A Region at a Turning Point
Participants described the current moment as a transformative one for the Middle East, with the recent Twelve-Day War viewed as a regional inflection point comparable to historical shocks such as the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the 2003 Iraq War, and the 2011 Arab uprisings. The forum opened with questions framing the discussion: What does the region look like now? Who are the key actors shaping it? What rules are emerging from the new order? And what constitutes an "end game" for the major powers?
The discussion centered on four overlapping regional visions: one prioritizing regional order around Israeli security imperatives; another envisioning a resurgent Turkey filling the vacuum left by a weakened Iran; a third based on Iran recalibrating its position after battlefield setbacks; and a fourth driven by Gulf Arab states aiming for regional prosperity and stability in line with national development strategies.
Future Scenarios for the Middle East
A set of three strategic scenarios was presented to help conceptualize where the region may be headed. The first envisions continued war and disorder, with recurring rounds of violence and no clear resolution. The second scenario imagines a balance among five regional powers: Israel, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and the Gulf states, maintaining a relatively stable situation, with some peripheral wars. The third and most optimistic scenario foresees a transition toward peace and integration, akin to post-war Europe, including normalization, conflict resolution, and economic cooperation.
While acknowledging the uncertainty of which scenario may unfold, participants emphasized the role of political agency and societal will in shaping outcomes. The regional trajectory, they argued, is not inevitable; it will be determined by the choices of states and leaders in the months and years ahead.
Strategic Realignment and Fragile Transformations
Speakers described the region as undergoing a moment of structural transformation. Shifting alignments such as the Abraham Accords and new diplomatic roles assumed by Gulf states are reshaping the regional security architecture. Yet the extent to which these realignments address underlying conflicts or contribute to long-term stability remains unclear.
This transformation is taking place amid the erosion of the Western-led international order. Participants expressed concern about the hollowing out of international legal norms, including humanitarian law, and raised questions about whether regional societies could offer alternative normative frameworks. The crisis in global governance has deepened the vacuum of authority and accountability in the region.
Israel's Shifting Posture
A considerable portion of the discussion focused on how Israel's strategic vision has evolved in the aftermath of October 7. Internally, Israeli politics have shifted sharply right, empowering security-first approaches and hardline factions. Externally, Israel's military superiority, particularly in cyber and intelligence domains, has consolidated its status as the most powerful regional actor. But this has also led to questions about how Israel intends to convert tactical success into diplomatic or strategic gains.
Three competing outlooks were identified within Israel: a minority still advocating for a two-state solution and negotiated peace; a more dominant security-centered vision that deprioritizes the Palestinian issue in favour of normalization and confrontation with Iran; and a third, hybrid approach that seeks to balance military strength with diplomatic outreach. The internal contest between these perspectives will shape Israel's role in the region and its ability to navigate a volatile regional environment.
The Decline of Non-State Actors and the Return of the State
A recurring theme across the panel was the decline of non-state armed actors. Once-dominant forces like ISIS and Hezbollah have been degraded or contained, and many participants suggested that the region is entering a new phase marked by the reassertion of state primacy. Nonetheless, this transition is incomplete. Armed groups remain embedded in political systems, and the challenge lies in integrating or disbanding them without triggering renewed conflict.
Syria and Iraq were discussed as test cases. In Syria, the reintegration of armed groups and the stabilization of areas like Sweida are critical for a meaningful transition. In Iraq, questions persist about the future role of paramilitary forces in a post-U.S. security framework. Without clear plans for state consolidation, these countries risk stagnating.
Palestine: Still in Crisis
Several panelists stressed that Palestine remains in crisis. The prolonged conflict in Gaza and the deepening occupation of the West Bank have further eroded the feasibility of a two-state solution. The West Bank is marked by growing settler violence, expanded Israeli military presence, and the near-total collapse of the Oslo framework. Settlements have spread rapidly, especially in Area C, which comprises over 60% of the West Bank and remains under full Israeli control.
Palestinian political leadership is viewed as illegitimate by large segments of the population. Efforts to install new leaders from within the existing system have failed to gain popular traction, and elections remain blocked, both by internal political divisions and external constraints. The current situation leaves Palestinians fragmented, disenfranchised, and pessimistic about the future of statehood.
Civilians and the Humanitarian Cost of Inaction
The panel also emphasized the human cost of ongoing conflict. Across Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere, civilians are the primary victims of violence and displacement but remain largely excluded from political negotiations. Participants noted that humanitarian systems are overwhelmed, health infrastructure is collapsing, and access to basic services is increasingly restricted. These conditions foster cycles of despair and radicalization.
There was widespread concern that the resources dedicated to war far exceed those invested in de-escalation or reconstruction. The longer the international community delays addressing these crises, the greater the long-term cost will be, for host states, donor countries, and displaced communities alike.
External Influence and Global Power Dynamics
Discussion also turned to the role of global powers, particularly the United States. While the U.S. remains a central actor in shaping regional security, its policies were criticized for enabling hardline strategies, particularly in relation to Israel. American support, whether through direct aid, diplomatic backing, or veto power in international institutions, was seen as emboldening maximalist policies that undermine prospects for peace.