Latest Articles

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 an effort to understand the characteristics of "virtual communities" and specifically "information societies," this study attempts to test the argument that virtual communities, with their networked structure, pose a challenge (or represent an alternative) to traditional hierarchical structures, due to the former's ability to self-organize, and settle their internal disputes without the need for authoritative intervention. The study uses the case study approach, applied to 3 Wikipedia's edit wars. The chosen cases are related to a number of Middle East informational crises. The study concludes that mechanisms of virtual societies (e.g. self-organization) can work efficiently in cases of limited disputes, but in cases of sharp disagreements, traditional (hierarchical) mechanisms that include authoritative intervention and exercising some form of power, in a "top-down" approach, remain essential for conflict resolution. This implies that the factor of "authority" remains significant even in the context of virtual communities.

As the first study to address the very recent issue “secret evidence,” this paper relies on primary and unstudied sources. It reviews the context of recent changes in the European justice system and the impact Hamas has left in filing its petition to have the group lifted from the list of terrorist groups in late 2010. The political dimension in the new law is also considered, including how it was given a legal guise to appear consistent with the requirement of justice. The timid international legal positions and reactions to these developments, the role played by the US and Britain, as well as the mimicry of Israel with regard to the secret evidence law are also discussed. The study concludes by tackling the implications of the new law, and the possibility of Hamas succeeding or failing to have itself removed from the terror list.

This study investigates the circumstances under which military governments leave power. It shows that there is no single path to get the military out of power, as there are no general rules for all cases. Nevertheless, several lessons are learned of which the most important is that military officers never relinquish power on their own. Rather, they are usually forced to leave it. In most cases, forcing the military to hand over authority requires a democratic opposition bloc that reaches a national consensus and agrees on a clear political strategy with an explicit goal. This will get the military out of power and establish a civilian government. A consensus or democratic bloc enables reformist democrats to change the balance of power for the benefit of democratic transition.

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدات اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﺔ ﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ ﺛﻼث دول ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ؛ ﻫﻲ اﻟﺴﻮدان واﻟﻤﻐﺮب واﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺮاﻫﻨﺔ. وﻟﻢ ﻳﺄت اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪول ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدﻓﺔ، ﺑﻞ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ؛ أﺑﺮزﻫﺎ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ واﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰة ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ازﻣﺔ، وﺳﻌﻲ اﻟﺪول ارﺑﻊ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﺻِ ﺮة ﻻﺟﺘﺬاﺑﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺻﻔﻬﺎ، ﺿﻤﻦ ﻧﻬﺞ دﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﺎدﺗﻪ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﻳﺮﻣﻲ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺰل دوﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ ﻋﺮﺑﻴًﺎ ﺗﻤﻬﻴﺪًا ﻟﻌﺰﻟﻬﺎ دوﻟﻴًﺎ. وﻣﺎ أﻋﻄﻰ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻧﺎ أﻫﻤﻴﺔ، رﻓﺾ اﻟﺪول اﻟﺜﻼث، ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻏﺮاءات واﻟﻀﻐﻮط، ﻣﺴﺎﻳﺮةَ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر ﻓﻲ ﺧﻄﻮاﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺿﺪ ﻗﻄﺮ، واﺗﺨﺬت اﻟﺤﻴﺎد اﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﺪاﻋﻲ إﻟﻰ ﺣﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮق اﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ، ﻣﻦ دون اﻟﻠﺠﻮء إﻟﻰ آﻟﻴﺎت ﺗﻌﺴﻔﻴﺔ، ﻛﻨﻬﺞ اﻟﺤﺼﺎر اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ واﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدي اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻊ ﺣﺎﻟﻴًﺎ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، اﻟﺴﻮدان، اﻟﻤﻐﺮب، اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، أرض اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل. This paper explores the positions of three Arab states: Morocco, Sudan and Somalia towards the present crisis in intra-Gulf relations. The choice of these three Arab countries in Africa was deliberate, a result of the strong bilateral bonds which tie each of them to Qatar, a party to the conflict. It is also true that the countries presently leading a blockade on Qatar, led by Saudi Arabia, sought to coerce these three countries to similarly cut off ties with Qatar, part of an effort to isolate Doha on the Arab regional stage before seeking to isolate the country globally. More importantly, each of these three countries opted to pursue a path of "positive impartiality", remaining firm in the face of financial and political inducements from the countries leading the blockade on Qatar to join their effort.

This study adopts a comparative approach to investigate the impact of the reciprocal fears of internal and external parties on the stances of key actors during the 2011 transitions. Apparently, the uncertainty that accompanies any democratic elections has not been a local factor in the Arab cases because regional and international forces have an interest in hindering democracy, being a potential threat to the status quo. The study examines four interrelated problems related to external factors. It concludes that the external factors that have hindered democracy in non-Arab cases were not inevitable because addressing them seems to have been related to changes in the international system and the emergence of domestic democratic blocs that are able to exert pressure on external forces and get them to change their positions.

The Iranian nuclear agreement was the result of a pressing domestic need. This paper discusses the factors that pushed Iran to sign a nuclear deal and argues that the circumstances under which Hassan Rouhani became Iranian president meant he had to achieve a political détente in foreign relations within 100 days in office. Moreover, this pressing détente had to address the issue of sanctions. The successive rounds of US and Western sanctions drained the “resistance economy” and pushed it to resort to “heroic flexibility in diplomacy” whose lines were drawn by Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei. This paved the way for a change in politicians’ rhetoric and performance vis-à-vis relations with the US.

In this study, the researcher builds on the idea he presented in a previous study on “Symbolic Liberalism”, which he used to describe the responses of social sciences to the ailments of late modernity. This modernity is characterized by a blend, where it is defined as classical liberalism but politically illiberal. The study argues that this modernity is undergoing polarization across various societies, including on university campuses and in the media. This is evident through high levels of intolerance that have surfaced in discussions on political, cultural, and social issues, where bias and taking sides prevail over the use of strong, persuasive arguments. This intolerance comes from both the left and the right, manifesting in what is known as "cancel culture" on both sides. The spread of "over-safety culture" among administrative officials has led to hasty decisions and sanctions against some university professors, merely for using certain references in class or for not providing prior warnings to students, all within an atmosphere of fear. The study provides examples from the United States and France, often driven by symbolic liberals. Following this, provide a case related to the ongoing war in Gaza.

This article discusses the nuclear program agreement reached between the P5+1 group of nations and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The article sees the agreement as a historic achievement that may well have major effects in the region. The paper deals with the main features of the agreement and the circumstances that led to it, and enumerates its likely effects on the region and especially on the Palestine-Israel conflict, as well as Israel’s frustration with the Iranian nuclear program and its threats to strike it. The paper puts forth the possibility that the agreement will lead to positive results and cause stability in the region and lead to real improvement in Iranian-Gulf relations, particularly with Saudi Arabia, as well as resolve the problems of Shia minorities in some Gulf states.

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.