tourism, and even trading routes in places like the Strait of Hormuz or the Red Sea,” Sallam observed, “this shakes the foundations of these projects.”
5. The War Is Occurring Amid Deep Divisions Among Regional Powers
The discussion highlighted that the war with Iran is unfolding against the backdrop of a significant regional rift.
According to Sallam, one emerging divide involves different visions for managing instability in fragile states. Some regional actors — including the UAE and Israel — have tacitly or directly promoted fragmentation of political authority in places like Sudan, Yemen, and Gaza.
Others, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, have tended to favor more traditional models of centralized authoritarian stability.
These competing strategic preferences have already clashed in multiple regional conflicts, most recently in Sudan and Yemen.
Thus, Iran’s potential neutralization as a regional power player as a result of the war, Sallam noted, will not necessarily result in regional stability. It will simply intensify these rivalries among the remaining powers.
6. War Strengthens Authoritarian Politics and Weakens the Prospect for Reform and Development
The panel highlighted the negative ramifications of regional conflict for reform and development.
“The constant violence is not productive for the promotion of democracy, development, or the rule of law,” Blaydes noted. “Having a constant stream of weapons, conflict, violence, post-conflict reconciliation, [and] regional rivalries…undermines all three.”
“Anytime a regional conflict breaks out,” Yom argued, “it’s always bad for democratic struggle on the home front.”
The war, according to Sallam, could result in outcomes that would be “catastrophic not only for the people and society of Iran, but also the people and societies of the region at large.”
A full recording of the March 3 panel can be viewed below:
