Latest Articles

​The study is premised on the assumption that the US-Iranian tensions under the Trump administration represents a new chapter in the crisis in the US-Iranian relationship. This extreme hostility was related to US domestic politics and the bordering on personal rivalry of President Trump with his predecessor, President Barack Obama, in domestic and foreign policy. One of the most important policy manifestations of this administrative divergence concerns the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, signed in 2015. Opposition to the Nuclear Agreement united Gulf players such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, who considered shared hostility towards Iran as a bridge to strengthen their relations with the US on the one hand; while also forming a strong front, in the presence of Israel, to weaken the Iranian regime without necessarily replacing it.

Since the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and on through the presidents of the 20th century, the United States has talked about itself as the propagator, protector, and defender of democracy around the world. Yet America has never showed any qualms of forming military and political alliances with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The US justifies these international alliances on the basis that “not all dictatorships in the world are enemies of the United States, but all the United States’ enemies are dictatorships.” The US therefore adopted a two-track diplomacy: while working to spread democracy (directly or by means of international organizations and NGOs) the US has no issue in supporting autocratic governments when its interests are involved. How did US policy apply to the democratic transformation in the former Eastern bloc states in Europe on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently, when American values and interests went hand in hand, and how did it then apply to the Arab Spring of 2011, when US values and interests were congruent in some cases and out of sync in others, according to the situation in each country and its strategic importance from America’s perspective? What are the results of these policies and what differences emerge from such a comparison of the Arab and East Europe cases.

Book Title: The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance Undermining America's Interests in the Middle East [English]

This study discusses successive Palestinian governments and provides a reading of their features, focusing on the 15th, 16th and 17th governments, five years after Rami Hamdallah became prime minister. The first section examines the emergence and development of governments since 1994. The second section gives an overview of the three cabinets in question and their agendas while the third section examines the failures of these governments and the impact of that failure on the Palestinian political scene. The final section examines the traditional operating assumptions of the political system. The study argues that the origin of the problem lies in the political system that has emerged since 1994 which restricts the operations of Palestinian governments, and that the formation of "technocratic" cabinets has only exacerbated the Palestinian political crisis.

This study aims to deconstruct the Algerian security approach towards the Sahara and Sahel region in Africa which is a concern that currently exemplifies a corne stone in its foreign policy, because of its considerable importance to Algeria’s security, as well as to its national interests. Algeria insists on maintaining an autonomous approach in engineering its security strategy in the region while remaining in cooperation with others. By identifying Algeria’s contribution to security arrangements in Africa, the study provides practical examples that reflect Algeria’s security vision on both: the regional and the continental fronts. This study aims to work as a base for future evaluation of Algeria’s contribution to building African security while preserving autonomy.

Conference "Christian Arabs in the Greater Mashreq: Determinants of Continuity, Emigration and Forced Migration"

Interest Iranian foreign policy in Africa could be treat back to the sixties of the last twentieth century, when African states attained their independence.

This section lists the most prominent political documents related to the democratic transition in the Arab world. In this issue, we publish a number of documents from Tunisia, and Sudan for the period Septemper–October 2022.

This paper shed light on the impact of the sports phenomenon on international politics and how it can be thought of through the lenses of positivist approaches in the field of international relations, especially since sports in today's world are no longer just a hobby or form of entertainment but have become a globalised phenomenon that has been institutionalised globally. This necessitates careful consideration of its influence on the movement of theorising within the field of international relations in the future because of the impact it carries on the masses in various parts of the world, which are no longer, as globalisation heralded, a small village but rather have become today more like a large residential tower as a result of the revolution of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the associated widening spread of the use of social media.

This paper methodically studies the relationship between the functions of media organizations and their ownership. The material examined by the author is the content of daily Sudanese newspapers; the hypothesis being tested, from the prism of political economy, is whether or not there is a direct correlation between the ownership of a newspaper and the bias in its content. The paper begins with a survey of editorial content from several Sudanese newspapers and explores the influence of both private sector and public sector funding on their editorial content. The author concludes that despite the presence of a diverse media environment in Sudan, a classically authoritarian power structure reigns over the Sudanese media. This remains true even in the case of privately owned, independent papers, where the loyalty paid by the media owners to the government is not desired.