Latest Articles

In September 2014, US President Barack Obama announced a “comprehensive strategy” to degrade and destroy ISIL. Obama stated, “I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” But despite this announcement, questions over the nature, goals, and instruments of US policy towards ISIL still continue to be asked in the context of a debate between those who think that the US is not doing enough to take on ISIL and those who think it would be better for the US not to expand its military involvement in the conflict. This debate has been influenced by internal American political polarizations in the form of the critical position taken by leading Republicans such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who view the Obama policy as weak, and Middle Eastern regional rivalries over the position towards ISIL and the nature of the political choices that must frame the confrontation with it.

The Islamic Republic's foreign policy, grounded in a revolutionary commitment to Shi ʿ i transnationalism, has long been viewed as a central mechanism for securing Iran's regional influence and post-revolutionary identity. Yet recent developments, most notably the June 2025 war with Israel, raise critical questions about the sustainability of this approach. While much scholarship has explored Iran's identity-driven foreign policy, less attention has been paid to the chronic contradictions it generates within Iran's ontological security framework, or how these contradictions both shape and constrain Iran's regional conduct. This study approaches the problem by theorising Iran's predicament as an ontological trap, a condition in which identity-affirming foreign policy routines produce chronic insecurity rather than stabilisation. It introduces the concept of a security dilemma of influence to explain how transnational networks (once strategic assets) now provoke nationalist contestation and narrative fatigue in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

The June, 1967 War was a turning point in the modern history not only of Palestine and the Zionist state but also the wider region. The defeat of the Arab armies was a pivotal moment for the modern and contemporary histories of the Arab world, and has consequences which continue to reverberate today. That fact remains unchanged despite attempts by Arab governments to gloss over the severity of what happened during the war, first by employing the euphemism of Naksa (or "setback") to describe what happened and later to celebrate the fact that "progressive" Arab regimes were not toppled by the Israeli army. Despite the significance of these events, the Arabic academic literature continues to lack a serious analysis of the events of June, 1967, in stark contrast to the hundreds of academic works published by Israeli and western authors. This reality necessitates a rereading of the war, and the formulation of a new Arab narrative about it, which the author attempts in this paper.

This study explores the trajectory of state disintegration in Sudan from 1821 to 2025 , starting from a central question: does the April 2023 war constitute a revealing variable that exposes a process of structural disintegration whose foundations accumulated over time? Or is it an explanatory variable that, in itself, drives the deepening of this disintegration? Drawing on a historical sociology approach, the study analyzes the interaction of five main variables addressed in the literature on state disintegration: war, elite conflict, geostrategic intervention, erosion of legitimacy, and the pressures of globalization. The study shows that successive wars and resource depletion, along with ethnic/regional elite divisions and international competition over the Red Sea, have undermined the state’s monopoly over the legitimate means of violence, leading to a hybrid pattern of disintegration in which the center retains international recognition while power is effectively distributed among local armed networks. The study concludes that existing models of state disintegration explain important aspects of the Sudanese experience, but require further development to accommodate forms of multiple sovereignties and managed disintegration.

This paper examines the war that broke out in Sudan on April 15 , 2023 , through a comprehensive contextual lens that resists fragmenting its causes and obscuring the wider panorama. It argues that the war must be understood as part of an extended historical trajectory - spanning five centuries - of nation-building and state-building. The study analyzes the theoretical concepts of nation and state building, especially in the African context, and explores their practical manifestations in Sudan. It also investigates how the absence of prioritization by post-independence elites accelerated the slide into conflict. Using historical and political analysis, the paper concludes that, with the high human cost of the war, its resolution depends upon a broad-based national consensus.

​The splitting, renaming and merging of factions can lead to the start of new rivalries, or in some cases, end existing ones. A new faction may inherit the original faction's previous rivalries with other groups, and if a faction name change results in a total restructure, it may signal the end of the rivalry. However, this was not the case when Jabhat al-Nusra renamed itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, and later Tahrir al-Sham. It was considered a 'cosmetic' and superficial change because it did not develop a new structure. This article will shed light on exclusionary politics and the political ramifications of sectarianism caused by certain jihadist movements, such as Jabhat al-Nusra (presently known as Tahrir al-Sham), enabling us to analyse its practices, especially towards minorities, and sectarian ideologies present in Idlib, and which ultimately led to the expulsion of many who fled outside the governorate. The article also calls attention to the roles of regional and international powers in Idlib against the backdrop of opposition factions, and their physical and ideological influence on Islamist forces that frequently facilitated displacement within and outside the city.

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.

This study deals with the war of aggression launched by Israel against the Gaza Strip at dawn on July 8, 2014. The war lasted for 50 days, during which the Israeli army committed a series of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinian civilians, killing around 2,150 people and injuring 10,870. Thousands of homes were destroyed and around 400,000 Palestinians were made homeless. The paper gives an overview of the background to the assault, its stated and unstated goals, and the means adopted by Israel to achieve these goals, which basically meant the commission of successive massacres against Palestinian civilians. The paper considers the decision making process in the cabinet committee for security affairs (the Israeli security cabinet) and the debates and disagreements that occurred concerning the war aims and the means to achieve them. It also casts light on Israel’s fears concerning the formation of an international commission of inquiry, and on the economic losses to Israel caused by the war. Finally, it looks at the effect of the war for the future of Benjamin Netanyahu on the Israeli political party map.

This study explores a major predicament afflicting political science, focusing on the impact of ideology on knowledge. The study examines the influence of the "teleological" or ideological dimension, whether associated with the emergence of political science as a field of knowledge in the late eighteenth century, or one which continued during the Cold War era, on the knowledge and methodological structure of political science. The study argues that there is a cognitive predicament facing political science because it has become a "teleological" science in which the relationship between power and knowledge is clearly manifest. Therefore, it seems clear that ideology has an impact on the cognitive and methodological structure of political science. The study is divided into five parts: the first discusses epistemological and conceptual problems, the second describes the controversy and manifestations of the concept of ideology, the third studies the movement of political science between the ideological and knowledge, the fourth presents critical theses on the relationship between the ideological and cognitive in political science, and the fifth forecasts "post-ideology" political science.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, neorealist theory came under severe scrutiny. During its growth stages, the theory encountered unavoidable conceptual and empirical impediments, which cast doubt on its capacity to overcome such hurdles. This was the challenge that neorealist theory faced when the concepts of "anarchy" and "balance" were questioned. In terms of empiricism, the criticism focused on the neorealism inability to represent the new realities of the international system, notably US hegemony. This study evaluates the progressiveness or degenerassive of the neorealism research program in an attempt to assess the theory's progressivism and degenerative by examining the adjustments and improvements made to the ideas of anarchy and balance. It is based on the methodology of the Imre Lakatos Scientific Research Program as an evaluation tool.