Latest Articles

This study begins by discussing the concept of legitimacy and then examines the patterns of legitimacy in Egypt since 2013. It specifically focuses on the legitimacy of performance within the field of educational policies and its role in the regime's continuity. The study finds that the regime cannot establish its own legitimacy merely by creating an illusion of effective performance. Instead, it can manage legitimacy through several strategies: shaping public expectations by emphasizing the importance of maintaining public order and providing basic goods and services; influencing public perceptions by highlighting achievements while concealing failures and suppressing criticism; and managing citizens' perceptions of alternatives, such as Islamist groups or a descent into chaos, or both. The study also concludes that the regime's objective is not to secure genuine popular support but to ensure general compliance by persuading the majority that it is more effective in improving their lives than any alternative. This level of legitimacy may be sufficient to encourage adherence to laws and discourage efforts to replace the regime.

Brazil is considered a rising power in the world order of the post-Cold War era, and some see it as an emerging middle power. Several motives and caveats drive Brazil’s stance vis-à-vis the Arab Spring revolutions. Brazil decided not to get involved in the affairs of the Arab world and carefully observed the internal developments in Arab countries and the role of some intervening foreign powers. It also reiterated that the West’s military intervention in the affairs of Arab countries is selective and causes more harm than good. Brazil’s reactions varied, as did its stances and ways of addressing the Arab revolutions. The paper explores and analyzes the conflicting Brazilian reactions and assesses the factors behind the different views. It also mentions some expected outcomes of the Brazilian stance and the possible repercussions on Brazil’s international role and economic interests in the Arab region.

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 study argues that relying on the United States for of security and defense has led to the neglect of the Arab Gulf states to varying degrees. These countries failed to build an independent regional security capacity or develop broad security relations with third parties besides the United States. Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009-2016, before Donald Trump replaced him, questioning the regional balance of power, this reliance has destabilized the most stable part of the Arab world. This study examines the implications of the unprecedented regional reality regarding the strategic and security relations between the United States and the Gulf in the context of the divergent views of Washington and its local partners on regional security management methods, in particular the role of the GCC in managing peace and security.

This paper addresses the implications of the transformation of the international system from a bipolar to a unipolar system for realist theory. The paper demonstrates and analyzes how realists react to this external challenge. The paper demonstrates the traditional response to the "attack" on realism, in an attempt to preserve its basic premises. It then proceeds to explain the different revisionist orientations undertaken by the theorists of this school in an attempt to harmonize the foundations of this theory with unipolarity. The study deals with four revisionist approaches: "balance of threat", "soft balance", "balance of interests" and "external balancing". This paper presents a new addition, "internal balancing" which, while derived from the liberal theory opposed to realism, comes with a realist adaptation to explain the length of the current unipolar era.

This study examined representations of the Israeli military establishment in the U. S. elite press, focusing on aspects of power and morality. it poses a key question: How did the Israeli military establishment appear to be represented in the American elite press after October 7 , 2023. The study employs critical discourse analysis (CDA) techniques alongside a review of relevant literature and secondary sources to uncover the characteristics of the representations constructed by media narratives. This is achieved through reflective thematic analysis of in-depth reports from a sample of American elite press outlets, represented by three major publications: The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Foreign Policy. The findings reveal that much of the journalistic discourse has focused on the moral dilemma surrounding the Israeli military's actions. The moral reputation of the Israeli military establishments, once central to its image, has suffered significant erosion. Additionally, the analysis highlights notable shifts in the perception of power, self-defense, technological and qualitative superiority, and the image of victory.

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.

ﺗﺮﺻﺪ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﻓﻮﺿﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ إﻃﺎر ﺻﺮاع اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻤﺔ واﻟﺒﻴﺖ اﺑﻴﺾ. وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻧﺤﻴﺎز اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ دوﻧﺎﻟﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ إﻟﻰ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر ارﺑﻊ ﺿﺪ ﻗﻄﺮ، وﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﻤﺮار ﻧﻬﺠﻬﺎ وﻋﺮﻗﻠﺔ ﺟﻬﺪ اﻟﻮﺳﺎﻃﺔ، ﻓﺈن اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻤﺔ - ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ ﺳﻌﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق ا وﺳﻂ، وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًا اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ - ﻛﺎن ﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻠﻤﻮس ﻓﻲ ا زﻣﺔ؛ ﻓﻘﺪ اﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺼﺮﻳﺤﺎت واﺟﺮاءات أﺣﻴﺎﻧ ﺎ اﺳﺘﻌﺎدة زﻣﺎم اﻟﻤﺒﺎدرة وﻣﻨﻊ ﺗﺪﻫﻮر اوﺿﺎع ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ أو ﻣﻨﻊ اﻻﺗ ﺠﺎه ﻧﺤﻮ ﺳﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮﻫﺎت ﺗﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳّﺔ. وﺗﺨﻠﺺ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ إﻟﻰ أن ﻓﻮﺿﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻮد إﻟﻰ ﻓﻘﺪان اﻟﺮؤﻳﺔ اﻟﻮاﺿﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ؛ اﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻀﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ أﻣﺎم ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺎت ﺟﺴﺎم، ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺪم ﻛﻔﺎءة اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ، واﺳﺘﻨﺎده إﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﻮﻏﱢﺎت أﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ، ﻓﻀﻠ ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺎت، وﺧﺼﻮﻣﺎت ﺷﺨﺼﻴّﺔ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، ﺣﺼﺎر ﻗﻄﺮ، ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ. This paper traces the evolution of the official stance of the US establishment, including the White House, towards the 2017 intra-Gulf crisis. While the president's seeming bias in favor of the four countries leading the blockade on Qatar served to make them more intransigent and less amenable to various attempts at mediation, other organs of the US establishment were quick to move to try to contain the excesses of statements made by Trump and limit the fallout of the crisis. The author concludes that the disarray in the American approach to the Gulf crisis is a reflection of the lack of a clear vision of what US foreign policy ought to be under the Trump presidency. Coupled with the inexperience of President Trump, his personal vendettas and his reliance on ideological gimmicks, this reality foretells huge challenges for US interests around the world.

Where the Cold War crises took place in the context of a bilateral international system represented by the Western and Soviet entities, the recent Ukrainian crisis is played out on an international stage where the US remains the world’s unipolar power. This paper discusses the major differences between these contexts with the aim of better understanding the possible outcomes and ramifications of the crisis. Such an understanding seems vital, for if the Ukrainian crisis continues without reaching a political or diplomatic solution, the cost will be higher for Russia and EU countries than it will be for the United States. The paper shows how European countries will pay a higher price for the crisis, compared with others in the region with different foreign policy priorities due to the EU’s current political and economic interests that tie it to Russia.

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.