IR in the Middle East: foreign policy analysis in theoretical approaches

Abstract

Research on international relations of the Middle East (IRME) has suffered from a schism between International Relations (IR) theory and regional particularities. To address this, scholars have offered corrective accounts by adding domestic factors to IR structural approaches. Studies on IRME thus reflect the turn to decision-making and domestic politics that has recently occurred. This article develops a critical analysis of the domestic politics orientation in IRME. We argue that this scholarship ignores work in foreign policy analysis (FPA) with its psychological-oriented and agent-based dimensions and that this constitutes a missed opportunity for the study of the region. The article offers suggestions for incorporating FPA research into IRME and argues that an FPA perspective offers an alternative and complementary approach to the eclectic frameworks predominant in the scholarship on IRME.

A “regional halo effect”: Media use and evaluations of America's strategic relationships with five Middle East countries

“…The finding also suggests that countries in the study should perhaps employ public diplomacy measures in the U.S. in a bipartisan or nonpartisan manner, something which Israel has done but that several Arab governments recently have not; efforts by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to closely align with the Trump administration and with Trump family businesses (see again Ulrichsen 2020) were miscalculations, with costs that extended to relationships with the Biden administration. Darwich and Kaarbo (2020) explain that international relations research often does not account for publicly unpopular events that occur in other countries. Americans' perceptions of Saudi Arabia may be based on characteristics (like its treatment of journalists) that differ from Saudi Arabia's relationship with the U.S. government.…”

“…Darwich and Kaarbo (2020) explain that international relations research often does not account for publicly unpopular events that occur in other countries. Americans’ perceptions of Saudi Arabia may be based on characteristics (like its treatment of journalists) that differ from Saudi Arabia's relationship with the U.S. government.…”

The quest to end marginalization: Jordan's diversifying alignments in the post‐Arab Spring era

“…Yet, the idea of omnibalancing places the main motivation of alignment decisions at the domestic level, as it suggests that leaders align in particular ways primarily to deal with threats at the national level. However, as Darwich and Kaarbo (2020, p. 230) argue, the regime security argument fails to explain how leaders take foreign policy decisions that ignore domestic popular opinion. Jordan is, in fact, a good example in that although the Jordanian leadership signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1994 in the context of the ongoing Oslo Process, it then “continued to justify its close relations with Israel in the face of the collapse of that process” (Ryan, 2004, p. 44).…”

Issues in Quantitative Analysis and Security Studies Involving Muslims

“…Thus, there are very real ethical and pragmatic issues in the quantitative and security studies of Muslims. Others have noted this, and called for new approaches to the study of Muslims and Middle East international relations (Darwich & Kaarbo, 2019). In this section, I hope to contribute to these calls by proposing a two-pronged solution that will both avoid these problems and ensure we study important topics in a rigorous manner.…”