Search

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 article focuses on political sovereignty in Middle East and mentions violence in the region. Topics discussed include terror attacks, military interventions and civil wars in the region. Other topics which includes political situation in Syria and Iraq are also discussed. Sectarianism and militarization in the region are mentioned.

Why do some ethno-political organizations resort to violence while others abstain? Are ethno-political organizations with a religious/Islamist ideology more violence-prone compared to non-religious ones? In addition to commonly cited factors such as grievances, political opportunities/constraints, resources, and organizational characteristics, I argue that the existence of youth bulges in a society also increases the probability of adopting violent strategies by ethno-political organizations. Frustrated young males under repressive and authoritarian regimes tend to be likely recruits for violent organizations. I use the Minorities at Risk Organizational Behavior dataset, which includes 118 organizations in 16 countries of the Middle East and North Africa to test my hypotheses. The findings suggest that youth bulges, economic grievances, group fractionalization, external support, and state repression increase the probability of use of violent strategies by ethno-political organizations whereas religious ideology is insignificant. Youth bulges foster violence especially in autocratic countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The geopolitical shape of the Middle East has varied greatly over time. This article is concerned with the period from Late Antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century, during which four basic configurations succeeded each other. Late Antiquity was marked by the coexistence of two large empires, one based in the western Middle East and the other in the eastern Middle East; the early Islamic period saw the dominance of a single empire the location of whose centre was unstable; the medieval period was characterised by the absence of large and lasting empires and a shifting plurality of smaller states; finally in the Ottoman period we see the renewed dominance of a single empire, now based in the western Middle East. Are these changes to be seen as random fluctuations, or can they be explained in terms of a small number of underlying factors? The point of this article is to argue that a focus on the potential imperial heartlands of the Middle East can help us to explain much—though not all—of the changing geopolitical configuration of the region. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on political fears and suspicions in Middle East and Arab world; and mentions the political ability and preparedness to set up viable structures for regional security and cooperation.

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 is a reply to: Mabon, Simon. 2018. “Existential threats and regulating life: securitization in the contemporary Middle East.”Global Discourse8 (1): 42–58.https://doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2017.1410001. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This article traces the outlines of India's engagement with the Middle East, focusing on security-related aspects of that engagement. First, it argues that India's approach towards the Middle East has undergone less transformation than that seen in Indian policy towards other key regions, notably the United States and Asia. Second, it describes how India has responded to recent, and older, episodes of political disorder in the region, and what patterns might be identified from these. Third, it traces aspects of India's relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia, an exercise that brings some of those patterns into sharper relief. Fourth, and finally, the paper concludes by asking how India might orient itself in the region in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

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.)

This paper advances the proposition that post-Arab Spring politics are a product of globalisation’s economic and social liberalisation. The global market and privatisation have fundamentally deconstructed centralised autocratic rule over state and society, while facilitating corruption and selective development, culminating in public outrage. The political order of the Middle East and North Africa since the Arab Spring synthesises globalisation’s dialectic duality, in which economic integration has contributed to the demise of national authoritarianism, inciting communalism and political fragmentation. This paper analyses emerging political trends and challenges based on a comparative analysis of Egypt and Tunisia. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article examines the prospects of democracy in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The topics discussed include the indicators of democracy that include economic development and social progress, the correlation between economic wealth and democracy and between social modernization and democracy in the Arab countries, and the author's conclusions and recommendations. Charts of the MENA states' economic and social indicators and political and democracy indices are presented.

In this paper, we explore the flow of information regarding strategic Middle Eastern countries in the WikiLeaks ‘diplomatic cables’ by applying data-mining techniques to construct directed networks. The results show that between 2002 and 2009, US diplomatic communication related to these countries increased although with notable variation in flow patterns. We discuss the value of a visual display of diplomatic communication patterns in understanding the decentralized nature of information gathering on regional foreign policy issues. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]