Search

Turki al-Faisal has long had access to some of the innermost circles of power in Saudi Arabia. Born into the Saudi royal family - out of the extended clan's estimated thousand or so members, he is number eight - the prince was head of the country's intelligence agency for more than two decades before becoming an ambassador to several countries. In this interview, al-Faisal talks with the Bulletin's Dan Drollette Jr. about the Saudi view of the Iran agreement, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, and the possibility of Saudi Arabia becoming a net energy importer in the coming decades - and what the country wants to do to counter that prospect. He also delves into recent politics, and gives his personal views on the Shia/Sunni divide, Israel's weapons program, and the Iran regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that autonomous militaries can play a balancing role during major internal political crises. However, when militaries' autonomy is curtailed by political leaders before the crisis, militaries cannot maintain the political balance between rulers and opponents, thereby increasing the risk of armed conflict. The article first explains the main concepts relevant to the discussion (autonomy, political crisis, balancing role), exploring their possible interlinkages and presenting several hypotheses. Subsequently, it discusses four relevant cases from the Middle East before and during the Arab revolts of 2010–2011: Egypt in 2011 and Lebanon in 1958, which demonstrate the balancing capacities of autonomous militaries during major political crises, and Lebanon in 1975 and Syria in 2011, which reveal that nonautonomous militaries cannot play a balancing role in such circumstances. The article concludes with several observations regarding the military's balancing role during major internal political crises in divided and homogenous states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that Napoleon Bonaparte's attempt to reach India, firstly through Egypt and then through Qajar Persia, inaugurated the 'Middle East' as a coherent political space in international politics. The ostensibly existential threat posed by French schemes to British dominion over India prompted British Indian officials to perceive Egypt, Persia and the Gulf Emirates through the lens of Indian defence and European geopolitics for the first time. By the end of this period, these lands were imagined as a salient, somewhat coherent political space between "the Indus and Constantinople". This first 'Middle East' was the product of the globalization of European geopolitics and the need to defend British India, auguring the future of the region, in which its political importance, and even its location, was constructed in relation to the broader context of international affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, the difference between monarchies and republics appears more profound than ever. Aside from Bahrain, all of the Middle Eastern monarchies avoided major anti-governmental protests, and no armed conflict has occurred in any of them since 1979. Inspired by Middle Eastern case studies, this article argues that traditional legitimacy contributes to peace in Middle Eastern monarchies. The article explores the argument with time-series cross-sectional data covering 19 Middle Eastern countries from 1947 (or independence) to 2009. Traditional legitimacy is not measured directly but assumed to be embedded in the monarchical regime type, and the results show that alternative covariates are unable to fully explain the monarchical peace. Moreover, the study finds that horizontal discrimination increases the risk of intrastate conflict in authoritarian republics but that discrimination has no effect in monarchies. Future conflict studies should therefore consider legitimacy connected to authoritarian regime types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1979, Edward Said attended a colloquy on Middle East politics hosted by Jean-Paul Sartre and Les Temps Modernes in the apartment of Michel Foucault. He would later go on to publish his reflections on this experience in a short piece titled “Diary.” Reading this piece alongside Said’s larger oeuvre, as well as those of his predecessors Foucault and Antonio Gramsci, this article attempts to offer a theory of intellectual responsibility that may be applied to the BDS movement today. In turn, Orientalism and The Question of Palestine, published in the same year as the colloquy, offer a salient political allegory for the relation of the United States to the question of Palestine writ large when read as a dyad as they are intended to be. In closing, the article attempts to apply the theory of intellectuals derived from Said’s work by reflecting on the potential for the particular case of BDS to speak to a set of universal concerns on the Left. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predictions about the future of the Middle East have proliferated in step with recent events and escalating tensions in the region. This paper highlights the usefulness of historical comparative research for addressing predictive questions and, specifically, those relating to the current Islamic revival. It challenges assumptions that have prevented researchers from exploring this avenue of research; and describes a generally overlooked chapter in modern European history: Europe's nineteenth century revival of militant, literal, religion, and the region-wide, battle it unleashed between religious and secular forces through the region. It then highlights similarities, both in the nature of revivals in Europe and the Middle East and of the socio-economic structures which sustained them. Finally, it suggests how and why the battle between religious and secular forces in Europe came to an end. While, it does not offer predictions for the Middle East, it suggests how comparative insights might contribute to producing better ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The protests that swept the Arab Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are expected to have influenced two key civic attitudes fundamental to well-functioning democracies: trust and tolerance. However, systematic comparative assessments of the general patterns and particularities in this region are rare. This contribution theorizes the uprisings' impact and presents new society-level measurements of trust and tolerance for the MENA, synchronizing over 40 Arab Barometer and World Values Survey surveys on Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia, and Yemen, from before and after the uprisings. The analyses firstly show political-institutional trust falling in the uprisings' aftermath in countries that went through democratic reform or regime change. It appears that politicians misbehaving and reforms not resolving social problems hurt people's trust in politics. Secondly, in democratic transition countries Egypt and Tunisia, a decrease in social trust reflected the pattern of political-institutional trust indicating a spill-over effect. Thirdly, ethnoreligious tolerance dropped region-wide after the uprisings, indicating that the aftermath of religious conflict impacted the entire Arab region. These results support rational-choice institutionalist theories, while at the same time refining them for the MENA context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Middle East holds a unique significance for the rest of the world due to religious, political, economic, ethnic and geographic factors, this region is in the state of turmoil for a host of domestic, regional and international reasons. The ongoing conflicts, Yemen, Syria, campaign against ISIS have undermined security in the Middle East. Iran's likely emergence has been following the 5+1 nuclear deal at Vienna on 4 July, 2015. Middle East holds a unique significance for the rest of the world that has impacted on the regional dynamics in many ways. The quest for supremacy by regional players like Saudi Arabia and Iran has worsened the ethnic and sectarian divide and provided space to extra regional players to pursue their own interests. Turkey is reasserting its traditional role in the region. Israel appears to be the main beneficiary of this turmoil. The complex and turbulence situation in the Middle East makes any prediction regarding its future difficult to make; however, it can be reasonably assumed that violence and instability are not likely to abate at least, in the short term. In view of its numerous linkages with the Middle Eastern regions, Global World cannot remain immune to developments in that region. However, its interests will be best served by eschewing aligning with any of the rival parties. International actors may therefore maintain a balance in relations with the Middle East, while at the same time seeking to promote understanding between them wherever possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Middle East is experiencing one of the darkest periods in its history and a new regional order is still far from being established. Yet, it appears increasingly clear that few matters will affect its developments more than the ongoing regional demographic dynamics. The region’s history and spatial background provide a framework for approaching these epochal shifts and critically examining the ‘ethnic stabilisation’ thesis, which interprets current demographic movements as a kind of normalisation of the region’s ‘original’ demographics. Instead of this ‘medievalization of the Middle East’, many people in the region are keen on ‘gettingbackinto history’ and ‘regaining possession’ of their multifaceted past: a powerful antidote to the geopolitical reductionism so popular nowadays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a necessity to build a new republican regime in the Great Middle East, based on a broad sense of citizenship, on a respect for pluralism, and on re-evaluating difference as a positive element rather than as a threat. However, this re-building will succeed only when it is accompanied by a restoration of the religious space. The reformist national model is the best and most appropriate model for real situations within the current historical period. It is a model that is able to develop according to each society’s developmental and political experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the phenomenon of minoritarian regimes in the Middle East, focusing on Bahrain, Syria and Israel/Palestine. It considers, in each, how minority rule was established, the mechanisms through which it is maintained, and the means through which it is legitimated. Although these regimes are not typically analyzed as a category, they have important features in common. In all three, the state's political and security institutions are controlled by members of an ethnic/religious group that is a numerical minority in the country, at the expense of a majority group with a competing claim to indigeneity. While the legal and political mechanisms that these regimes use to restrict access to power vary, they employ similar strategies for legitimating minority rule, presenting democracy as a threat not only to the regime's survival, but also to the security of the group whose interests it claims to represent. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This special issue explores the prospects for what Jacob Mundy calls ‘transformative minority politics’ in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region – that is, a form of minority politics that strengthens democratic reform in the region, and that helps deepen a culture of human rights and democratic citizenship. The cases examined in the special issue include the Amazigh in North Africa, the Copts in Egypt, the Kurds in Iraq, the Palestinians in Israel, the ‘minoritarian’ regimes in Syria and Bahrain, and the various ethnic minorities in Iran. In this introduction, we try to situate this debate in a larger historical and international context, identifying some of the factors that might help support a new transformative minority politics in the region, while also emphasizing the factors that have inhibited it in the past, and why they remain powerful. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This special issue explores significant problems of peace mediation. How do these "minefields of mediation'' arise, how do mediators' ways of handling them impact the negotiation process, and what can mediators do to overcome them? Using examples from the last quarter century, and from the Middle East in particular, the authors examine these questions at different stages of the mediation process, from its initiation to its culmination, and with reference to different forms of mediation, including facilitation, muscular, and multiparty mediation. This short introduction provides a systematic overview of some of the most pertinent mediation challenges, with reference to who the mediators are, when the mediation takes place and what the issues of contention and possible outcomes are. These areas are of course all intertwined, and, as the articles in this issue point out, are also very much influenced by changes in the domestic, regional and international environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under what conditions do minorities in the Middle East participate in authoritarian coalitions? Research on authoritarian resilience in the Middle East has been largely silent on linguistic and religious minorities’ preferences over regime types. Here, we examine whether minorities differ in their support for authoritarianism from the majority groups in four Middle Eastern states. We argue that minorities whose status is threatened by a transition to majoritarian decision-making institutions are less likely to be supportive of democratization. We examine how different cleavages affect the preferences of minorities over regime type and identify three historical legacies in the Middle East that have shaped these cleavages: the Ottoman-Islamic legacy of minority accommodation, the ethnic class structure that emerged as a result of the region’s integration to world markets in the nineteenth century, and a post-independence pattern of authoritarian secularism. Based on survey research and a comparison of minorities in Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, and Jordan, we find that linguistic minorities tend to be less supportive of authoritarianism while religious minorities tend to be more supportive of authoritarianism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

First of all, this paper frames the research into political change - one of the main study areas in comparative politics - and focusses on the regions of North Africa and the Middle East, which the ranks of comparativists had barely analysed until the so-called Arab Spring. There is, consequently, a dearth of theoretical frameworks with which to approach the experiences of political change that began in 2011 with the Arab protests and revolutions. Secondly, it analyses the democratising scope of the processes of rupture and reform brought about in the political systems of the region, observing that the expectations raised by the Arab Spring have not been fulfilled, except in the case of Tunisia. Lastly, it presents and systematises the eight articles assembled in this monograph, of which the actors and dynamics of change in the region are the cornerstone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The democratic deficit in the Middle East and the Muslim world is well-established. No study has, however, identified what it is about being a Middle Eastern or Muslim-majority country that impedes democracy. The explanatory deficit has given rise to an idea of Middle Eastern or Muslim exceptionalism. This article documents that when political and colonial history is accounted for, there is nothing exceptional about levels of democracy in these regions. Territories with comparatively developed precolonial state institutions were better able to resist European colonization and settlement. If they were colonized, territories with more developed state structures were more likely to experience an indirect form of colonial rule. Such territories, including the Islamic heartland in the Middle East, experienced less European settlement and colonial rule through local intermediaries and were therefore, in the long run, less likely to embark on a democratic regime trajectory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Sociologia e Política is the property of Revista de Sociologia e Politica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Selectorate theory posits that within each society, there is a political selectorate containing a winning coalition. This coalition, comprised of societal individuals, groups, and entities, selects the national leader whose aim is political survival. The original version of the theory suggested that the selectorate expands in step with the ability of the leader to provide private or public goods to its supporters in various combinations. This study expands selectorate theory to the recent revolutions across Middle East and North Africa ( MENA). With various regimes optimizing economic allocations, we believe that political survival in MENA societies is gained and maintained by concurrently fulfilling rising religious preferences. Stable MENA regimes also meet religious demands. Thus, leaders that ignore religious tides do so at their own peril. Addressing religious demands as the selectorate expands maximizes stability and reduces autocratic tendencies. We present selectorate and stakeholder assessments of six MENA societies during the Arab Spring. We find that selectorate expansion, regime stability, and regime survival depend as much on religiosity as on private-public payoffs optimization. Our results have striking implications for democratic preference promulgation and regime stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Now that a number of Arab countries have serious plans to invest in developing nuclear power, the regionalization of the nuclear fuel cycle in the Arab region might present some important advantages, including better coordination, economies of scale, effective regional control, and the strengthening of nonproliferation norms, which may yield positive influence on the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and of other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in the Middle East. In addition, the bridges created across the gap between developed and less developed partners could lead toward greater political integration in the region, out of which a broader regional architecture for peace could emerge. This article addresses the following key question: if the Arab countries were to take the step of inviting Iran to join a Middle East nuclear fuel cycle from the outset, including Iran's sensitive nuclear technologies, would such a step open the way for a peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear crisis? If Iran kept control of its nuclear program under the umbrella of a Middle Eastern nuclear fuel cycle, then Iran's peaceful nuclear accomplishments could be put to the service and benefit of all the Arab members of the region without necessarily leading to any transfer of sensitive technologies beyond Iran. To draw a road map toward the establishment of a WMDFZ in the Middle East, this article draws on lessons from previous experiences, especially the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty, in establishing a regional cooperation framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global nuclear regime may have reached a crossroads: the states parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have called for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in the Middle East. Now that Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have reached a deal in Geneva over a phased verification of the peaceful character of Iran's nuclear program, the international community needs to address broader regional issues. Failure to move forward could imperil the global nonproliferation architecture. At the same time, little thought has been given to how this regional arrangement would work both internally (with its member states) and externally (with other organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency). This article reviews the obstacles and windows of opportunity for a comprehensive regional nuclear settlement by drawing lessons from recent history in Europe. In particular, the history of the European Atomic Energy Community suggests how a future regional organization with jurisdiction in all aspects of nuclear development should articulate its functions with existing international organizations such as the IAEA. In Europe, regional institutions have played a crucial role in creating trust among former warring nations and in harmonizing the regional and global nuclear orders. A EURATOM-like organization would be a great step for the Middle East and a great model for other regions that must deal with issues of global legal complexity (e.g., how they can harmonize regional and global orders so that they can pursue the same goals with different but compatible means). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An interview with foreign policy researcher Alexander Frolov and military observer Ravil Mustafin is presented. It looks at conflict and revolution in the Middle East, with a particular focus on the Arab Spring uprisings. Topics discussed include the U.S. invasion of Iraq, former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, and conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

US-Iranian relations have been stalled for over three decades due to missteps in timing, distrust, hostility and ideological differences between Tehran and Washington. Six American presidents have experimented with different political and economic tools in an effort to reverse Iranian support for terrorist groups, its opposition to Israel and its pursuit of a nuclear programme. President Barack Obama’s direct engagement with Tehran to end the nuclear standoff is a first step towards improved relations between two estranged countries that share a number of mutual interests. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Studying the Arab revolts is to study an ongoing process, and therefore it has limits which prevent us from formulating final conclusions. However, there is an academic obligation to study this process. In these times of lack of references about how to work politically among societies, the Arab uprising may offer some preliminary lessons. These lessons are not magical formulas, but dilemmas and political tensions, useful and full of questions, such as: how to construct political models, its relationship with ethnical, religious and tribal agendas, the challenges of stigmatization, and the definition of methods and means for political action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Relations / Uluslararasi Iliskiler is the property of International Relations Council and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Dirasat: Human & Social Sciences is the property of University of Jordan and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Social civil movements that were devoted to change the power started at the Middle East region in Tunisia and then exercised control over many Arab countries, which has led to the beginning of a new period in the region. In this article we will discuss the new period in question and make a study of some subjects from the management changes in the countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya that have experienced "Arab Spring" in recent history to the events leading to civil war in some countries such as Syria. Within this framework, we will explain why the period has been called under such a name and tell the events encountered in general terms under the title of "What is the Arab Spring?" Then we will evaluate the reasons of the Arab Spring in the political, social and economic categories and analyze these factors. Following this, we will discuss the political and governmental structures of the countries, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria before the Arab Spring within the scope of oppressive leadership structures of these countries. Finally, we will evaluate the governmental structures of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria after the events and these ongoing periods comparatively with their pasts and try to answer the question of "Did the Arab Spring manage to democratize the oppressive regimes?" [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contest between Saudi Arabia and Iran played out in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, postwar Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Yemen and Bahrain, has shaped the geopolitics of the region since the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Arab uprisings intensified this geopolitical contest and spread it to Syria. The sectarianisation of the region’s geopolitical battles, and the instrumental use of some of the uprisings for geopolitical ends, has hardened sectarian sentiments across the region, complicated post-authoritarian democratic transitions, and, at least in Syria’s case, transformed its popular uprising into a veritable civil war. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The politic and diplomatic polarization that is seen in Iraq and Syria can't be explained only by internal dynamics. There are also important external dynamics in Iraq and Syria. Russia, Iran and China support the central governments. The USA, England, France and Turkey support the powers which are against central governments. And the polarization between these forces is a reflection of the conflicts between Eurasia and Atlantic powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the end of the Cold War, what kind of a new regional system would appear in parallel with this important change in international system in the Middle East both has been discussed in intellectual terms, and also has led to major power struggles among regional and external actors. This process has been affected both by international developments such as the 9/11 attacks and also by the changes taking place in the region. The U.S., which became a dominant power in the international system and in the region after the end of the Cold War, made several attempts to establish a new regional system in the Middle East. However, those attempts sometimes failed, sometimes were transformed, and sometimes led to unexpected consequences. Because each time the U.S. had to "negotiate" with regional actors and their policies. In this context, not only anti-U.S. Actors but also allies of the U.S. defied the policies of Washington. The process called "Arab Spring" appeared in such a context. This time, how is the regional policy being shaped in this critical process, which was not launched by the U.S. but in which the U.S. was involved afterwards? Lastly, this paper is seeking answers to this question. In this context, the article examines continuing and changing features of the regional system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 20th century, the Middle East has suffered from several conflicts which caused new problems in the region. These conflicts have mainly taken place in the aftermath of big changes or deadlocks in the regional subsystem. The so-called Arab Spring and the civil war in Syria seem to have produced similar effects. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the Middle East will experience new conflicts arising from the dynamics pertaining to the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competition among the many actors in the regional geopolitics of the Middle East is in general a struggle of actors against each other over power and influence. The two states whose struggle over power and influence in the region has become more palpable with recent developments in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Iran. In addition to the political causes and material conditions of the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the regional geopolitics of the Middle East, there are religious causes and ideational conditions, which imports the rivalry between the two states its peculiar nature. In the current regional geopolitics of the Middle East, the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran continues in earnest in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Egypt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost a decade before the end of the 20th century, most parts of Eastern Europe were still under the communist rule and, with a few exceptions, the Middle East was checker squared with varying degrees of authoritarianism. Almost a decade into the 21st century and many East European countries are now regarded as democracies. The Middle East, however, continues to be dominated by authoritarian regimes. This study outlines some of the factors that can help to explain this contrasting outcome in a comparative framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides author's view on the analytic challenges of studying the Middle East and its evolving media environment. It states that the changing objects of the study is one of the challenges that Media and Cultural Studies face. Furthermore, the author discusses the political, communication, and cultural studies of the region as the three dominant approaches in Media Studies. Moreover, she argues that the there are three ways of framing different sets of issues such as the nation, region, and transnationality. The author suggests that the awareness of the real historical and contingent differences and political economies that exist is the best way to describe the processes of political change and democratization in the Middle East.

Jillian Schwedler examines three questions about the political inclusion of Islamist groups in the Middle East. Using empirical evidence from studies of elections in the region, she discusses whether inclusion or exclusion is a better strategy for deflating radical challenges. She concludes that inclusion is far more likely to produce an overall moderate political sphere, though it is unlikely to eliminate all forms of radicalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]