Episode 269: Middle East in Transition: Non-State Actors, Trump’s Policy Shift, and Regional Stability with Shayan Talabany

In this episode Dominic Bowen speaks with Shayan Talabany, Senior Analyst and Advisor at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, about shifting U.S. strategies in the Middle East and what they mean for governance, security, and economic opportunity across the region. They explore how the U.S. retreat from interventionism is reshaping regional power balances, whether self-reliance can bring stability, and how countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are navigating enormous economic and political pressures.

Listeners will learn about the risks posed by fragile social contracts and youth unemployment, the uncertain futures of nationalism and populism in the region, how Gaza is influencing both leadership and public opinion in Arab capitals, and the opportunities for businesses as regional governments seek deeper economic integration. Shayan also shares her on-the-ground experiences traveling through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, providing rare insights into the realities citizens face and the optimism that still exists despite immense challenges

Shayan Talabany is a Senior Analyst and Advisor at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, where she focuses on regional politics, security, and conflict dynamics across the Middle East, with particular expertise on Iraq and Syria. She holds degrees from SOAS, University of London, and the London School of Economics, and also serves as a faculty member with the Aspen Institute in the UK. At the Tony Blair Institute, she leads projects on governance reform, regional integration, and youth engagement, and she has traveled extensively across the Middle East conducting research and advising policymakers.

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change is actively engaged in shaping governance and policy across the Middle East and beyond. Its Think Again report on the modernisation of the region challenges stereotypes and highlights social change, while its New Middle East Polling provides fresh insights into public attitudes and aspirations. TBI is also at the forefront of harnessing technology for better governance, with its Governing in the Age of AI and Reimagining Local Government with AI initiatives, as well as research on Augmenting Intelligence and the Future of Work. To support this agenda, TBI has expanded its AI governance team, advising governments in over 40 countries. In addition, insights such as How Not to Lose Friends and Influence in the Middle East examine shifting regional perceptions of global powers.

Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe’s leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe’s leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe’s business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today’s business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.

The International Risk Podcast – Reducing risk by increasing knowledge.

Follow us on LinkedIn and Subscribe for all our updates!

Tell us what you liked!

Transcript:

[00:00:00] Shayan: Our job, as people who talk about the Middle East, who write about the Middle East, is to encourage some of the regional countries who are really leading at the moment to push for more inclusivity and more dialogue, both between states but also within states.

[00:00:24] Dominic: Hi, I’m Dominic Bowen. Welcome to the International Risk Podcast, where we unpack the risks that are shaping our world. Today we’re turning our attention to the Middle East, a region caught in a prolonged state of transition. The power of non-state actors persists. Authoritarianism in some states is deepening, and the international approach to governance is shifting.

We’ve seen the Trump administration declare a pivot away from interventionism, lift sanctions on Syria, and show a preference for regional self-reliance over externally driven reform. The geopolitical calculus across the region is changing. To explore these topics, we’re joined by a fantastic leading voice on Middle Eastern security and governance. Our guest today is Shayan Talabany. She’s a Senior Analyst and an Advisor at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. Her work focuses on regional politics, security, and conflict analysis across the Middle East, with particular expertise on Iraq and Syria. Shayan, welcome to the International Risk Podcast.

[00:01:30] Shayan: Thank you so much, Dominic. I’m really happy to be on the podcast with you.

[00:01:33] Dominic: Shayan, let’s start by looking at some of the broader risks and issues across the region. The Middle East has long been shaped by external interventions, but now we’re seeing the US take a very different approach. Trump’s 2025 pivot lifted sanctions on Syria, which most people see as a good move. He’s declared an end to interventionist strategies, which many also welcome. But it may also signal a US retreat from the region. From your perspective, and from your travels across the region, do you think this will create a power vacuum that supports actors like Iran, Hezbollah, or Turkey? Or is this actually a space for genuine regional self-reliance?

[00:02:21] Shayan: It’s the million-dollar question on everyone’s mind. Trump encapsulated his vision for the region in his speech in Riyadh in May, when he lifted sanctions on Syria. In many ways, this was a long time coming. The US began shifting its approach during the Obama era. More than 10 years ago, Hillary Clinton said the US was recalibrating its relationships in the region as part of the pivot to Asia. Trump carried that forward, but in a much more abrupt and in-your-face way.

This doesn’t mean the US is retreating from the Middle East. In fact, during the recent clashes between Israel and Iran, the US remained a pivotal player, particularly on the security front. But the way it manages relationships is changing. It’s moving toward technological and economic partnerships rather than purely security-driven or interventionist ones.

That shift has encouraged more regional self-reliance. The Abraham Accords, for example, came from the US handing responsibility to regional powers to manage their own relationships and problems, particularly on issues like Palestine and Iran. We’ll see more of that kind of deal-making, both from the United States and from regional actors themselves.

As part of this recalibration, the US is relying on Turkey and Israel to act as security bulwarks, while Gulf countries are taking responsibility for economic integration.

[00:05:03] Dominic: That’s very interesting. The US may not have been popular when it came to security interventions in the Middle East, but I’m not sure how Israel will be perceived in this role. Still, Trump’s comments in Riyadh about the end of the NeoCon era were largely welcomed, as was his emphasis on local actors charting their own future. When he met with the new Syrian president, the former rebel leader, his support for economic reforms was seen as hopeful. A region run by locals rather than outside powers is something to welcome. It brings opportunities, but also risks. From what you’re seeing on the ground, how are leaders in Baghdad and Damascus reading this shift?

[00:05:45] Shayan: Leaders in Damascus, Baghdad, and Beirut see this as an opportunity to carve out a new path with regional support. The US approach has been largely welcomed and is healthy for the region. It’s the only way we’ll see more stability, peace, and integration.

But these governments don’t have much room to maneuver. The weakening of some non-state actors aligned with Iran has created space for more focus on nation-building and governance. Still, challenges are enormous. In Syria, 90% of the population lives below the poverty line. Leaders like Assad, Prime Minister Sudani in Iraq, and Lebanon’s new government have to balance immediate needs like poverty alleviation and jobs with the influence of regional powers—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Russia, and the US.

There is room to build momentum and gain support from regional powers, but they must also show results and have clear pathways forward. The jury is still out on whether they can do that.

[00:08:19] Dominic: That’s a really good point. Current statistics say over half of the region’s population under 30 are unemployed, and the reality may be worse. The authoritarian bargain of economic stability in return for political silence looks fragile without genuine economic stability. We saw this in Egypt before the Arab Spring in 2011. With high unemployment and youth bulges, unrest was inevitable. Do you think we’re looking at conditions for another generation of unrest if jobs don’t materialize? Or are you more hopeful—are you seeing opportunities for growth and development?

[00:09:08] Shayan: In the last few months, I’ve traveled in Syria, Beirut, and Iraq, and one common thing I heard from young people is that what they really want is jobs, stability, the ability to travel, and economic autonomy. The region is heading in that direction, aligned with Vision 2030: technocracy or meritocracy rather than ideology.

We’re already seeing this play out in Saudi Arabia. Society is being reshaped constructively, with evolving youth culture, expanding entertainment, and more public roles for women. But the question is: do Vision 2030 and its analogs provide a powerful enough idea to bind societies together? Do they answer what it means to be Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, or Yemeni?

Technocracy and meritocracy may be efficient, which is welcome. Young people need jobs, autonomy, and hope. But some argue this is thin gruel for the soul. Can efficiency substitute for a shared narrative of belonging? We don’t know yet. That’s why this moment is critical.

We’ve had the Arab uprisings, which were the funeral for post-colonial authoritarianism. We’ve had the Syrian war, with its ideological scaffolding now collapsed. And we have Gaza, still ongoing, whose impact on young people’s psyche is only beginning.

Leaders are aware and worried about the post-Gaza period. Part of the solution is economic autonomy, but part is generating new ideas. I try to be cautiously optimistic. Young people today know more clearly what they want.

In recent years, we saw a second wave of protests in Iraq, Algeria, and Lebanon. These were constructive: non-sectarian, focused on efficiency and transparency rather than collapse. Still, there’s a vacuum of ideas. Liberal democracy is unpopular, burned by Iraq post-2003 and post-2011 disillusionment. Political Islam looks fractured. Pan-Arabism feels nostalgic and inert.

What we’re seeing is a return to nationalism and raw populism. In Iraq and Syria, “Iraq first” or “Syria first” approaches are emerging. Unless they are inclusive and provide civic belonging beyond sectarian or religious identity, they will sow grievances that resurface in decades.

Populism without narrative is unstable and will tip over eventually. Avoiding ideology altogether is itself a political choice. We are in a “pre-what” era, uncertain what will come next. It may take time, but that uncertainty is also an opportunity: alongside regional economic integration, there must be space to recalibrate meaning and purpose and create ideas that bind people together.

[00:14:39] Dominic: You mentioned Lebanon, and of course Hezbollah is a very significant actor there. We also still have elements of ISIS in several countries, and in Syria the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces continue to challenge traditional state authority. In the shifting terrain you just described, how do you think local and regional governance models are going to settle? I know you said it’s a “pre-what” and hard to tell, but I wonder. We’ve spoken a lot on the International Risk Podcast about the global decline of democracy, which many of our guests rank as one of the biggest international risks. Do you think the region will move toward greater democracy, or greater authoritarianism to combat insecurity and economic challenges?

[00:15:24] Shayan: At the moment we seem to be heading toward increased centralization of governance, which means more authoritarian tendencies in the region. But at the same time, fragmentation is a reality, even if unofficial.

Take Syria. There’s the Damascus bubble, which feels different now compared to a few months ago. There’s the SDF controlling the northeast, a strong Turkish presence in the north, and of course the Druze and Israeli presence in the south. So while on paper there’s support for centralization, in reality the state is fragmented.

Regional actors will have to reckon with this. The way forward isn’t necessarily democracy—I don’t think democracy is likely to reemerge in the Middle East soon, especially since its traditional flagbearers globally are themselves in a questionable place. Instead, governance will be guided by realpolitik.

We’re seeing discussions in places like Saudi Arabia about genuine national assemblies. In Syria and Lebanon, the question is how to bring all parties together. How can the US and regional countries support dialogue and engagement, use carrots and sticks to disarm groups but integrate them into governance?

The critical point is not excluding anyone. Exclusion has failed before, and we don’t want to end up in 10 years with new groups formed out of old grievances. There’s a growing understanding that you can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results. But it still needs a push. Our job, as people who talk and write about the Middle East, is to encourage inclusivity and dialogue, both between states and within states.

[00:18:35] Dominic: On the topic of dialogue, you mentioned Gaza earlier. Arab countries have repeatedly condemned what they describe as genocide and ethnic cleansing there. We’ve seen collective statements demanding an immediate ceasefire, preserving Palestinian territory, rejecting displacement, and calling for unrestricted humanitarian access. Can you help us understand the difference between what we see in Western media and what you’re hearing in the Middle East about how Gaza is being viewed?

[00:19:07] Shayan: There’s a clear divide, recognized in Arab capitals, between decision-makers and their constituencies. Leaders see one thing, while ordinary people across the Gulf, the Levant, and North Africa see another.

At a leadership level, there’s recognition that there will be no peace in the Middle East unless the Palestinian issue is addressed. And ultimately, unless Israel is accepted as part of the region, the long-term vision of economic integration and stability cannot succeed. That’s the realpolitik calculation: without stability, none of these visions can work.

At the same time, for Palestinians to have peace and opportunities, leaders recognize they must sit and talk with Israelis. The Abraham Accords began in that spirit, though they may not be the only vehicle. Saudi Arabia, for example, is playing a prominent role in convening regional actors to think about how Gaza should be managed after the war.

Of course, nothing can move forward until the war ends. But regional states are saying to Israel: we see you as part of this region, but you need to meet us halfway and recognize Palestinians’ right to live in peace alongside you. That’s the only way to resolve the conflict.

This is a critical moment. There hasn’t been such a push since Oslo. It could be an opportunity, or it could be a lost one. If regional states don’t keep up the momentum, the chance will pass. But there is significant effort now to make sure Palestinians, Israelis, and regional actors seize this moment.

[00:22:03] Dominic: Reasonableness is certainly required, though it’s often in short supply. You talked about grasping the opportunity and taking advantage of the time we have. If you were briefing executives from multinational companies who might be looking at the region and wondering about opportunities, what would your advice be? What are the opportunities? What risks should they consider if they want to invest in what is a huge and diverse market?

[00:22:32] Shayan: The key is economic integration across the region. It’s both the answer to many of the region’s problems and the mechanism through which stability can be achieved.

There’s a huge market for corporations and businesses that get in early. In Syria, in Gaza once the war ends, in the Gulf, and in Iraq, there are opportunities in infrastructure, construction, water management, traditional industries like oil and gas, and also in sustainable energy.

It does require a high appetite for risk. But the more corporations enter, the more stability will take hold. Governments in the region are very open to supporting both multinationals and smaller businesses. They’ve made it easier to relocate and invest in places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, and the Gulf.

The more multinationals engage, the more governments will embrace it. They understand this is a key moment and won’t turn down good opportunities. Many governments are working on improving governance, judicial systems, and the rule of law, which is already making it easier for companies to invest and operate.

[00:24:31] Dominic: That’s really positive. You mentioned earlier that you’ve been traveling through Iraq and more recently through Syria. Syria is such a beautiful country, and I’ve been lucky enough to travel and live there myself. But it’s certainly not a country you’d describe as low risk. Can you help us understand how you traveled through the region, and what you saw on the ground in Damascus and other cities?

[00:24:56] Shayan: I was pleasantly surprised traveling through Syria. I didn’t fly in, though you can. I drove in from Beirut with a trusted driver. Crossing the Lebanese and Syrian borders was straightforward. As a British national, I paid the visa fee and it was a smooth journey into Damascus.

Of course, there are risks. Capitals like Baghdad and Damascus are somewhat bubbles. They feel centralized and orderly compared to the rest of the country. In Damascus, you can meet people, enjoy the food, and soak up the ambiance, but traveling beyond the capital is more complex.

I also spent time in northeast Syria, which has had relatively stable infrastructure since 2014. It feels safe and efficient. But moving around other parts of the country is still high risk because of the presence of different actors on the ground.

That said, I encourage people to go, especially to major capitals. Personally, I often joke that I feel safer in Iraq than I sometimes do in London. And if people want to understand opportunities, it’s important to meet people on the ground, hear what they think, and see what they need. The overwhelming message I heard is optimism: that recent changes create space for more stability, opportunity, and hope for young people. But they also need support from the international community, particularly from the private sector and businesses.

[00:27:40] Dominic: Thank you very much for explaining that. It sounds wonderful. I can’t wait to go back myself.

One question we always finish on at the International Risk Podcast, and I’d love to hear from you, Shayan: when you look around the world, what are the international risks that concern you the most?

[00:27:55] Shayan: The first major risk is the slow decline of democracy. I see this most clearly in the West, and it worries me. It worries people across different sectors and societies. After the so-called “end of history,” we are now in a period where it isn’t clear what values or ethics bind societies together. That uncertainty trickles down into our economic and political systems.

The second big risk is climate change, and tied to that, technology. Many solutions to our problems will come from technology. We are at the brink of a technological revolution, with AI and other tools playing a critical role. But whether we can manage the challenges in time is uncertain. From a Middle East perspective, I expect much more climate-related migration and displacement.

The third is youth. Some countries are investing in young people and see them as drivers of modernization. But even there, it may not be enough. We need to think now about who the leaders will be in 20 or 30 years. How do we invest in them? How do we generate new ideas that will help solve these problems? Without addressing this, we’ll find ourselves decades from now saying, “We should have started earlier.”

[00:30:25] Dominic: Fantastic. I really appreciate you raising those points, Shayan. That’s a great list, and thank you very much for coming on the International Risk Podcast.

[00:30:32] Shayan: Thank you so much, Dominic, for having me. I also want to give a shout out to the work that the Tony Blair Institute does. We work a lot with young people and focus on generating new ideas, and on how to use technology to improve governance and support governments in their mission to increase efficiency. It wouldn’t be fair not to mention the TBI and some of the great work we do globally. I hope this conversation brings opportunities to collaborate with future partners.

[00:31:03] Dominic: Definitely. The Tony Blair Institute certainly does great work, and we’ll make sure to link to some of their projects in the show notes below.

That was a great conversation with Shayan Talabany, Senior Analyst at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. She holds degrees from SOAS, University of London, and the London School of Economics, and she also serves as a faculty member with the Aspen Institute in the UK. Her insights offered a sobering but necessary reflection on the governance dilemmas facing Iraq, Syria, and many other countries across the Middle East. I really appreciated Shayan coming on the podcast today.

Today’s episode was produced and coordinated by Katerina Mazzucchelli. I’m Dominic Bowen, your host. Thanks very much for listening. We’ll speak again next week.