Latest Articles

This paper addresses problematic aspects of the concept of "terrorism" from within its present-day setting, exploring the futile conflict between "terrorism" and "counter-terrorism" which has been utilized to marginalize the discourse on democracy, justice and national liberation. The paper argues that the categorization of an event as a terrorist act based on the identity of the perpetrator, and regardless of the victims, leads to a logical fallacy. One consequence of categorizing all armed acts by non-state actors as "terrorist" is the erosion of distinctions between terrorist acts and acts of national liberation, resistance to foreign occupation and armed opposition to state violence against civilians. One conclusion of the paper is that blurring the distinctions between terrorist and legitimate acts is counterproductive to the war on terror.

The latest report in this series covers milestones in Palestinian affairs and developments in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict between September 1 and December 30, 2017.

​This article discusses relations between Sudan and Iran against the background of the many Israeli air strikes against Sudan, and asks whether the ruling regime in Sudan favors Iran over the Arab states when it comes to dealing with its political and security concerns, or whether Sudan sees no issue in playing both sides. It also examines the dreams of Islamic leadership and the transnational revolutionary tendency espoused by Hassan al-Turabi, and the effect of this among his disciples in terms of their view of and links with Iran. The study also takes Iranian support for Islamic movements in Gaza via Sudan as an example of cooperation where the tactical and short term intersects with long term strategy. The paper also discusses the Islamists’ coming to power as a result of the Arab revolutions, and the potential for the revival of transnational revolution included in the literature of the Muslim Brotherhood and the effect of this on relations between the Arab states and their collective and individual relations with Iran.

This paper argues that hybrid regimes help to create an environment that encourages the transformation of political disputes into identity conflicts. In such regimes, there is no resolution to the advantage of a particular party, since there is neither full authoritarianism that prevents the existence of any form of competition, rivalry, or conflict, or full democracy that permits the existence of democratic competition according to principles of pluralism, the peaceful transfer of power, and legal guarantees. In the environment of these hybrid regimes there are some features of democracy and many features of authoritarianism, and so political competition usually begins as a dispute over points of view and intellectual assumptions and ends up as an identity conflict leading to the dissociation of society.

This study analyses the dynamics of state fragility in Arab countries from 2006–2024 using the Fragile States Index (FSI, Fund for Peace) and World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI). The findings indicate that state fragility in the Arab world is complex and multidimensional, influenced by domestic structural factors, as well as internal and external shocks. Despite an overall increase in fragility, variations were observed among countries; Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine experienced significant increases, while the Gulf countries remained stable, and Iraq and Morocco showed relative improvement. Based on inflection points in the regional FSI series, the study divides the dynamics of fragility into four phases: relative stability (2006-2011), rising fragility (2012-2016), stability at high fragility levels (2017-2020), and slight improvement in indicators (2021-2024). The findings indicate that higher poverty, malnutrition, and low education exacerbate fragility, whereas improvements in GDP per capita, education, health, and economic openness help reduce it. The study highlights that addressing fragility requires long-term policies focused on enhancing governance, social justice, economic diversification, and human development to build more resilient Arab societies in the face of crises.

Forced migration from Iraq and Syria today are reminiscent of the Palestinian Nakba of the late 1940s, underscoring the need for a revision of Arab knowledge in the field of forced migration. This paper attempts to offer a starting point for researchers interested in the subject, and attempts to expand the specifically Sudanese experience across the Arab world. The paper also takes in those academic studies which explore the violent aspects of forced migration as well as the extent to which Sudanese government policy on refugees is tied to the social values of the Sudanese people. One conclusion made in this regard is the possibility that the integration of refugees can be used to address structural instabilities in Arab societies. The author highlights the importance of the interested parties—including governments, grassroots movements and returned refugees—to cooperate in effecting the integration of refugees who return to their home countries, a challenge more complicated than hosting refugees abroad.

This study aims to define the interests and goals of the United States in the Arab region by answering two main questions: how does the Obama administration differ from its predecessors in view of its promises of change, particularly following the tragic transformations raging in the Arab region at present? And to what extent does the strategy of this administration reflect its public diplomacy regarding democracy, freedom, and justice in the region? The study explains how Obama raised the ceiling of expectations when he did not limit his promises to a change in American policy only, but included putting an end to the mentality that had pushed the United States into war. Despite the difference in style and method between the Obama and Bush Junior administrations, the overall goals and the regional strategy can be summarized in terms of three key interests: the priority of ensuring free access to energy supplies in the region; maintaining American supremacy over all other global powers; and the containment of all Arab objections to ensure the dominance of the US strategic agenda in the Arab region, including the guarantee of Israel's security.

ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﺣﺪى أﻫﻢ ﻣﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻴﻮم؛ أي اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ اﻟﺤﺎﺳﻢ اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺘﻬﺎ واﻟﻤﺤﻔﺰ ﻟﺘﻄﻮرﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪأ اﻟﺴﻴﺎدة اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻴﺔ، وﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﻜﺰة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪأ اﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ، وﻫﻤﺎ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎن ﻳﻌﻤﻼن ﺑﺸﻜﻞ داﺋﻢ ﻓﻲ اﺗﺠﺎﻫﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ. وﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ أزﻣﺔ ﺑﺮوز اﻟﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻮي وﺳﻴﺎدﺗﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ. وﺗﺨﻠﺺ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ ﻳﻤﻴﻞ إﻟﻰ أن ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺗﻔﺎوﺗﺎت وﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ واﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ وﻋﺮﻗﻴﺔ. وﻣﻊ أن ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ وﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺗﺘﻌﺪاﻫﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ، ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ذاﺗﻪ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻣﺎﺛﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺎت اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ، اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻄﻐﻰ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ أﺣﺪ اﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ا¤ﺧﺮ؛ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ أﺣﺪ ﺧﻴﺎرﻳﻦ: ﻧﻈﺎم ﻧﺨﺒﻮي أو ﻧﻈﺎم ﺷﻌﺒﻮي، ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺛﻞ ا¤ن، ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﺔ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻀ ﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﺎد وﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ، وﻳﻔﺘﺢ اﻟﺒﺎب ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠ ﺎ أﻣﺎم ﺑﺮوز ﺻﻴﻐﺔ دﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ رﺑﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮة ﻟﻠﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺒﻠﺪ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ، اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ، اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻮﻳﺔ، اﻟﻨﺨﺒﻮﻳﺔ. Tis paper discusses one of the most pressing challenges facing liberal democracies, specifically, the tensions between the concept of popular consent (or "sovereignty of the people") and the protection of individual freedoms. Tese two aspects of democracy have been in liberal democracies across time and space, argues the author, but the paper examines in detail the rise of a populist bloc in the United States. Te author asserts that the self-contradiction contained within democracy reflects social and economic differences and not ethnic or cultural variance. Te author concludes that the conflict between these two aspects of democracy produces a system of government which favors one aspect over the other. Tis, the author says, creates sharp social conflict in America and could give rise to a novel form of democracy there.

This paper presents an overview of Arab public opinion towards US policies in the Arab region at a turning point between two US administrations. The findings, taken from the 2016 Arab Opinion Index, show that the Arab public has a complete lack of trust in US policies towards their region. The paper explores the evolution of Arab public perceptions of US policies through successive polls of the Arab Opinion Index, and analyzes the factors driving negative Arab public perceptions of US foreign policy in the region, asking whether these are driven by religious, cultural, political or ideological reasons. With the Obama Administration handing over to Trump, the author examines the Arab public expectations of a change US foreign policy towards the region.

Algerian Security Policy: Determinants, Fields and Challenges [Arabic]