Follow us on social

google cta
2021-07-05t000000z_1781789242_rc2geo98bc6d_rtrmadp_3_saudi-emirates-scaled

Gulf funded think tank turns pro-Saudi, UAE messaging up to 11

The Middle East Institute has recently been calling for a greater US role in Middle East security without mentioning its key benefactors.

Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

While the world focuses on Ukraine, the United States has abandoned the Middle East. Or, at least that’s the story told from a steady stream of commentary bemoaning supposed U.S. neglect of its Middle East partners. 

Firas Maksad of the Middle East Institute, for example, dubbed the rift a “crisis” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in March calling on Biden to renew the U.S.’s “commitment to regional defense by publicly affirming a strategic alliance” with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, or both countries will continue to cozy up to Beijing and Moscow.

On CNN Maksad argued the United States was shirking its role as “underwriter of regional security,” which, “sends alarm bells ringing both in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi and has them thinking about how to diversify away from the United States even further.”

Maksad’s MEI colleagues, Bilal Saab and Karen Young, kept up the drumbeat in early April with a Foreign Policy article arguing for a new U.S. “strategic defense framework with the Gulf Arab states.” The article followed an MEI policy memo accusing the United States of being supportive of Iran’s expansionism which, amongst other issues, purportedly pushed Saudi Arabia and the UAE closer to China and Russia.

Noticeably absent from these documents and media appearances clamoring for more U.S. military entanglements with Saudi Arabia and the UAE is any acknowledgement that MEI’s biggest funders are the UAE and Saudi Arabia. In fact, in 2017, leaked emails revealed a $20 million “secret” grant from the UAE to MEI.

Maksad also has personal ties to Saudi and Emirati money as Responsible Statecraft has previously pointed out. Maksad is the Managing Director of Global Policy Associates which, prior to RS’s  reporting, listed Teneo as one of the firms’ clients. Teneo, incidentally, is registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act to represent multiple Saudi and Emirati interests.

The Middle East Institute did not respond to a request for comment. 

MEI isn’t alone — Saudi Arabia and the UAE have funded a number of think tanks in Washington, D.C. In fact, the UAE is one of the top foreign funders of think tanks in the United States. While none of these think tanks acts like a “lobbying firm” — as Saab himself explained to the UAE’s Ambassador to the U.S., Yousef Otaiba, in a leaked email — these think tanks often spread pro-Saudi and UAE messaging and silence critiques of these Gulf dictatorships. All while masquerading as objective without disclosing their conflicts of interest.

As Eli Clifton and I argue in a Quincy Institute report highlighting the perils of think tanks’ donor secrecy, it’s not enough for think tanks to just provide a list of donors on their website — as MEI does —  they must also “publicize conflict-of-interest policies and proactively identify the appearance of conflicts of interest between institutional funders, or staff conducting outside political work, and a think tank’s institutional research products.” Claims of “intellectual independence” ring hollow when used to defend work products that serve the interests of top funders. 

Media outlets also have an obligation to acknowledge these potential conflicts of interest. By failing to disclose these funding ties, Foreign Policy, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN are omitting critical information that could put these experts’ comments into better perspective. If, for example, consumers of these analyses knew that MEI’s top funder was the UAE, they wouldn’t be surprised when none of them mentions the multiple times top UAE officials have been accused of illegally meddling in U.S. politics and elections as a possible cause of tensions between the UAE and the United States

At a time when the public’s trust in government and media is near record lows, it’s incumbent upon think tanks and media outlets to be as transparent as possible with the consumers of their work.

Editor's note: This article has been updated for clarity.


Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS.
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.