Upcoming Doha summit of League of Arab Nations threatens Trumps Abbrahms Accord in the middle east - Arab nations are introspecting on a NATO type alliance to protect itself as US troops on their soil failed to protect Qatar

 

Qatar's Doha Summit: How a NATO type Arab alliance could be formed 

By TN Ashok.      September 15, 2025. 

The emergency summit convening in Doha this week represents more than routine diplomatic theater—it signals a profound rupture in Middle Eastern alliance structures that has caught Washington off guard. 

Qatar's decision to host 57 Arab and Islamic nations in response to Israel's unprecedented strike on Hamas negotiators in the Qatari capital has exposed the fragility of America's regional partnerships and raised uncomfortable questions about the reliability of Israeli intelligence sharing with its closest ally.

The Base Paradox

At the heart of Qatar's diplomatic fury lies a striking contradiction: the nation hosting America's largest military installation in the Middle East found itself unable to prevent an attack by America's closest regional ally. Al Udeid Air Base, home to some 8,000 American personnel and the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command, represents the cornerstone of American military presence in the Gulf. Yet this massive security umbrella proved worthless when Israeli missiles targeted Hamas leaders meeting in downtown Doha.

The attack, which killed five Hamas members and one Qatari security officer, was conducted without meaningful consultation with Washington, according to U.S. officials. This breach of protocol has particular sting for Qatar, which has structured its entire foreign policy around the assumption that its American security partnership provides protection from regional threats. The strike has forced Doha to confront an uncomfortable reality: alliance with America offers no guarantee against Israeli unilateralism.

Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani's characterization of the attack as "blatant, treacherous, cowardly" reflects more than wounded pride. It represents a fundamental questioning of the regional security architecture that has governed Gulf politics since the 1991 Gulf War. For a nation that has built its influence on mediation and diplomatic neutrality, the Israeli strike represents an assault on its core strategic identity.

America's Intelligence Blind Spot

The failure to provide Qatar with adequate warning highlights systemic problems in U.S.-Israeli intelligence coordination. According to reports, Mossad Director David Barnea had opposed the strike, believing it would derail ceasefire negotiations. His opposition suggests internal Israeli debate that somehow failed to reach American decision-makers in time to prevent the attack or warn Qatar.

This intelligence failure carries broader implications for American credibility across the region. If Washington cannot guarantee advance notice of Israeli operations against its own allies, what value does American security partnership actually provide? The question resonates particularly strongly in Gulf capitals, where leaders have long accepted limitations on their sovereignty in exchange for American protection.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's decision to visit Israel before Qatar—despite Qatar being the aggrieved party—sent an unfortunate signal about American priorities. His subsequent statement that the U.S. would focus on "what happens next" rather than examining past failures only deepened the diplomatic damage.

The Arab Response: Unity Through Grievance

The swift mobilization of Arab and Islamic leaders to Doha demonstrates how Israeli overreach has achieved what decades of diplomatic initiatives failed to accomplish: genuine regional unity. The presence of traditional rivals like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian at the same gathering illustrates the galvanizing effect of the Qatar strike.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's declaration that Israeli actions have "crossed all red lines" carries particular weight given Egypt's role as a key American partner and recipient of $1.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid. Jordan's King Abdullah II's call for a "clear, decisive and deterring" response reflects similar frustration from another crucial American ally.

The draft resolution circulating among summit participants reportedly threatens the Abraham Accords—the Trump administration's signature Middle East achievement. References to Israeli actions threatening "coexistence efforts to normalize ties" suggest that even the UAE and Bahrain, despite their substantial investments in Israeli partnerships, may face domestic pressure to reconsider their positions.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani's proposal for a NATO-style defense pact among Arab and Islamic nations represents the most significant challenge to American regional hegemony. His suggestion that "an attack on one is treated as aggression against all" would create alternative security structures independent of American oversight.

The Mediation Gambit Destroyed

Israel's timing was particularly damaging to American diplomatic efforts. The Hamas negotiators targeted in Doha were meeting to discuss a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal—the same proposal that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had spent months crafting. By attacking the negotiators while they were considering American terms, Israel effectively sabotaged its own ally's diplomatic initiative.

This pattern of Israeli actions undermining American diplomacy has become increasingly common. From settlement expansion that contradicts stated U.S. policy to military operations that complicate American regional relationships, Israel's actions often seem designed to narrow rather than expand American diplomatic options.

Qatar's role as a mediator—facilitating everything from Taliban negotiations to Hamas talks—has made it indispensable to American diplomacy despite ideological differences. The Gulf nation's unique position, maintaining relationships with both Iran and Israel while hosting American forces, has enabled breakthroughs that traditional diplomatic channels could not achieve.

Economic Leverage and Strategic Recalculation

The summit's potential economic implications extend beyond symbolic gestures. Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $450 billion, represents significant investment power that could be redirected away from Israeli or American assets. Combined with similar funds from Saudi Arabia ($700 billion) and the UAE ($300 billion), the collective economic leverage of upset Gulf nations could influence Israeli policy more effectively than diplomatic protests.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's call for "economic pressure" on Israel and "self-sufficiency" in the Arab and Islamic world reflects a growing sentiment that economic interdependence has failed to moderate Israeli behavior. Malaysia's Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was more direct: "Condemnations will not stop the missiles. Declarations will not free Palestine. Severe, punitive actions must be put in place."

The Trump Factor: Transactional Diplomacy's Limits

The Qatar crisis has exposed limitations in President Trump's transactional approach to Middle Eastern diplomacy. While Trump's personal relationships with regional leaders have facilitated deals like the Abraham Accords, they have not created institutional mechanisms for managing intra-alliance conflicts.

Trump's scheduled call with Chinese President Xi Jinping following the TikTok deal announcement illustrates his preference for personal diplomacy over institutional channels. Yet the Qatar crisis demonstrates that personal relationships cannot substitute for systematic alliance management when core interests collide.

The timing of the Israeli strike—occurring while Trump was celebrating the TikTok agreement—suggests a level of Israeli independence that complicates American regional strategy. If Israel can conduct operations against American partners without meaningful consultation, it raises questions about the effectiveness of American influence over its closest ally.

Regional Security Architecture Under Stress

The broader implications extend beyond bilateral U.S.-Qatar relations to the entire structure of American regional influence. Gulf nations have accepted constraints on their sovereignty—hosting foreign bases, denominating oil sales in dollars, purchasing American weapons systems—in exchange for security guarantees. When those guarantees prove insufficient, the entire bargain comes into question.

The emergence of alternative security arrangements, whether through the proposed Arab-Islamic defense pact or increased cooperation with China and Russia, represents a direct challenge to American hegemony. Qatar's hosting of the World Cup, despite American opposition to some aspects of the tournament, demonstrated the limits of American economic pressure when regional solidarity coalesces.

Conclusion: Alliance Management in Crisis

The Qatar crisis represents a test case for American alliance management in an era of increasing multipolarity. Washington's ability to maintain influence in the Middle East depends not just on military capability but on perceived reliability as a security partner. When American allies face attacks from other American allies, the fundamental logic of alliance politics breaks down.

The emergency summit in Doha may not produce immediate changes to regional dynamics, but it has demonstrated the potential for alternative power structures independent of American oversight. Whether Washington can rebuild trust with Qatar while maintaining support for Israel will determine the durability of American influence in a region increasingly skeptical of superpower reliability.

For Qatar, the path forward involves balancing its American partnership against its Arab identity—a calculation that has become significantly more complex since Israeli missiles struck its capital. The outcome will reverberate throughout a region where American hegemony can no longer be taken for granted.