Follow us on social

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

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
Reporting | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.