Held on February 9–10 in partnership with the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the 15th Valdai Club Middle East Conference convened as the region once again stood at a precipice. According to IOS RAS President, Academician Vitaly Naumkin, the Middle East is on the cusp of profound change, with tremors emanating from across its landscape suggesting that “something is coming.” The conference’s theme report, “Stuck in Mid-Sentence: The Middle East at the Start of the 21st Century’s Second Quarter”, sought to map these nascent shifts. Yet, over two days of discussion, a notable departure from past forums emerged. While the Middle East is perpetually subject to dire forecasts, this year’s discourse was distinguished by a bracing, almost unsparing realism—a collective readiness to confront the full spectrum of possible futures, however grim.
The opening session, examining the shifting regional balance of power, unfolded under the shadow of a potential US-Iran military confrontation. While it would be a war of choice for Washington, for Tehran it would be a struggle for survival, according to Mohammad Marandi, professor at the University of Tehran. Deeply sceptical of diplomatic engagement, he framed any potential agreement with the US as a prelude to betrayal. While declaring Iran prepared for “total war,” he stressed that Tehran would not launch a pre-emptive strike unless an American attack was perceived as imminent.
The ramifications of such a conflict, warned Taha Özhan, Research Director of the Ankara Institute, would be existential for the entire Middle East, sending shockwaves through Iraq, Lebanon, and likely Syria. It is precisely this looming threat, he argued, that is forcing a fundamental recalibration of the regional order. Özhan identified the risk—for the first time—of a direct Israeli-Turkish confrontation in Syria, naming the US-Israel axis as the core security challenge facing the region.
From Israel, the perspective was markedly different. Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security projected an image of Israeli strength, bolstered by unwavering confidence in Washington’s support. His prescription for peace was unequivocal: the US and Israel must project a credible military threat by enhancing their regional presence, with stability contingent on the elimination of threats posed by Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, voices from other key regional players advocated for a more autonomous path. Fahad Al-Mahri of the UAE’s Trends Research & Advisory pointed to the emergence of new bilateral diplomatic mechanisms as tools for conflict resolution. Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy, a former Deputy UN Special Envoy for Syria, identified the core problem as a structural one: the absence of a stabilizing mechanism. His proposed solution was a decisive move toward strategic autonomy and the creation of an inclusive regional security architecture that should necessarily include Israel, Iran, and Turkey.
The first day of the conference continued with the traditional meeting of participants with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the main part of which was held behind closed doors. The next two sessions were also closed. The second was devoted to conflicts in the region. The tone was set by a participant’s candid admission: with no comprehensive solutions in sight, the most pragmatic approach is simply to minimize damage—curbing destabilizing military actions and prioritizing humanitarian relief. During this session, the topic of justice—or rather its conspicuous absence—a key issue for both domestic and foreign policy processes in the Middle East, was particularly poignant. Representatives of the Palestinians and Kurds called for justice for their peoples; one speaker stated that a just regional order is impossible as long as Israel enjoys comprehensive US support. Yet, the prevailing sentiment suggested that regional actors are pivoting away from seeking just solutions in favour of realistic ones. This approach, while carrying the inherent risk of igniting new conflict cycles, may also carve out crucial intervals of respite—moments that could, perhaps, lay the groundwork for a more sustainable, if imperfect, peace.
The third session was devoted to political Islam, and the discussions once again highlighted the fundamental contradiction between Islam as an all-encompassing value system, which necessarily includes the political sphere, and the realities of nation-states. One participant noted that the topic of political Islam in the media has seemingly faded into the background compared to previous years, but there is an explanation: a gradual reconciliation of nationalism and Islamism is underway. The organizational forms of political Islam are evolving, and not always toward greater radicalization. However, it was noted that radicalism draped in religious rhetoric remains an inevitable by-product of collapsing living standards and the physical devastation wrought by war. Opinions diverged sharply on the prospects for dialogue with political Islamist movements, with some dismissing it outright and others pointing to potential cooperation based on pragmatic convergence of interests.
The fourth session dissected the hard-won lessons from recent conflicts, concluding that the nature of warfare has been fundamentally rewritten. The era of rapid territorial gains appears over; the window for tactical surprise has narrowed; the concept of a war of attrition has regained its grim currency; and the once-decisive advantage of air superiority has eroded. The key challenge, one participant argued, is industrial: the modern battlefield demands cheap, mass-producible weaponry, favouring states that have retained their manufacturing base. Dangerous trends include the gradual militarization of space and the erosion of non-proliferation regimes. In early February, the New START Treaty—the last agreement limiting the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States—expired, with the prospects for its replacement remaining unclear. According to one speaker, we could witness the collapse of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the emergence of new nuclear powers (including in the Middle East), and the lifting of the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain both the key to peace and the sword of Damocles for humanity, but scientific and technological progress could deprive them of their exclusive role, he believes. As another participant summarized, “peace is around the corner, but it’s a brute force peace.”
The final two open sessions brought the focus back to internal dynamics and the new battlefields of the information age. Discussions on domestic politics during the fifth session revealed the wildly uneven challenges facing regional states. For some, the struggle is about competing visions of the future; for others, it is a fight for physical survival. The question of political representation for minorities remains a critical fault line. While Lebanon and Iraq maintain fragile, often fractious, balances, Syria stands at the very beginning of this arduous journey toward any semblance of inclusivity.
Nikolai Surkov, head of the Group for the Study of Common Regional Problems at the Centre for Middle East Studies at IMEMO RAS, argued that in the context of post-conflict reconstruction, the key issue is constructing a new post-conflict identity capable of uniting the population and transforming it into a nation. The case of Syria, whose residents, having become refugees, have come to see themselves first and foremost as Syrians—despite religious differences—provides cautious cause for optimism, he believes.
Joseph Bahout, Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, noted that the region continues to suffer the consequences of the Arab Spring, which began more than fifteen years ago and led to the erosion of political legitimacy and public trust. John Bell, Director of The Conciliators Guild, emphasized the key role of strengthening nation states in ensuring regional resilience.
The conference’s final, sixth session—dedicated to information sovereignty in the digital age—extended far beyond the Middle East. Experts discussed a wide range of issues, including digital inequality, control over digital environments and cyberspace, the role of technology—particularly artificial intelligence—in transforming intelligence operations, and the use of technology platforms to advance state interests. A video recording of the session is available on our website.
