Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-03-22-at-3.45.01-pm

WSJ op-ed pushing greater US Middle East role omits author’s Gulf funding

The Journal should have an obligation to inform its readers of any potential conflict of interest, particularly on foreign influence issues.

Reporting | Washington Politics

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed on Monday arguing that the United States needs to “recommit” to the Middle East. However, the paper did not disclose a potential conflict of interest at play in that the author is part of a Washington think tank that has received substantial funding from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and has personal financial interests in the region.

The op-ed, written by Firas Maksad, essentially pins blame on the Biden administration for Saudi and UAE leaders’ recent rejection of U.S. requests to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and to help lower oil prices amid the embargo on Russian crude, and for their reported refusal to take President Biden’s phone calls. 

Maksad then goes through a litany of well-worn scare tactics about how if the United States dares to divert any of its resources away from the region, then China and Russia will swoop in and take over. And if the Iran nuclear deal is restored, he says, “American deterrence across the region wanes,” despite the fact that after the JCPOA was agreed to in 2015 up until President Trump withdrew in 2018, Iran and local Iran-backed militias launched zero attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East (and many more since).

The solution to all this purported mayhem, according Maksad, would be for the United States to create a special envoy to the Middle East “to restore trust and elevate the relationship,” while at the same time “meeting requests” from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for anti-missile defense systems.

The Wall Street Journal identified Maksad as “an adjunct professor at George Washington University” and “a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute” but it did not disclose MEI’s strong financial ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In the past five years alone, MEI has received millions from the UAE and at least $1 million from Saudi state-owned oil giant Aramco Services Company. The UAE is MEI’s single biggest funder.

But Maksad is not just a “senior fellow” at the Middle East Institute as the Journal says. He’s also MEI’s “Director of Strategic Outreach,” a position that, according to his MEI bio page, involves working on “strategic fundraising engagements with corporate and individual donors.” Indeed, a Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for more defense commitments from the United States to the UAE and Saudi Arabia presumably would help with pitching UAE and Saudi officials for additional donations to the Middle East Institute. 

In addition to having served as CEO of the now-defunct pro-Saudi Washington think tank Arabia Foundation, Maksad is also the founder and managing director of Global Policy Associates — a consulting firm that does research, government affairs, and communications work — which lists MEI as one of its clients. But GPA’s client list also includes Teneo, a global advisory firm that has strong ties to the Gulf region in areas, according to Bloomberg, “such as risk advisory, communications and management consulting.”

Meanwhile, the Harbour Group, a key player in the UAE’s lobbying efforts in Washington, has contacted Maksad “multiple times” according to Foreign Agent Registration Act disclosures from May and November of 2021. Those contacts included topics such as the UAE’s military, its purchase of F-35s, and the normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel.

Unfortunately, this kind of hidden foreign influence has become commonplace in Washington. A foreign government funds a think tank which then goes on to advocate for that government’s interests, sometimes in direct opposition to American interests. While it’s laudable that MEI has made this funding information available to the public, it’s incumbent upon the media, especially major news outlets like the Journal, to inform their readers about any potential for conflict of interest. 


Photos: Casimiro PT via shutterstock.com and US State Department
Reporting | Washington Politics
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.