This report is an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to the Middle East. It includes a brief historical review of foreign aid levels, a description of specific country programs, and analysis of current foreign aid issues. Congress authorizes and appropriates foreign assistance and conducts oversight of exe cutive agencies' management of aid programs. As the largest regional recipient of U.S. economic and security assistance, the Middle East is perennially a major focus of interest as Congress exercises these powers. The foreign aid data in this report is based on a combination of resources, including the United States Agency for International Development's U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants Database (also known as the "Greenbook"), appropriations data collected by the Congressional Research Service from the Department of State and USAID, data extrapolated from executive branch agencies' notifications to Congress, and information published annually in the State Department and USAID Congressional Budget Justifications. U.S. policymakers over time have identified a number of core interests in the Middle East that U.S. foreign aid to the region seeks to advance, ranging from support for the state of Israel and Israel's peaceful relations with its Arab neighbors, to the protection of vital energy supplies and the fight against international terrorism. U.S. foreign assistance continues to support the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and the continued stability of the Kingdom of Jordan, which signed its own peace treaty with Israel in 1994. U.S. funding also has sought to promote a diplomatic "two-state" solution between the Palestinians and Israel, with legislative conditions aimed at preventing the diversion of U.S. aid for the West Bank and Gaza Strip to terrorist groups such as Hamas. The United States also provides military assistance to Iraq and Lebanon that seeks to counter Iranian influence in parts of the Arab world. While core interests endure, new policy challenges have arisen during the period of upheaval that began across the Arab world in 2011. Since that wave of unrest started a number of governments have fallen or come under severe strain, political conflict and sectarian violence have spread, and economies across the region have weakened. At present, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen face civil wars and terrorist/insurgent violence that are eroding central governance in each country and threatening neighboring states. Across the region, local affiliates of either Al Qaeda or the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) are fighting security forces and/or tribal militias in battles that may reshape the map of the modern Middle East. To date, only Tunisia appears to have made continuing strides toward a stable democratic political system, and even Tunisia's gains are considered fragile due to its weak economy and continued terrorist violence. Questions over the type and amount of resources the United States should devote to tackling the region's problems continue to be debated by Congress. On the one hand, U.S. bilateral assistance to the region has remained relatively unchanged since before 2011. The leading recipients of bilateral foreign aid appropriations in FY2010 —Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, and Iraq—remain, with the exception of Iraq, the same leading bilateral aid recipients in FY2015. This continuity reflects, among other things, strong Congressional support for Israel and for peace between Israel and its neighbors. On the other hand, violence in Syria and Iraq has led to some significant changes in U.S. foreign assistance to the region, as the Administration and Congress have used new sources of funding beyond traditional bilateral or State Department/USAID-controlled accounts to address challenges created by these conflicts. Since FY2012, Congress has appropriated and the Administration has allocated or reprogrammed a total of more than $4 billion for the multilateral humanitarian response to the Syrian refugee crisis. Moreover, to cope with the challenge posed by the Islamic State, Congress has authorized and appropriated new funding to the region through Defense Department-administered security assistance accounts. In the 113 th Congress, lawmakers provided the Defense Department with three new train and equip (T&E) authorities to counter the Islamic State: (1) the global Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF); (2) Iraq T&E authority; and (3) Vetted Syrians T&E authority. Funding for these new accounts has come from either new appropriations or authorized reprogramming from Defense Department accounts. Overall, the conflicts in Syria and Iraq account for a greater share of regional foreign assistance due to increases in humanitarian spending, military assistance to Iraq, aid to the Syrian opposition, and aid to neighboring states such as Lebanon and Jordan. For FY2016, the Administration is seeking $3.45 billion in combined State Department and Defense Department funding (military and economic) to cope with the conflicts in Syria and Iraq (See " Syria, Iraq, and the Islamic State ," below). Amid this continuity and change in U.S. foreign assistance to the Middle East, future appropriations may be affected by two broader considerations: Domestic-Budgetary . Due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the overall foreign operations budget increased significantly during the Bush Administration. For the seven-year duration of the Obama Administration, total State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs funding has been fairly flat, averaging $51 billion a year (enduring + OCO) since FY2009. In order to respond to myriad regional crises within a relatively static budgetary environment, officials have relied on foreign aid funds from accounts designated as Overseas Contingency Operations or OCO. These accounts are not subject to the budget caps applicable to most other accounts that were established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25 ). In recent years, new bilateral aid to Iraq, the Syrian opposition, and Jordan has been designated as OCO, as has a significant portion of funding for multilateral accounts (IDA, MRA, and ERMA) used in response to humanitarian crises, such as the Syrian refugee crisis. As lawmakers consider FY2016 funding and the possible impact of the BCA on discretionary spending, the House version of the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs bill ( H.R. 2772 ) would provide $47.8 billion in total funding (enduring + OCO). Global-Financial . As the financial needs of the region's non-oil producers have dramatically increased in recent years (due to the 2008 global financial crisis and the Arab Spring), lawmakers have provided grant assistance and/or loan guarantees to complement other loan packages provided by multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF has provided loans to Morocco ($5 billion in 2014), Tunisia ($1.75 billion in 2013), Jordan ($2.1 billion in 2012), and Yemen ($550 million in 2014). These funds have been provided on the condition of economic reforms. Although these loans, totaling over $9 billion, are disbursed over multiple years, they represent a far larger commitment of economic resources to the region than annual U.S. bilateral aid. The oil-rich Arab Gulf states also have dramatically increased their aid to the Middle East region, largely with the political goal of countering Islamist influence in regional politics and ensuring regime continuity in places such as Egypt. Gulf countries have given an estimated $30 billion to Egypt since the military ousted the country's then-president Muhammad Morsi, of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party, in July 2013. Iran also provides a range of assistance to its allies in the region, including Syria and Lebanese Hezbollah. For FY2016, the Administration has requested overall non-humanitarian bilateral aid for Near East and North Africa countries totaling $7.14 billion, or about 13% of the State Department's International Affairs request. This would represent an increase of $365.1 million (+5.4%) over FY2014 actual funding levels, and an increase of $570.62 million (+8.7%) above the FY2015 requested funding. Similar to FY2013 and FY2014 assistance levels to the region, more than 80% of this FY2016 total would support assistance for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza. Budget accounts that provide non-humanitarian U.S. aid to Middle Eastern countries include Development Assistance (DA), Global Health Programs (GH), Economic Support Fund (ESF), International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR), International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO). Of the non-humanitarian bilateral aid to Middle Eastern countries, 95% is within the ESF and FMF accounts. Also within the overall FY2015 and FY2016 requests, but not allocated by country or region, is emergency humanitarian aid, largely within Migration and Refugee Assistance OCO (MRA-OCO) and International Disaster Assistance OCO (IDA-OCO) accounts. OCO funds within the foreign affairs FY2016 request include $873.4 million for Middle Eastern bilateral aid (up 5.7% over bilateral OCO funds in FY2014) and $1.63 billion for humanitarian aid for the crisis in Syria and Iraq. Combined, these OCO funds would comprise one-third of all OCO funds sought for FY2016. For FY2015, Congress did not provide specific OCO funds for countering the Islamic State, as was requested, but did provide an increase in OCO funds in many accounts by using wording such as "for other assistance," "for other areas of unrest," or "for extraordinary costs, including those resulting from conflict" that could be applied to Middle Eastern countries. In addition to assistance provided directly to certain countries, the United States provides aid to Middle Eastern countries through regional programs, including: Middle East Regional (MER) .