Latest Articles

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.

Following the transformations in the Levant’s regional system since the beginning of World War II to the rise of the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, this paper examines the new context of the region with regard to Washington’s resumption of direct military intervention. It finds that the Levant – as a soft area easily subject to geopolitical influences – has always been subject to changes based on shifts in world order, from the Cold War, followed by unipolarity, to the relative decline of US power. Thus, while the main actors of the Levant’s regional system were Arabs during the Cold War, the region has become a battleground for non-Arab parties – namely Turkey and Iran – following the invasion or Iraq and the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutions.

A chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime on August 21, 2013, led to a massacre of civilians in the towns of East Ghouta and West Ghouta on the outskirts of Damascus and marked a turning point in the Syrian conflict. US President Barack Obama had previously undertaken to respond militarily if such an attack took place, provided that Congress would support such a decision. Such a direct US military intervention remained likely despite opposition among the American public and within Congress itself, up to and until a Russian proposal, quickly accepted by the Assad regime in Damascus, which would place all of Syria’s chemical weapons under international supervision before they were destroyed by Moscow. This paper examines how the Obama White House dealt with the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. The paper also deals with declining international interest in a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian crisis, with the world community now shifting its focus from punishing the Assad regime to accepting the destruction of those weapons.

An agreement signed by the Russian Foreign Minister and his US counterpart in Moscow has taken observers by surprise due to its timing and the surrounding circumstances. The agreement in Moscow was the natural culmination of a series of events impacting the situation in Syria, including changes to the composition of Barack Obama’s Administration and an overall shift in American attitudes towards the Arab Spring. This has presaged a change in American vision towards its interests in the wider Middle East region and Washington’s relations with both regional powers and global players with influence on the Syrian conflict. Finally, the agreement can be regarded as an expression of American uncertainty, as well as the Obama Administration’s inability to formulate a coherent policy towards Syria two years into the revolution.

The study aims to investigating the matter of constructing a statistical index to measure the level of political culture in the Arab countries, based on methodological triangulation; that is, using more than one tool to identify the characteristics of political culture and its component elements, as well as collecting and classifying data and determining the optimal statistical method to calculate the sub-indices with a focus on quantitative measurement. Depending on the results of the exploratory study, the level of the political culture indicators in concerning the cognitive and affective dimensions is slightly below average (50 points out of 100), which is an encouraging outcome in a context characterized by low educational level and rural concentration. On the other hand, the political culture index concerning the evaluative dimension recorded a rather low score (37 points out of 100), reflecting an insufficiency of interest in making judgments and attitudes towards political institutions and issues in the community study.

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.

This article discusses the nuclear program agreement reached between the P5+1 group of nations and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The article sees the agreement as a historic achievement that may well have major effects in the region. The paper deals with the main features of the agreement and the circumstances that led to it, and enumerates its likely effects on the region and especially on the Palestine-Israel conflict, as well as Israel’s frustration with the Iranian nuclear program and its threats to strike it. The paper puts forth the possibility that the agreement will lead to positive results and cause stability in the region and lead to real improvement in Iranian-Gulf relations, particularly with Saudi Arabia, as well as resolve the problems of Shia minorities in some Gulf states.

This paper investigates the factors that have led to the collapse of Baath-ruled Syria. It argues that the abandonment of the rentier – distributive economic system that had traditionally propped up the social base of the Baath party (labourers, farmers, and rural populations) and the adoption of liberal economic policies was key to the crisis. The end of the Cold War, the passing of resistance discourse, with the start of the Middle East peace process, and the information revolution have contributed to weakening the cultural and ideological hegemony of the Syrian Baath-ruled state. This led to increasing reliance on the security apparatus to control an increasingly young and educated society. The loosening economic grip of the state resulting from the abandonment of the public sector, and the rise of crony capitalism accompanied by the declining role of political socialisation (in schools and universities), and the loss of control over the flow of information, left the regime with no other option but resorting to violence to deal with the crisis. The peaceful opposition movement hitherto was transformed into an armed revolution, and then into a regional and international proxy war, with the rising role foreign interference in the crisis.

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدات اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﺔ ﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ ﺛﻼث دول ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ؛ ﻫﻲ اﻟﺴﻮدان واﻟﻤﻐﺮب واﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺮاﻫﻨﺔ. وﻟﻢ ﻳﺄت اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪول ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدﻓﺔ، ﺑﻞ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ؛ أﺑﺮزﻫﺎ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ واﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰة ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ازﻣﺔ، وﺳﻌﻲ اﻟﺪول ارﺑﻊ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﺻِ ﺮة ﻻﺟﺘﺬاﺑﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺻﻔﻬﺎ، ﺿﻤﻦ ﻧﻬﺞ دﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﺎدﺗﻪ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﻳﺮﻣﻲ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺰل دوﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ ﻋﺮﺑﻴًﺎ ﺗﻤﻬﻴﺪًا ﻟﻌﺰﻟﻬﺎ دوﻟﻴًﺎ. وﻣﺎ أﻋﻄﻰ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻧﺎ أﻫﻤﻴﺔ، رﻓﺾ اﻟﺪول اﻟﺜﻼث، ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻏﺮاءات واﻟﻀﻐﻮط، ﻣﺴﺎﻳﺮةَ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر ﻓﻲ ﺧﻄﻮاﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺿﺪ ﻗﻄﺮ، واﺗﺨﺬت اﻟﺤﻴﺎد اﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﺪاﻋﻲ إﻟﻰ ﺣﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮق اﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ، ﻣﻦ دون اﻟﻠﺠﻮء إﻟﻰ آﻟﻴﺎت ﺗﻌﺴﻔﻴﺔ، ﻛﻨﻬﺞ اﻟﺤﺼﺎر اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ واﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدي اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻊ ﺣﺎﻟﻴًﺎ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، اﻟﺴﻮدان، اﻟﻤﻐﺮب، اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، أرض اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل. This paper explores the positions of three Arab states: Morocco, Sudan and Somalia towards the present crisis in intra-Gulf relations. The choice of these three Arab countries in Africa was deliberate, a result of the strong bilateral bonds which tie each of them to Qatar, a party to the conflict. It is also true that the countries presently leading a blockade on Qatar, led by Saudi Arabia, sought to coerce these three countries to similarly cut off ties with Qatar, part of an effort to isolate Doha on the Arab regional stage before seeking to isolate the country globally. More importantly, each of these three countries opted to pursue a path of "positive impartiality", remaining firm in the face of financial and political inducements from the countries leading the blockade on Qatar to join their effort.

This paper discusses the findings of a special opinion survey undertaken by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies on Arab attitudes towards the November, 2016 presidential election in the United States. American domestic politics and its impact on the Arab region have increased significantly in the new millennium, with the US invading and occupying Iraq in 2003, and becoming involved in the internationalization of conflicts in Yemen, Libya and Syria. The results presented here examine Arab public expectations of American foreign policy towards these issues and more following the 2016 elections.