Oren Samet, the Einstein-Moos Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, has received the 2026 Outstanding Dissertation Award from the International Collaboration Section of the American Political Science Association for his dissertation, “Challenging Autocrats Abroad: Opposition Parties on the International Stage.” The award recognizes outstanding doctoral research on international cooperation, transnational politics, and global governance.

Samet's dissertation examines how opposition parties engage foreign governments and international organizations to build pressure against authoritarian incumbents. Drawing on original cross-national data on opposition lobbying and transnational party networks, as well as interview-based fieldwork and case studies from Southeast Asia, the project explores when opposition movements seek support abroad, the benefits and risks of doing so, and why international backing sometimes helps topple autocrats but often falls short.

Before entering academia, Samet was based in Bangkok, Thailand, where he served as the Research and Advocacy Director of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, working with politicians and civil society leaders across Southeast Asia. He previously worked as a Junior Fellow in the Democracy and Rule of Law Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. from Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs.

Samet's research focuses on the international dimensions of authoritarian politics and democratization, particularly opposition movements in Southeast Asia. His work has appeared in leading journals, including the American Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, and Political Communication.

Following his year at CDDRL, Samet will join Rice University as an Assistant Professor of Political Science, where he will continue his research on authoritarian politics, opposition movements, and democratization.

At a moment marked by war, regional fragmentation, and mounting uncertainty across the Middle East, the Program on Arab Reform and Development (ARD) at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law hosted a wide-ranging conversation between historian and Middle East scholar Joel Beinin and Hesham Sallam, CDDRL Senior Research Scholar and ARD Associate Director.

The discussion explored how the region’s current crises fit within longer historical trajectories, and what they may signal for the future of political order, state power, and social movements in the Arab world.

Throughout the conversation, Beinin situated contemporary wars and political ruptures within broader histories of authoritarianism, imperial intervention, and the erosion of regional political cohesion. The discussion ranged from the legacies of the post-9/11 era to the fragmentation of the Arab regional order, the failures of democratization, and the global rise of the far right.

Here are five major takeaways from the discussion:

1. The current moment is not simply another regional crisis — it reflects the fragmentation of the Arab order itself.

One of the central themes of the discussion was that today’s regional turmoil differs fundamentally from earlier periods of instability. Beinin argued that while the Arab world has long experienced cycles of war, authoritarianism, and external intervention, the current period is distinctive because the very idea of a coherent “Arab world” has weakened dramatically.

As Beinin put it, “A quarter of a century ago, you could still talk about the Arab world with a certain sense of unity… and today, increasingly, it doesn’t.” He stressed that this fragmentation is not merely geopolitical but also political and ideological. Regional powers now pursue sharply divergent agendas, while many traditional centers of Arab political and cultural influence have declined.

Egypt occupied a central place in this analysis. Beinin argued that Egypt, historically viewed as a political and cultural anchor of the Arab world, can no longer plausibly play a regional leadership role. He described the Egyptian regime as deeply constrained by debt crises, Gulf dependency, and intensifying authoritarian rule. Meanwhile, Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) increasingly shape regional politics, albeit without the broader political legitimacy or cultural influence once associated with Cairo.

The result, according to Beinin, is a region characterized less by shared political trajectories than by fragmentation, competing alignments, and increasingly localized struggles for survival and authority.

2. The legacies of the post-9/11 era continue to shape U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

Early in the conversation, Sallam read aloud a passage from President George W. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, warning that the United States “will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Sallam then revealed that the quotation was not from President Donald Trump, but from Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

The exchange set up one of the discussion’s recurring themes: the persistence of interventionist frameworks in American political discourse on the Middle East.

Beinin argued that much of contemporary U.S. rhetoric surrounding Iran reproduces assumptions and narratives that shaped the run-up to the Iraq War. “None of it was true when they said it about Iraq,” he remarked, “and none of it is true when they’re saying it about Iran.”

More broadly, he suggested that the post-9/11 political climate fundamentally reshaped how the United States discussed the region. Reflecting on the years after the September 11 attacks, Beinin described g a political atmosphere in which attempts to contextualize regional dynamics were frequently dismissed as apologetics for extremism.

The conversation repeatedly returned to the dangers of reducing regional politics to moral binaries or civilizational narratives. Instead, Beinin emphasized the importance of historically grounded analysis attentive to state interests, political economy, and international power relations.

3. The authoritarian restoration after the Arab uprisings has become deeper and more punitive.

Another major takeaway concerned the aftermath of the Arab uprisings of 2010-2011 and the broader trajectory of authoritarianism in the region.

Beinin argued that states such as Egypt and Tunisia have emerged from the post-uprising period with harsher and more consolidated forms of authoritarian rule than existed prior to 2011. “Any kind of political, civil, even to some degree cultural resistance has been stamped out,” he said, citing the expansion of surveillance, imprisonment, and repression.

Yet the discussion also rejected the simplistic notion that the Arab uprisings were meaningless failures. Beinin pointed to later protest waves in Sudan and Algeria during 2019–2020 as evidence that activists and civil movements had absorbed important lessons from the earlier uprisings.

In Sudan in particular, he argued, protest movements understood that “the army is not on the side of the people,” reflecting a deeper awareness of how military institutions could derail revolutionary transitions. At the same time, Beinin stressed that regional interventions by Gulf powers played a major role in undermining these movements. He described how competing regional actors backed rival military factions, contributing to fragmentation and ultimately overwhelming civilian political forces.

The broader implication was that authoritarian resilience in the Arab world cannot be understood solely through domestic dynamics. Regional rivalries, external funding networks, and transnational counterrevolutionary alliances all play a central role in shaping political outcomes.

4. The Middle East’s crises are increasingly tied to a broader global rightward shift.

While much of the conversation focused specifically on the Arab world, Beinin consistently situated regional developments within broader international trends.

He argued that the current moment reflects not only regional disarray but also the rise of increasingly exclusionary and authoritarian political currents globally. Beinin pointed to “a hard lurch to the right” in multiple countries, including Israel, India, and parts of Europe.

This international dimension, he suggested, has profound implications for the Middle East. The rise of nationalist and authoritarian politics globally has helped normalize more extreme forms of militarism, ethnonationalism, and state violence. It has also weakened many of the international norms and institutions that once constrained state behavior, however imperfectly.

The discussion of Israel occupied a particularly important place here. Beinin linked Israel’s rightward shift to broader transformations in global politics. At several points, the conversation underscored how the wars in Gaza and Lebanon cannot be understood in isolation from these wider ideological and geopolitical currents.

Rather than treating the Middle East as uniquely unstable or exceptional, Beinin repeatedly encouraged the audience to see the region as deeply connected to broader crises of democracy, inequality, nationalism, and authoritarianism unfolding globally.

5. Historical perspective remains essential in moments of upheaval.

Perhaps the most important theme running through the conversation was methodological rather than purely political: the insistence on historical perspective in moments of crisis.

At the outset of the event, Sallam emphasized that the purpose of the discussion was “not to chase after the headlines,” but rather to “take the long view” and place contemporary developments “in conversation with scholarly research and debates.”

Throughout the conversation, Beinin repeatedly cautioned against analyses driven solely by immediate events, media cycles, or simplistic geopolitical narratives. Instead, he urged audiences to understand contemporary wars and political transformations as products of longer histories involving colonial legacies, state formation, authoritarian restructuring, social movements, and international intervention.

The discussion ultimately offered no easy optimism about the region’s future. Yet it also rejected fatalistic portrayals of the Arab world as uniquely doomed to instability. Instead, the conversation highlighted the importance of historical memory, critical scholarship, and political analysis capable of connecting contemporary crises to deeper structural processes.

A full recording of the conversation can be viewed below:

On March 11, 2026, the Jan Koum Israel Studies Program (JKISP) at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law hosted constitutional scholar Masua Sagiv for a discussion titled “Who Stands for Democracy? Understanding Israel’s Constitutional Crisis,” as part of its Israel Insights Webinar series. Moderated by Amichai Magen, Director of JKISP, the conversation explored how Israel’s ongoing war, political realignment, and institutional tensions are reshaping debates over the Israel's democratic future. During the webinar, a missile alert prompted Sagiv to leave the conversation; while awaiting her return, Magen noted the moment reflected the realities of daily life in Israel.

Sagiv argued that for the next Israeli elections, the key political question surrounds not which individual leaders prevail but rather the coalitions that emerge afterward. While Israeli politics has shifted rightward, especially on security issues since the Second Intifada and the October 7 attacks, she emphasized the range of future directions depending on whether parties align with far-right and ultra-Orthodox partners or form broader centrist coalitions. Although consensus exists across political camps regarding concerns over a constitutional crisis—including desires to clarify the balance of power among the judiciary, executive, and legislature—political mistrust repeatedly derails compromise proposals. Resolving the crisis, Sagiv argued, will require rebuilding trust across Israel’s ideological divides and establishing clearer constitutional “rules of [the] game” to stabilize the country’s democratic system.

On February 25, 2026, as part of the Israel Insights webinar series hosted by the Jan Koum Israel Studies Program at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, former Mossad counterterrorism chief Oded Ailam—now a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs—discussed the evolving dynamics of the Israel–Hamas conflict and its regional and global implications.

Ailam argued that although Hezbollah is currently weakened financially and constrained domestically in Lebanon, it may increasingly employ overseas attacks against Israeli, American, and Jewish targets to demonstrate loyalty to Iran. He said that Hamas's dependence on Iran, however, diminishes as Turkish and Qatari support for Hamas grows, forming a new axis of political, financial, and military backing. According to Ailam, Hamas is unlikely to relinquish its weapons or influence in Gaza and will instead work to retain control behind the scenes even under a potential technocratic governing structure, casting doubt on the viability of proposed diplomatic frameworks.

Finally, addressing concerns about global radicalization and dormant terrorist networks in Western countries, Ailam outlined how state-backed ideological and financial influence spreads extremism and argued for stronger Western responses and long-term deradicalization efforts.

Professor James Goldgeier is a Research Affiliate at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) and Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). He is also a Professor at the School of International Service at American University, where he served as Dean from 2011 to 2017. His research focuses primarily on U.S.-NATO-Russia relations since the end of the Cold War, examining how key foreign policy decisions were made and how they continue to influence relations between the United States, Europe, and Russia today.

What inspired you to pursue research in your current field? And how did your journey lead you to see your role? 

I got into this field because of my undergraduate thesis advisor, Joseph Nye, who inspired me to become a professor of international relations. When I was in college, I thought I wanted to work on political campaigns, and after graduating, my first job was managing a city council campaign in Boston. We lost by a very small margin, and afterward, I received offers to work on other campaigns. But that experience made me realize I wasn’t sure that was what I wanted to do long-term. 

I started thinking about people whose careers I admired, and Joseph Nye stood out. Before college, I had never traveled outside the United States, but he traveled extensively, wrote books, and clearly enjoyed teaching. That combination of research, writing, and teaching really appealed to me. I went to him and asked what I would need to do to pursue a similar path. He told me I would need to get a PhD. That conversation ultimately shaped my career. I went on to earn a PhD and become a professor, and I’ve always felt deeply indebted to him for helping me see that this was the path I wanted to pursue.

How did you get into the specific area of study that you ended up focusing on?

I went to U.C. Berkeley to do my PhD in international relations, and during my first year, Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union. I was taking a class on Soviet foreign policy at the time, and that really drew me in. Since the Cold War was central to U.S. foreign policy, it became clear to me that if I wanted to understand international relations, I needed to understand the Soviet Union.

I started studying Russian, taking history courses, and focusing more closely on Soviet and European security issues. Although the Soviet Union collapsed while I was finishing my dissertation, my broader interest in U.S. foreign policy remained constant. My undergraduate thesis had been on NATO nuclear policy, so over time I returned to NATO and became increasingly interested in its role in shaping the post–Cold War order. By the mid-1990s, that had become a central focus of my research.