Latest Articles

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 Iranian nuclear agreement with the P5+1 countries raised speculations and questions that perhaps outnumber and outweigh those that accompanied the public and secret negotiations in the past phase. This is because Iran’s nuclear situation has become even more complex and ambiguous in terms of Iran’s relations with the Western states as well as with its neighbors in the Arab world, specifically the Gulf. The agreement carries regional and international significance on the political and economic levels, among others. This paper discusses the agreement and explores its various consequences on Iran, the region and the world.

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 attempts to determine the latest changes in the US-Saudi alliance and reflect on its destabilization. Specifically, it aims to determine whether the current crisis in US-Saudi relations might actually lead to a rift. Alternatively, the current events could be nothing but a temporary breakup depending on each country’s vision of its interests, after which relations could resume. The study reached some important results. It concluded, for example, that the speculation of a collapse of the US-Saudi alliance and its replacement with the US-Iranian alliance is farfetched and lacks depth. It is politically impossible and strategically inoperable for the US to side with Iran at the expense of Saudi Arabia amid the current polarization.

Iran, over the past four decades, lived through a state of continuous alert to defend itself against the threats surrounding it and targeting its national security. Over that period, Iran did not enjoy clear recognition of its legitimacy from the major powers, the United States in particular. This created ongoing anxiety and restricted Iran’s efforts of “preserving the regime”, which Ayatollah Khomeini made the highest duty. These circumstances had tangible effects on Iranian national security and its strategy. The article sees that the nuclear agreement might be the beginning of a new phase. Via the agreement, Iran feels it has gained the recognition of the international community, and acknowledgement of its demand for legitimacy. Most importantly for Iran, the agreement shifts it away from the obsession with security and stability, and encourages it to bring out the features of the “Iranian model” in the region. The paper also discusses the fears of neighboring states and Iran’s efforts to reassure them. The positions of the political currents and the power centers in Iran are also considered as well as their differences over the pluses and minuses of the agreement.

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺤﺪدات اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻳﺮاﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺮاﻣﻲ إﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻊ أيّ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺎ اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ، ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﻃﻬﺮان ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﻤﺮار ا زﻣﺔ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺧﺴﺎرة اﻟﺮﻳﺎض ﺑﻌﺾ ﺣﻠﻔﺎﺋﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ وﺧﺎرﺟﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ، وﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺴﺎﺋﺮﻫﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ أﻳﻀ - ﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻃﺎل أﻣﺪ ازﻣﺔ أو اﺗﺠﻬﺖ اﻟﻘﻮى اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮة ﻓﻴﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺳﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮﻫﺎت ﺗﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻬﺎ زﻳﺎدة اﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ - ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ أﺧﺮى. وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺼﻮﻣﺘﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﺗﻤﻴﻞ دواﺋﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻋﺪة ﻓﻲ ﻃﻬﺮان إﻟﻰ اﺗﺨﺎذ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺣﺬر ﻣﻦ ازﻣﺔ، ﺧﺸﻴﺔ ﺗﺒﻌﺎت دوﻟﻴﺔ وإﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ؛ إذ ﻻ ﺗﺒﺪو إﻳﺮان اﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ وﺿﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺟﻴﺪ، ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺠﻦ ﻣﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺗﻔﺎق اﻟﻨﻮوي ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻤﻨ ﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ. ﻟﺬﻟﻚ، رﺑﻤﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺮﻏﺐ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻧﺨﺮاط ﻓﻲ أزﻣﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة، ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ وﺟﻮد إدارة أﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺎﺻﺒﻬﺎ اﻟﻌﺪاء وﺗﻔﺮض ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎت. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، إﻳﺮان، ﻗﻄﺮ، اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ. This paper explores the determinants of Iran's stance towards the 2017 intra-GCC Crisis, in which the country opposes alterations to the political geography of the Gulf. The author demonstrates how Tehran simultaneously benefits from the loss of Saudi Arabia of some of its allies and stands to lose from increased American involvement in the event that the conflict is prolonged. Despite its long-standing rivalry with Saudi Arabia, many Iranian decision-makers are cautious with regards to the intra-GCC crisis, fearing the possible regional or global fallout of a more involved role. Lacking tangible benefits from the nuclear deal with the P51+ group of countries, official Iran seems reluctant to involve itself in a crisis which could complicate both its domestic political situation and its foreign relations, especially in light of a hostile US Administration.

​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.

​Qatari foreign policy presents a challenge for students of international relations. Whereas major theories within the field tend to privilege structural factors in explaining the action of states, and particularly small states, in the case of Qatar, the quality of leadership and the strategies that leadership employs to navigate through the structural constraints—primarily geography—are equally important. One of the main findings of this paper is that the strategies adopted by the Qatari elite since 1995 did alleviate many of the structural constraints which the country would otherwise have faced. Moreover, during the short-lived Arab Spring of 2011-2013, Qatar tried to reshape the political landscape in the Middle East to its favor, challenging the two regional hegemons Saudi Arabia and Iran, in Egypt and Syria respectively. Yet, the paper concludes, geopolitical factors and the relative capabilities of states remain instrumental in assuring a state’s sustained capacity to continue playing a key role. This is particularly true in a region where elite thinking continues to be defined by realpolitik.

This paper adopts the assumption that the series of foreign interventions which served to transform the Syrian crisis from a domestic revolution into a regionalized, and later globalized, conflict were not the result of factors intrinsic to the revolution itself, but rather the consequences of dramatic changes sweeping across the entire Middle East following the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. The fallout from 2003 included the collapse of the former tripartite of Arab regional powers: Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia. For the first time, the non-Arab regional powers of Turkey and Iran came to be directly involved in intra-Arab affairs. The latter effectively had an overland border tying it to Syria's Mediterranean coast once the US withdrew the bulk of its military forces from Iraq in 2011. While the Syrian regime had worked to strengthen its ties to both Ankara and Tehran in the wake of its losses following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Syria would fall victim to regional power politics between its two regional neighbors. Once the Syrian revolution was militarized, in response to the Damascus regime's iron-fisted approach to peaceful popular protests, Turkish-Iranian rivalry over the future of Syria quickly became bloody. In an attempt to limit the extent of influence not only by Turkey but also its ally Iran, the Syrian regime resorted to seeking out additional foreign support, latterly from Russia.

​A one-day academic symposium hosted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies will bring together experts from Russia, the Arab world and the region to examine Moscow’s latest military intervention in Syria, on Saturday, October 24, 2015. While Russia’s decision to intervene directly in the conflict in Syria comes as the culmination of more than four years of diplomatic and military support for the Assad regime, the move by the Kremlin to deploy its military forces has come as a surprise to many observers, becoming a turning point not only in the militarized revolution within Syria, but also in the broader Middle East and indeed in a larger global arena. To better study the circumstances which gave rise to the Russian maneuver and the outcomes likely to result from it, the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies will convene “Russian Military Intervention in Syria: Motives, Objectives and Repercussions”. In the highly volatile climate which the Middle East is presently witnessing, selected participants at the meeting will be asked to examine the fallout of Russia’s actions on the future stability of the region.