Follow us on social

google cta
2016-03-09t120000z_947728267_d1aesrnygcaa_rtrmadp_3_usa-army-scaled

House hearing showcases UAE and Bahrain funding at the witness table

All three witnesses on the 'Abraham Accords' have connections and/or financial ties to signatories of the deal.

Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

At 2pm today, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on “Expanding the Abraham Accords.” All of the witnesses appearing before the committee work at organizations with institutional and/or financial ties to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

The 2020 Accords, which marked the normalization of relations between Israel and both the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, also opened the floodgates for a wave of new weapons sales in the region, particularly from Israel to UAE, Bahrain and Morocco. The hearing will also be a showpiece for how foreign funding has permeated Washington’s think tanks and how little disclosure is done of these potential conflicts of interest.

Ret. Gen. Joseph L. Votel, is a distinguished fellow at the Middle East Institute, a group that counts the UAE as its single biggest funder and Bahrain as a lower level donor. 

Votel, appearing in his capacity as a MEI fellow, chose not to reveal that information in his Truth in Testimony disclosure, a disclosure required of all nongovernmental congressional witnesses, attesting that MEI received no payments "originating with a foreign government related to the subject of the hearing.”

After I tweeted  about his failure to disclose the UAE connection last night, Votel updated his form this morning, disclosing “grants or donations that could be tangentially related” to the hearing on the Abraham Accords. He disclosed funding from the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar,, and Oman. 

Votel isn’t the only witness affiliated with groups with financial ties to Abraham Accords signatories.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, and current Atlantic Council Distinguished Fellow Daniel B. Shapiro attested that “I am representing myself and my personal viewpoints” and indicated that he is not representing an institution that receives payments “originating with a foreign government related to the subject of the hearing.” 

The Atlantic Council, like MEI, counts the UAE as one of its top funders and Bahrain as a lower level donor. 

Shapiro, while claiming that he is only representing himself, submitted written testimony that identifies him as a “Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic Council” and spoke extensively about work he has undertaken at the Atlantic Council.

The third and final witness is Robert Greenway, president and CEO of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute. Greenway also said that his organization has received no “payment originating with a foreign government related to the subject of the hearing.”

Funding of his group is a mystery since the Institute doesn’t disclose information about its funding. But a 2021 Axios article described the Emirati and Bahraini ambassadors in Washington as cofounders of the institute. 

[Jared] Kushner is founding the institute with former White House envoy Avi Berkowitz, who helped negotiate the agreements; Israeli-American businessman and Democratic donor Haim Saban; and three heavy hitters from the region: the Emirati and Bahraini ambassadors to Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba and Abdulla R. Al-Khalifa, and Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi.

Today’s hearing offers a case study in how Emirati and Bahraini funding has become omnipresent at major foreign policy think tanks. It also reveals the low standards for disclosures of potential conflicts of interest held by House committees and their witnesses. And both of these issues come at a time when the U.S. intelligence community has reportedly become increasingly concerned about UAE meddling in U.S. politics. 

Others are even more scathing about the witness lineup and their financial ties. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace visiting scholar and former foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Matt Duss, tweeted, the hearing’s witness lineup is a good example of “the corruption that everyone in DC agrees to pretend isn’t corruption.”

Atlantic Council did not respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE: Rachel Dooley, MEI's deputy director of communications, told Responsible Statecraft:

The Middle East Institute does not adopt or advocate positions on particular policy issues. MEI's scholars retain complete intellectual independence, and their work, including testimony, represents their own views. MEI accepts funding only from donors who value its expertise and agree to this policy on independence.

UPDATE II: A representative of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute told Responsible Statecraft:

The Abraham Accords enjoy broad bi-partisan support in the U.S., and AAPI is committed to its ongoing work to support the Accords and strengthen ties among signatories.  No foreign national founded AAPI and it receives no funding from any foreign source.


U.S. Army General Joseph Votel (L) testifies during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Votel’s nomination to be commander of the U.S. Central Command on Capitol Hill in Washington March 9, 2016. Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Thomas (R) was testifying on his nomination to be general and commander of the U.S. Special Operations. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

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.