Search

You searched for: Publishing Institution The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Remove constraint Publishing Institution: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Publication Year within 10 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 5 Years Topic News Analysis Remove constraint Topic: News Analysis
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Publication Date: 02-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  • Abstract: A survey of how regional media outlets discussed the congressional impeachment process and its potential ramifications on the 2020 presidential election. Across the Middle East, the story of President Trump’s impeachment and subsequent acquittal received secondtier coverage compared to regional or local issues. Many Arabic-language websites and newspapers translated and republished Western articles as opposed to creating their own content on the issue, such as Al Jazeera publishing a translated version of a Guardian editorial. Moreover, the bulk of the articles just explained the facts or process of impeachment rather than expounding on its significance. Some celebrated the idea that there is a mechanism for peaceful removal of a leader. Most commented on the unlikelihood of Trump’s removal and how America is facing unprecedented polarization. Those articles that did offer their own editorial content were split on whether impeachment will help or hurt Trump’s election campaign. Publications in the Gulf states tended to portray impeachment as an act of “political vengeance” by Democrats against Trump, “who won despite their opposition” (Sky News Arabia). Most Gulf papers posited that Trump will ultimately benefit in the 2020 election “after proving his innocence before the Senate” (Al Seyassah). Yet Qatari coverage deviated from the general Gulf trend. For example, one Al Jazeera article asserted that the impeachment case against Trump “is simple, and established not only by officials speaking under oath, but by his own words and actions.” Egyptian newspapers were more split on how impeachment will affect the election. Anti-American outlets in Syria suggested it will hurt him, with Al Baath noting “all data indicate that Trump’s hope for a return to the White House have faded.” Lebanese publications tended to take a more neutral view. The Hezbollah-controlled newspaper Al Akhbar wrote that the prospect of impeachment weakening Trump’s electoral campaign “is similar to that of his potential main rival,” arguing that Joe Biden was also tainted by the process. Most Iranian media tended to copy Western sources, but two themes prevailed among outlets offering original content: portrayal of impeachment as a scandal that has tainted Trump’s presidential legacy, or neutral analysis of how impeachment may or may not harm his reelection chances. A few analytical pieces suggested that he might be able to transform the scandal into an asset for his campaign, since it may “lead to more popularity among the middle class.” While most Iranian articles leaned against Trump, few appeared to praise Democrats. Turkish articles generally depicted impeachment as a “gift” to Trump’s campaign. SETA, a think tank that supports President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, claimed that what “hasn’t killed Trump will make him stronger.” Sabah News, another pro-Erdogan source, wrote that impeachment will “unite Republican senators and members of the House of Representatives around him.”
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Media, News Analysis, Domestic politics, Donald Trump
  • Political Geography: Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Arab Countries, North America, United States of America
  • Publication Date: 10-2016
  • Content Type: Video
  • Institution: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  • Abstract: The Institute hosted a policy forum on Sept. 22, 2016, to discuss the progress of Iraqi security forces against the Islamic State and their imminent operation to liberate Mosul. The panelists included Brig. Gen. William Mullen and Dr. Daniel Green, who also discussed how the coming battle for Mosul relates to lessons learned during their previous tour in Fallujah, where they served during the 2007 surge and which is the topic of their book, "Fallujah Redux: The Anbar Awakening and the Struggle with al-Qaeda" (Naval Institute Press, 2014). The discussion was moderated by Michael Eisenstadt, the Institute's Kahn Fellow and Director of its Military and Security Studies Program. Brig. Gen. William F. Mullen III, USMC, is the Commanding General of Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command at Twenty-Nine Palms, California, and recently served as the Deputy Commanding General-Operations, Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command in Baghdad from June 2015 to June 2016. In addition, he has served as director of the Combined Joint Operations Center, as a senior advisor to the Iraqi security forces, as a Regimental Combat Team Operations Officer in the Fallujah area (February 2005-February 2006), and as a Battalion Commander in Fallujah (March-October 2007). Daniel R. Green is a Defense Fellow at The Washington Institute. He recently served in Iraq as a mobilized reservist with the U.S. Navy from October 2015 to May 2016; in that capacity, he worked as a Sunni Arab tribal analyst, conducting engagements with local political and tribal leaders from Anbar Province. Previously, he served with the Navy from April to October 2007 as a Tribal and Political Engagement Officer in the Fallujah area. His publications include the 2011 monograph, "The Valley's Edge: A Year with the Pashtuns in the Heartland of the Taliban" (Potomac Books), based on his service in Afghanistan.
  • Topic: News Analysis
  • Political Geography: Iraq