Latest Articles

This study discusses Saudi-Iranian rivalry in the Persian Gulf, focusing on political, economic, strategic, historical, and religious dimensions. It details the escalation of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran since 1979 up until 2019, before delving into the agreement to restore diplomatic relations between the two countries in March 2023. The study concludes that countries in the international system tend to maximize their capabilities and enhance their power; which sometimes leads to escalation in hostilities and the pursuit of an arms race. Iran's security strategy also includes enhancing its power and capabilities in pursuit of regional hegemony. Saudi Arabia sees Iran as its greatest security threat, whereby Iran poses multiple air, sea, and cyber security challenges to the Kingdom.​

This report presents Palestinian public opinion trends in Gaza, through data collected by the 2019-2020 Arab Opinion Index. This paper reviews basic descriptive statistics from opinion on major issues relating to the economic and political situation and compares these Gaza findings with the Arab Opinion Index 2019-2020 data from the West Bank. The data shows that the situation in Gaza is extremely bad, not only in terms of economic and living conditions, but also in terms of societal confidence and the legitimacy of political actors. The report attempts to answer a set of questions surrounding the Palestinians' assessment of their economic, security and political conditions in Gaza; their conditions compared with those in the West Bank; their confidence in political parties; and levels of corruption.

The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) offered a significant and puzzling turning point in the Arab region, casting a large shadow over public debate. Since 2014, the Arab Opinion Index has sought to better understand Arab public attitudes towards ISIL. This paper explores findings from the 2016 survey to understand the drivers of positive views of ISIL among a small group of respondents, and to compare those findings with results from earlier surveys. The main conclusion is that, the miniscule subset of respondents who have positive views of ISIL are not inspired by shared values or religiosity. No statistically significant correlation could be found between respondents' self-identified religiosity or their attitudes towards the role of religion in the public sphere and their views of ISIL. In contrast, attitudes towards ISIL could be attributed to respondents' views on a number of political issues affecting the Arab region.

The literature on state capacity is often at odds with what constitutes state capacity, how to operationalize it, and how to measure it. Nevertheless, it is important for us to attempt this endeavor given the importance of state capacity, and its effect on a number of political and social dynamics. With the proliferation of quality surveys in the Arab world in recent years, we also have an unprecedented opportunity to examine state capacity in a new light, according to citizen perceptions in addition to material measures. Thus, in this paper I will examine variations of state capacity measurements using the Arab Opinion Index data. I will provide evidence to show that many political phenomena can only be understood if the conditions surrounding state capacity are accounted for.

This paper presents Tunisian public opinion trends towards the country’s democratic experience, using data gathered by the ACRPS-published Arab Opinion Index, comparing the 2019/2020 results with previous polls. It also seeks to measure the popular reaction to the decisions taken by the Tunisian President, Kais Saied, in his coup against the constitution, and his disruption of democratic governance mechanisms in order to seize control of the government. The paper ponders the reasons that Tunisians welcome the decisions of the Tunisian president, and asks if that means that they have turned their backs on the young democracy they established ten years ago? Finally, the paper monitors a set of indicators regarding Arab public opinion on governing institutions, and the government's seriousness in working to solve economic and social problems, which escalated in severity during the Covid-19 pandemic.

This report presents Palestinian public opinion trends in Gaza, through data collected by the 2019-2020 Arab Opinion Index. This paper reviews basic descriptive statistics from opinion on major issues relating to the economic and political situation and compares these Gaza findings with the Arab Opinion Index 2019-2020 data from the West Bank. The data shows that the situation in Gaza is extremely bad, not only in terms of economic and living conditions, but also in terms of societal confidence and the legitimacy of political actors. The report attempts to answer a set of questions surrounding the Palestinians' assessment of their economic, security and political conditions in Gaza; their conditions compared with those in the West Bank; their confidence in political parties; and levels of corruption.

Scholarship explains impediments to democratic transition in Middle Eastern countries as forms of neopatrimonialism - a combination of patrimonial tradition and cosmetic electoral procedures. However, this approach conflates two spheres of governance: firstly, the government as a sphere of appointed or elected politicians, secondly, the state's bureaucracy as a sphere of administrative staff necessary for the government to execute its planned actions. The impediments Hamas governments (2006-2007) faced highlight the difference between the two spheres. Accordingly, I conceptually differentiate between two types of government: government in office and government in power. While the Hamas government was supposed to rule, the administrative personnel refused to comply. Thus, the elected government in office faced local-institutional and external constraints which prevented its functioning, and provoked power struggles that led to internecine war and the collapse of the electoral democracy.

This paper compares the results of the Fragile States Index issued by the Fund for Peace, a charitable organization, with indicators established in the Arab Opinion Index, an annual survey undertaken by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in a number of Arab countries. These indicators reflect the assessments provided by Arab respondents of economic, social and political issues and what their views mean in light of the specific country contexts. The paper also examines whether citizens' views can be relied upon as indicators of the vulnerability of the state and the extent to which the indicators of state vulnerability are accurate by comparing them with the opinions of citizens in different areas. In this context, based on the Arab Index survey, the paper relied on nine indicators out of 12 adopted by the Fragile States Index in order to interpret economic, social and political opinions expressed by respondents.

The study presents the problems of structural politicization in political studies, and the danger of methodological debates transforming into political confrontations, a situation that has been repeated in the ongoing debate between the advocates and opponents of secularism. The study demonstrated that the necessity of the political dimension, and/or the political dependencies of every "scientific" approach to politics does not necessarily mean acceptance of unrestricted politicization. It is possible to acknowledge the political content of treatment without slipping into politicization. From this standpoint, criticism of underlying or structural politicization, as in Edward Said's criticism of Orientalism and Western Centralism, cannot be compared to the way that Israel's supporters crudely politicize US Middle East studies in their battle to hold it hostage to the interests of Israel and the extreme right. In the same vein, the study critically addresses the opinion that "area studies" in political science is marked by theoretical poverty and academic inferiority. The study itself leans towards the opinion that so called "theoretical studies" are in fact "area studies" that take western countries as the testing ground for political experiences and seek to generalize the results in the form of "theories" that enjoy universal validity.

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.