Professor Ioana Emy Matesan is an expert in international security, Middle Eastern politics, and political violence, with particular focus on Iran, proxy networks, militias, and regional conflict dynamics. Her research examines the intersection of ideology, armed groups, and state power across the Middle East, especially in relation to Iranian foreign policy and non state actors. She is an Associate Professor at University of Baltimore and has written extensively on regional security, proxy warfare, and geopolitical competition in the Middle East. Her analysis and commentary have appeared in academic publications and international media platforms, where she is frequently consulted on issues relating to Iran, militias, and regional escalation.

Gulan: If we look at the current ceasefire dynamics and the broader trajectory of the conflict, are we witnessing the effective collapse of diplomacy as a credible tool in the Middle East, or is this simply a transition toward a new and more fragmented form of order in which agreements no longer resolve conflicts but merely manage their escalation?

Ioana Emy Matesan: Diplomacy will always be a critical tool, but its credibility at the moment is certainly severely undermined by the conflict dynamics. Not only was Operation Epic Fury launched amid negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program, but the conflict has drawn in a wide variety of actors, which makes negotiations all the more difficult. This being said, it is not just the war on Iran that challenges diplomacy as a tool. While the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015 was in many ways a major success, diplomacy has been under strain at least since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Recent crises, such as the invasion of Ukraine or Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and the shift away from multilateralism under President Trump, only serve to further challenge public trust in diplomacy and international institutions. We are in a moment where military power seems to take center stage over dialogue and diplomacy, but I am not sure that this is a transition towards a new regional or global order. While we may see shifts in regional power dynamics, for many actors, diplomacy will remain one of their most powerful tools.

Gulan: Your article suggests that both states and non state actors are increasingly using conflict as a way to reinforce domestic legitimacy. For example, groups like the Houthis have been able to signal resilience and relevance through their involvement. To what extent does this create an environment in which escalation becomes politically rational, even when it is strategically damaging in the long term?

Ioana Emy Matesan: The terrorism studies literature has long argued that armed groups can resort to violence in order to strengthen their public support. Escalation can generally be strategic if there is competition among groups or among the leaders of a group, or if an organization needs to signal resolve and bolster its public legitimacy. In the case of the Houthis, there is some evidence that the leaders are divided between a cautious faction that seeks to limit escalation, and a more assertive faction that sees this war as a decisive moment to exert regional influence. This leadership competition incentivizes escalation, though the group has also been severely weakened by military strikes. Thus, the Houthis are presented with mixed incentives, and there’s a fine balancing act between military escalation in order to signal ideological consistency and boost legitimacy, and caution in order to avoid further military retaliation from state actors.

Gulan: The United States appears to shift between ambitious objectives such as regime change and more limited goals like nuclear containment. How does this lack of strategic clarity affect the credibility of American policy in the region, and does it create space for regional powers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia to redefine the balance of power on their own terms?

Ioana Emy Matesan: The current war will only exacerbate two trends that were already afoot before the war: declining American credibility and increasing competition over regional influence. Surveys conducted by the Arab Barometer in 2025 across the region show a sharp decline in public confidence in the United States as a global leader, and a more favorable view of China and Russia. Publics across the Middle East are critical of American support of Israel, and no longer perceive the United States as committed to upholding international law. In terms of regional dynamics, the past two decades have seen shifting alliances and a growing competition for regional influence. Much of this competition has been defined by the Iran and Saudi Arabia rivalry, but the two countries do not shape the regional order on their own terms, and they are embedded in a complex web of alliances. Since the 2003 American invasion, Saudi Arabia has been playing a much more assertive role, in response to what it portrays as a growing Shia influence in the region. After the 2011 uprisings, regional alliances shifted further, consolidating into what historian Toby Matthiesen sees as three major alliances: an alliance led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, an alliance led by Turkey and Qatar, and the alliance of Iran with various non-state actors across the region, from Hamas, to Hezbollah and the Houthis. The key feature of this regional realignment is that each of these actors has been increasingly assertive, attempting to exert and signal regional influence and power. The current war is bound to intensify this power competition. But the growing popular criticism of the war across the region, combined with Iran’s ability to strike several Gulf countries, will also place a strain on existing alliances, creating heightened uncertainty and insecurity.

Gulan: Regional conflicts today seem to be shaped not only by power competition but also by competing narratives of legitimacy, from resistance discourse to security justifications. To what extent do these narratives themselves sustain and prolong conflict, even in situations where material incentives might otherwise favor de escalation?

Ioana Emy Matesan: Competing narratives of legitimacy have always been part and parcel of conflict dynamics, and they can certainly prolong and intensify conflict. But narratives can change, and agreements have been reached before despite competing narratives. I think getting trapped by such narratives is a failure of leadership.

Gulan: Within this broader regional competition, Iraq occupies a particularly complex position, balancing relations with both the United States and Iran while dealing with internal political fragmentation. Do you see Iraq, and especially the Kurdistan Region, as structurally constrained by these dynamics, or is there still room for meaningful political and economic agency?

Ioana Emy Matesan: I think it is possible to be structurally constrained by regional dynamics, and still exert significant agency in deciding how to navigate such constraints and how to adapt to crises. The current war is certainly exacerbating political uncertainties and economic vulnerabilities, especially for the Kurdistan Region, but domestic politics and effective policy making depend on more than just external pressures and constraints.

 By Kobin Ferhad