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.

In a January 28, 2026, Israel Insights Webinar hosted by the Jan Koum Israel Studies Program and moderated by Visiting Fellow in Israel Studies Or Rabinowitz, security experts Sima Shine and Raz Zimmt analyzed the growing risk of direct confrontation between Iran and Israel and the broader regional consequences of such a conflict. They argued that while Iran’s proxy strategy has failed to prevent escalation, Tehran remains committed to rebuilding Hezbollah and other allied groups despite mounting domestic economic pressures. Both speakers warned that any future war would likely be far more expansive than previous exchanges, potentially involving strikes on leadership, economic, and symbolic targets, and noted Israel’s preference for U.S. leadership in any major military action against Iran. Turning to the regional and long-term outlook, the panel highlighted Gulf states’ strong opposition to war in favor of stability and a negotiated U.S.–Iran agreement, and expressed skepticism that external military action would produce rapid democratic change in Iran, suggesting instead that any near-term transformation is more likely to emerge gradually from within the existing regime.

A full recording of the webinar can be viewed above.

Abbas Milani has vivid memories of what it was like in Tehran the day before the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

At the time, he was a young assistant professor at Tehran University where he taught political science and law. He recalls the anticipation in Tehran as Iran’s last monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah, was overthrown, and the country’s new supreme leader, the Islamic nationalist Ayatollah Khomeini, rose to power.

But Milani was hesitant, worried about what might happen to a country with a deep, rich culture that he cared about passionately.

“I knew disaster was coming,” said Milani.

Read the full story in the Stanford Report.

What does women’s representation look like under autocratic governments? In a recent research seminar series talk, CDDRL Visiting Scholar Mona Tajali, who is an Associate Professor of International Relations and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Agnes Scott College, explored the complexities of this issue in the contexts of Iran and Turkey. 

Tajali’s talk underscored the gap between women’s political participation and representation. Voter turnout rates for women match those of men, and they are quite active in political organizations and in mobilizing for political causes. However, rarely do they reach the highest level of government. It is clear that structural factors, at times more than cultural or religious factors, are impeding women’s accession to senior government posts. 

Women in Iran and Turkey, from across different ideological currents, have long been demanding greater representation and calling for a level playing field. While there has been some progress in enhancing women’s representation, Tajali reminded us that nominal representation does not always lead to meaningful power or influence. Contradictory politics intervenes, with parties sometimes treating women as politically expedient tokens.

But, despite the impediment women face in formal politics, there are many examples of feminist movements making meaningful advancements. The Turkish movement KADER ran a campaign highlighting those parties who were truly responsive to women’s demands, not just those paying lip service. This was effective in putting pressure on mainstream parties to better represent the women in their electorate. In Iran, an online campaign was launched to change the male-dominated face of parliament. It identified misogynist candidates and incumbents with a poor record in their stances on women’s rights. 

However, the state has little tolerance for women critical actors seeking to challenge the status quo. The Council of Guardians in Iran and male party leadership in Turkey have disqualified and prevented many women from running for office. There has been an uptick in the harassment and intimidation of outspoken women in the parliament, not to mention the crackdown on feminist groups. This backlash has undermined collaboration among women activists who do hold political office.

As the confidence in electoral politics wanes, an important shift is happening with a demand for bottom-up political change. Groups are coming together to discuss their grievances despite the authoritarian contexts in which they are operating. The feminist movements are becoming bolder, clearer, and less censored in their demands. From journalists to students, women are engaging in courageous acts of defiance, many of which carry very real consequences.