Latest Articles

​It was mostly British colonisers who came to consolidate the political, economic and military interests of the motherland and did what they used to do: play football. Apart from spending their time, football worked as a colonial instrument both "civilising" and "disciplining" the colonised populations. The first clubs in North Africa and the Levant restricted membership for non-Westerners and non-whites, but soon football also became a transnational transmitter of independence movements, the stadiums becoming important social spaces on the local and national levels. Such was the emancipatory force of football that it has been preserved across the region ever since the colonial era, prominent again in the Arab Uprisings. However, the massive wealth of the Gulf States and their decision to invest in football's soft power has changed the equation. The article thus describes emancipatory and counter-emancipatory trends in MENA football history from a longue durée perspective.

US and Gulf relations are based on more than self-interest, but common selfinterest is always a key (or the key) factor in shaping an alliance and strategic relationship. The key common self-interests that drives US and Arab Gulf relations are security – the need to deal with Iran, fighting extremism, and securing the flow of petroleum exports out of the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula to meet the needs of the global economy, and to provide the key source of income for the Gulf states. This study explains why the United States maintains close ties with its Arab strategic partners in the Gulf. The study finds out that the US and its Gulf strategic partners face serious challenges, including domestic political change in the US, divisions between Arab states, the impact of regional conflicts and instability, and the growing role of non-Western powers.

Iran, over the past four decades, lived through a state of continuous alert to defend itself against the threats surrounding it and targeting its national security. Over that period, Iran did not enjoy clear recognition of its legitimacy from the major powers, the United States in particular. This created ongoing anxiety and restricted Iran’s efforts of “preserving the regime”, which Ayatollah Khomeini made the highest duty. These circumstances had tangible effects on Iranian national security and its strategy. The article sees that the nuclear agreement might be the beginning of a new phase. Via the agreement, Iran feels it has gained the recognition of the international community, and acknowledgement of its demand for legitimacy. Most importantly for Iran, the agreement shifts it away from the obsession with security and stability, and encourages it to bring out the features of the “Iranian model” in the region. The paper also discusses the fears of neighboring states and Iran’s efforts to reassure them. The positions of the political currents and the power centers in Iran are also considered as well as their differences over the pluses and minuses of the agreement.

The Iranian political regime represented by the ruling establishment decided to sign the Geneva Interim Agreement or the Joint Plan of Action in order to renew its legitimacy domestically. The agreement was signed in response to the challenges imposed by geopolitics, especially those related to the repercussions of the Arab Spring, in addition to the Syrian war and its ramifications. In this context, the ruling establishment goes past the Supreme Guide to the president then to the parliament, and past the executive institutions like the Foreign Ministry, the intelligence and the military institution represented by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Humanity has continued to develop expertise in addressing the environmental issue and to better understand extreme weather events such as droughts and increased desertification, often accompanied with political tensions and economic crises that have contributed to conflicts over natural resources, leading policymakers to re-think climate change and the drivers of armed conflict. In this regard, the study attempts to deconstruct the relatedness/unrelatedness of climate change and the drivers of conflict, focusing on international legal perspectives and methods to enable local communities develop own adaptation and resilience particularly in the African continent and the Arab region. Therefore, the study provides proposals that address climate vulnerability and adopt equitable access mechanisms as steps to reduce waves of displacement and avoid climate risks, conflicts, and insecurity.

This article sheds light on the reasons behind the lag of Arab public administration scholarship behind the needs of coping with the questions of political and administrative reform and situating public administration within the context of political governance. This article draws insights from the development of the field in the US experience, its fuzzy boundaries, and value conflicts. This was characterized by overlap and the value struggle caused by the three tributaries that established the knowledge and research architecture of the field, namely law, business administration, and political science. The study concludes with a discussion of how different origins and political context detached public administration research in the Arab world from the ontological and methodological diversity that contribute to the richness of the field in the US experience.

This report highlights some of the major milestones of the Arab democratic transition. The countries covered include Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

This article looks at Algeria's security policy in general and its security doctrine in particular, analysing its changes and dilemmas in a turbulent regional environment and in the context of an internal Hirak. It argues that these doctrines have undergone minor changes to meet regional security needs, which precludes fundamental change at this stage. It also argues that the tension between the moral-normative imperative and the security imperative, on the one hand, and the principle of dual non-interference (political and military), on the other, constitute two major dilemmas confronting Algerian politics and security doctrine. Starting from these two elements, the article, after setting out my concept of the subject, examines the formation and nature of Algerian politics, ideology, and transformations. It then looks at the constitutional decision on the participation of Algerian armed forces in international peacekeeping operations, analysing their context (domestic and foreign), their motives and justifications, and the reservations they face. Finally, it analyses Algeria's regional security strategy as an alternative to intervention. The article comes to three main conclusions. First, there is a limited adjustment to the issue of external interference depending on the needs of the security interest. Second, the end of the absolute refusal to use armed forces outside the borders. Third, it is likely that the tension between moral-normative and security considerations will escalate if the unrest continues within its geographical boundaries.

Any attempts to interpret the Tunisian Revolution of 2011 through the prism of generational shifts raises four major questions. The first two concern the difficulty of attributing to young Tunisians any kind of generational or political consciousness, particularly before the outbreak of the revolution in 2011. The third and fourth questions relate to the concept of the "Generational Theory" itself and its ability (or otherwise) to explain a wide spectrum of social factors. Can the demographic approach sufficiently describe the Tunisian Revolution of 2011? This paper will demonstrate that a demographic approach can illuminate not only an understanding of the Tunisian Revolution, but also of the wider social and political changes which have shaped the country in recent times.

This paper discusses the implications of the Iranian nuclear agreement inside Iran which is experiencing an ongoing battle between moderates and conservatives. It also observes and analyzes the responses within the Gulf states, which is the Arab bloc geographically closest to Iran and the most involved with it and fearful of it. The agreement restrains the Iranian Republic more than it gives it free rein, as it places Iran under international monitoring. The kind of sanctions that can be imposed on Iran in future, if it violates any or all of the provisions of the agreement are a factor controlling Iran’s future course. Alternatively, from what has come to light, it is clear that the marathon negotiations were not limited to the nuclear agreement, as both sides wish to portray. Rather other issues were discussed, including Iran’s future role in the region and the world. The acceleration of action on Syria and Yemen may be a reflection of these other issues.