Shattering the Gulf’s Security Order
Shattering the Gulf’s Security Order
By Islam Farag, from Cairo / Egypt
In his angry reaction to the Israeli attack targeting Hamas leaders in Doha, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Prime Minister of Qatar, said that his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu had declared his intention to reshape the Middle East, but does the Israel with its attack signal his intent to reshape the Gulf region? “We expect a response from the entire region”, The prominent Qatari official added.
A candid and shocking question
This candid and shocking question reflects the gravity of the red line crossed by the Israeli state since its ongoing war in which it has violated the sovereignty of one regional country after another. This is not in relation to the objective of the attack nor the state whose sovereignty was breached, which in no way poses any threat to Israel. It is neither a neighboring country like Syria or Lebanon, nor a large and militarily powerful state contesting Tel Aviv’s influence in the region like Iran. The danger of what happened stems from the meaning and symbolism that Qatar holds in the calculations of U.S.-Gulf relations on one hand, and the Gulf security equations that must have collapsed after this attack.
Qatar represents one of the Gulf countries hosting one of the largest U.S. military bases in the world — Al Udeid Air Base. The base was established in the mid-1990s with Qatari funding to host U.S. forces, and officially came into service in 2000. It expanded after the attacks of September 11 to become the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in the region. Since its establishment, the base has played a prominent role in U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and against the terrorist organization ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It houses approximately 10,000 American soldiers in addition to British and international forces.
Qatar’s view in deciding to host this base, like other Gulf states, was that it is a small country that cannot, despite its wishes, build a strong army given its small population. However, it sits on a sea of gas and oil making it a desirable prize for other major regional powers.
The decision to host the base and continue large-scale purchases of Western, especially American, weaponry and sign security agreements for its defense aimed primarily at preserving the country’s security and stability and its ruling regime to ensure continued benefit from the billions generated by oil and gas fields. Like its neighbors, Qatar kept in mind the experience of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait during Saddam Hussein’s rule to seize its wealth.
Functional roles
For the past three decades, in light of its strong and diverse relations with Washington, Doha has played functional roles serving American strategies in the region. Qatar was the base for Al Jazeera, which was the voice of active minorities in the Arab world, the platform supporting the Arab Spring revolutions that brought Islamist movements to power in several countries, and the broadcaster for extremist voices from Al-Qaeda to ISIS, publishing their declarations and conducting interviews with their leaders under the pretext of opinion balance.
At the same time, Doha played mediation roles at the request of the U.S. between Washington and Afghan Taliban leaders and hosted Palestinian resistance leaders on its soil, mediating between them and Israel several times even before the recent war erupted. Despite not normalizing ties with Tel Aviv, secret communication between the two countries was active and robust, allowing Qatar to use its funds to influence Israeli politicians and even transfer money to Hamas in Gaza before the war.
Gulf doubts
This brief background on the relations between Washington and Doha, in addition to the large sums Qatar invests in the U.S. and the types of gifts it has given American officials — the latest being a plane gifted to President Donald Trump — highlights the depth of a relationship where it was unimaginable that Washington would accept any infringement on Qatar’s sovereignty and security. This framework explains the anger of the Qatari Prime Minister, who condemned the attack, describing it as a treacherous operation that Washington informed Qatar of only 10 minutes after the strike began.
The Qatari official’s anger also extended to the type of weapons used in the attack, which failed to be detected by radar, unlike when the base faced Iranian missile attacks during the war in which Washington sided with Israel against Tehran months ago.
Everyone in the Gulf now questions the value of Gulf-American relations and the billions spent over decades on American weaponry, if all that does not guarantee exceptional protection from a state they do not threaten and towards which they harbor no hostility. Some even hastened years ago to normalize relations with Israel without significant concessions to the Palestinian cause.
Messages to different parties
According to an informed Qatari source, the attack shocked the leadership in Doha, and its psychological impact on Qatar-U.S. relations will not be easy to manage.
The source pointed out that the shock extends to all Gulf capitals, which place American guarantees at the top of their security and defense calculations, adding that the attack presents the region with a complex diplomatic and field reality.
According to an Egyptian source, the attack carried multiple political and strategic messages to various parties, including Qatar and Egypt, which share mediation efforts and oppose the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.
However, both sources agreed that the power of international legitimacy no longer suffices to confront Israeli military force, which now dominates with a stark military logic devoid of any considerations.
Although the assassination of Palestinian leaders is not new to Israel and has been part of its strategy since the 1960s, what is new is that this strategy now targets everyone, disregarding sovereignty and strong relations with the United States.
Some may see the targeting of Hamas leaders in Doha as merely a chapter in this strategy to impose the solution Tel Aviv envisions for the release of its prisoners in Gaza and for the post-war scenario. Others, however, believe otherwise, thinking that the airstrikes destroyed any efforts towards the proposed negotiations.
Collapse of trust
Naturally, no one knows the full truth of what happened that day. While the U.S. claims it promptly informed Qatar of the strike once it became aware, many doubt this claim and assert that all indications confirm U.S. involvement in the operation with its military and logistical capabilities at Al Udeid base.
Whatever the truth amid all this debate, no observer can deny that the vital U.S. interests in the region have been harmed in terms of trust with its allies. This issue may lead to gradual and slow repercussions in relations but will ultimately result in a scene very different from what we see now.
Despite the raid’s failure to achieve its goals, the strike blatantly violated the sovereignty of a vital U.S. ally that was negotiating with Hamas at the White House’s request on a plan that President Trump expected would lead to a near agreement. This is an extremely sensitive moment; if Washington is not betraying its options, it at least appeared weak in the face of Benjamin Netanyahu’s dominance, neither able nor willing to assert U.S. priorities.
Pessimistic scenarios
What impression could possibly permeate America’s allies in the region after this incident? What else can be expected but successive withdrawals from commitments serving American interests, which increasingly burden Gulf ruling regimes? Many questions will be raised about alternatives Gulf capitals may be forced to consider in coming days. Simply contemplating such alternatives signals the collapse of traditional values and structures that once formed the basis for understanding and influencing regional balances in favor of U.S. interests.
The collapse of these values and structures opens wide the doors to scenarios that even the most pessimistic observers would not have imagined. The Gulf states are very young, most of them only a few decades old, and have yet to fully shed many burdens of traditional values and tribal loyalties. The modernization they experienced due to oil wealth is superficial consumption; despite educational booms, the foundations of modern states are not deeply rooted. The ruling regimes understand that their social contract with the governed is based on tribal constants and some welfare state features. Thus, any shock to the stability of the Gulf regional regimes could dismantle the fragile ties holding these states together, reverting them to earlier forms.
Therefore, stability and security have been their greatest concerns, prompting lavish spending and alliances, even with adversaries, to guarantee continuity. The raid on Doha was a heavy shock to these calculations, as clearly expressed by the Qatari Prime Minister when he questioned whether Israel’s goal to reshape the Middle East also extends to reshaping the Gulf.
Chaos reigns
In my personal view, we are at a pivotal stage in world history. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the respect for state sovereignty took precedence over respect for human rights, which is why no one dared intervene to stop massacres that occurred in several countries before that date. However, after 1991, respect for human rights became a priority over state sovereignty when the principle of the responsibility to protect emerged following the massacres in Rwanda in 1994. This principle allowed a major power like the United States to intervene militarily under the pretext of preventing similar massacres from recurring.
The recent Israeli war, which began in the Gaza Strip and expanded to all neighboring countries and forces it views as hostile to its racist project, marks a turning point in the rules of international and regional confrontation. Neither the United States intervened to prevent the crimes committed against the Palestinian people, nor did Israel respect the sovereignty of any other state not directly at war with it. The most dangerous consequence of this war is the establishment of chaos as the only rule that can succeed in that part of the world, where any state can do anything at any time as long as it remains certain of escaping punishment. This says nothing but that we are on the final pages of the collapse of the current world order in favor of another world order ruled by chaos with high levels of violence.