The Myth of Stability: Why Supporting Authoritarians in the Middle East Backfires

The Myth of Authoritarian Stability in the Middle East

Over the past few weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump and his team have voiced contradictory objectives for the conflict involving Iran. Although, after the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Trump hoped to deal with a transactional authoritarian figure, referencing “what we did in Venezuela”—replacing President Nicolás Maduro with Delcy Rodríguez—as a “perfect scenario” for Iran and expressing a desire to be “involved with the appointment” of Khamenei’s successor. He later stated he wanted to negotiate with elements of Iran’s clerical regime, though he complained the terms weren’t “excellent enough yet.”

The belief that authoritarianism guarantees stability in the Middle East has long influenced U.S. Foreign policy—and, to a lesser extent, Europe’s. Following the chaos after the Arab Spring in 2010–11, Western governments sought to perform with autocrats who, they hoped, could maintain regional quiescence—wealthy Gulf monarchs and strongmen who could bring a measure of stability to countries like Egypt. This logic also shaped policy toward Iran during protests in 2022–23, with Washington largely limiting itself to rhetorical support and targeted sanctions. Advancing security, energy and geopolitical goals has often taken precedence over sustained support for human rights and democratic activism.

However, the idea that authoritarian rule undergirds stability in the Middle East is a dangerous myth. By nearly every measurable indicator, the region has become more autocratic since the Arab Spring uprisings. This consolidation of authoritarianism has not led to stability; instead, conditions that drove popular protest in Iran—high youth unemployment, poverty, inequality, corruption, water shortages, debt, ecological threats, and a lack of hope—are present across much of the region.

An Opening Foreclosed

The 2003 U.S. Invasion and occupation of Iraq reinforced a belief that the Middle East was unsuited for democracy and that stability should take precedence. By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, even U.S. Officials who once advocated for democratic transformation tempered their ambitions. The Iraq war also poisoned perceptions of liberal democracy among Middle Eastern publics, and increasingly, democracy came to be seen as rhetoric used to obscure U.S. Desires to control the region’s energy resources.

The Arab Spring uprisings briefly revived the idea of people power, but they were crushed by a coordinated counterrevolution led by regional states and reinforced by external backers. As violence engulfed Libya, Syria, and Yemen, Western leaders began to equate democracy with instability. In 2011, when Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sent troops to crush Bahrain’s protests, U.S. And European governments largely looked the other way. With tacit U.S. Support, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates financed the restoration of military rule in Egypt, while Russia’s intervention in Syria ensured the survival of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. A policy of restraint took hold in Washington, prioritizing stability and deferring to regional allies.

An Authoritarian Wave

Authoritarian rulers actively reinforced this new Western interpretation, warning that political opening would empower Islamist movements. This recast democratic participation not as a path to accountable governance but as a gateway to disorder. The Gulf monarchies, with their hereditary rulers and vast oil wealth, were increasingly viewed as islands of stability. After the Arab Spring, U.S. And European governments viewed them as the region’s new center of economic and geopolitical gravity. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 reinforced this shift as Europe sought alternative energy sources.

Between 2011 and 2020, nearly half of all U.S. Arms exports went to the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia alone accounting for roughly a quarter. The United States reinforced these ties through arms deals, including over $100 billion under President Barack Obama and a further $110 billion agreement under Trump.

Meanwhile, authoritarianism took deeper root elsewhere. In Egypt, human rights organizations estimate that more than 60,000 political prisoners are detained. After a popular uprising ended Omar al-Bashir’s rule in Sudan in 2019, a civilian transition was overturned by a military coup in 2021. Algeria enforced a clampdown on journalists and activists, and Tunisia slid back into authoritarianism in 2021. Turkey’s democratic backsliding has accelerated under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Morocco has tightened restrictions on dissent.

Even Israel, often regarded as the region’s most robust democracy, has drifted in an authoritarian direction, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pursuing a judicial overhaul to weaken checks and balances.

False Security

However, authoritarian leaders have not delivered security. Instead, rising repression has coincided with deepening economic misery and social fragility. Iran’s recent trajectory—from protests to escalating conflict—offers a warning: repression can suppress dissent in the short term, but We see a recipe for continued unrest and a brittle government.

Trump’s embrace of authoritarians has deepened popular resentment of the United States. By aligning closely with autocratic regimes, the U.S. Implicates itself in their abuses, reinforcing anti-American sentiment. Popular agency in the Middle East has been suppressed, but not extinguished. Middle Eastern regimes exist in permanent tension with their societies, and the region is no exception.

Trump’s hope for a Venezuela-style outcome in Iran is unlikely, as Iran is not Venezuela: it is an ancient civilization with multilayered institutions. The assumption that coercion can make authoritarian regimes compliant has been repeatedly proved wrong in the Middle East, where external pressure often hardens regimes.