Russia and Iran share a common hostility toward the United States. There have, however, been important differences between Moscow and Tehran — especially over nuclear issues. Relations seemed to improve, though, with Vladimir Putin’s October 2007 visit to Tehran and Russia’s shipment to Iran of the enriched uranium needed to start up the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Important differences, however, remain between the two countries that serve to limit the extent to which they can cooperate.

This article argues that the ethnosectarian chaos of today’s Iraq is a consequence of state policies and capacity. The same ethnosectarian problems have existed since the birth of the Iraqi state in 1921. However, unlike the post-2003 period where ethnosectarianism has been institutionalized in the body politic, and where the state is unable to project power to subdue sub-state competitors, the pre-2003 period saw the state pursue nationalist policies that denigrated ethnosectarianism and had enough power to impose its will on fissiparous sub-state groups.

This article examines the assertion, widespread in both media and academia, that the Islamic Republic of Iran — and especially the current government under Mahmud Ahmadinejad — is actuated by a powerful, Shi‘ite-based messianism.

This article, based on research conducted in Jordan, discusses how favoritism affects the business climate. Jordan’s business climate is mediocre in international and regional comparison, making it insufficient in light of the country’s small domestic market. Businesspeople consider the complexity of administrative procedures to be a main problem for investors, along with a lack of fairness and predictability in administrative decisions. Favoritism, which is referred to as “using wasta,” (connections) contributes substantially to both problems.

Jordan’s seemingly successful economic and political reforms have been used to advertise the American vision of societal transformation in the Middle East. The imposition of neo-liberal economic policies removed a key source of welfare for the populace, leaving the regime without a secure base of support. Economic liberalization led to a radical change in the regime’s base of support, marginalizing the previous regime backers — the East Bank population — and replacing them with a strengthened military, formerly only part of the regime’s support.

Electronic Version (For MEJ subscribers. Also available for purchase by non-members).