Qatar engages daily with US to bring an end to Israel-Iran conflict, foreign ministry says
Qatar's top leadership is engaging daily with the United States to bring an end to the conflict between Iran and Israel, Qatari foreign ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari said, warning of the dangers of war on energy security in the region.
'We have been making all the possible communication between all the parties regionally and abroad. These talks between us have been about finding a way out of the rabbit hole when it comes to this escalation,' Al Ansari said.
Al Ansari said that no demands have been exchanged between Israel and Iran, saying Doha and other regional countries are only holding calls at the moment in an attempt start negotiations, adding that Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani spoke to US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
He reiterated the Iranian position that Tehran will not negotiate under fire.
Qatar shares the world's biggest gas field with Iran, the Qatari part of which is known as the North Field and the Iranian as South Pars. Neighboring Arab states are also some of the world's biggest oil exporters.
'We have been engaging daily with partners in the US to find a way out of this. There have been some positive statements about the commitment to the diplomatic measures and hopefully we can get back to them.'
More background: Arab countries were supportive of talks between Tehran and Washington, with some being involved, ahead of Israel's strikes on Iran last week, Ansari said. In 2015, regional powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates opposed Iran and stood against the nuclear agreement between the Obama administration and Tehran.
They have since mended their relationship with Iran and advocated for diplomacy between the Islamic Republic and the US.
The spokesperson warned of the ramification of strikes on Iran in a region that 'cannot afford anymore escalation'
He said that striking energy facilities in the Persian Gulf could have a negative effect on the markets. One third of the world's seaborne oil trade and 20 percent of natural gas trade passes through the Persian Gulf.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Egypt Today
an hour ago
- Egypt Today
FM discusses with US envoy, Iran FM regional situation
CAIRO – 17 June 2025: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Emigration and Egyptian Expatriates Badr Abdelatty held two separate phone calls Tuesday with US President Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The discussions come in line with President Abdel Fattah El Sisi's directives to intensify diplomatic efforts aimed at de-escalating the ongoing military tensions between Israel and Iran. During both calls, Abdelatty stressed the urgent need to work toward de-escalation in the region and to pursue diplomatic and political solutions to contain the crisis and avert the risk of a wider conflict in the Middle East, foreign ministry spokesperson Tamim Khallaf said. The minister emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table, describing this as the only viable path to reaching a sustainable agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Abdelatty also underscored that military solutions will not resolve the crises facing the region and warned of the dangers of further escalation, which could lead the region into total chaos and inflict harm on all parties involved.
Egypt Today
an hour ago
- Egypt Today
Egypt, Russia FMs discuss bilateral ties, regional updates
CAIRO – 17 June 2025: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Emigration and Egyptian Expatriates Badr Abdelatty held a telephone conversation on Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in line with the directives of President Abdel Fattah El Sisi to intensify efforts and communications aimed at halting the ongoing dangerous military escalation between Israel and Iran, foreign ministry spokesperson Tamim Khallaf said. The call addressed ways to enhance Egyptian-Russian relations across various sectors, with both ministers expressing appreciation for the current level of bilateral cooperation and affirming their shared commitment to further strengthening ties. They also emphasized the importance of continuing reciprocal visits to promote joint cooperation, particularly in economic, trade, and investment fields, to achieve mutual benefits. The conversation touched on the latest regional developments amid the current military escalation and its grave consequences for the security and stability of the region. Both top diplomats underlined the urgent need to de-escalate tensions and pursue political and diplomatic solutions, reaffirming that there is no military solution to the current crisis. Minister Lavrov praised the joint statement issued yesterday by 23 Arab and Islamic countries at Egypt's initiative, which stressed the urgent need for a ceasefire and a return to negotiations as the only way to reach a sustainable agreement on Iran's nuclear program. The two ministers also exchanged updates on their recent communications with various regional and US officials aimed at curbing the escalation. The call reflected a strong alignment between Egypt and Russia on the necessity of de-escalation, containment of the deteriorating situation and the imperative need to prevent the region from sliding into widespread chaos; with both sides reaffirming that resuming negotiations remains the only viable path forward.
Al-Ahram Weekly
2 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Netanyahu's unstoppable conflagration - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
In launching Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, Israel crossed a threshold few in the international community dared imagine that it would. What Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented as a decisive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure is increasingly being seen in world capitals as a reckless gamble that has destabilised the region and shattered fragile hopes for a diplomatic resolution to Iran's nuclear programme. In the early hours of Thursday last week, more than 200 Israeli aircraft crossed into Iranian airspace in waves, targeting nearly 100 strategic sites. Among them were the nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Arak; missile assembly and production plants; Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command centres; air-defence batteries; radar stations; and logistical hubs. The operation was coupled with extensive cyberattacks that disrupted Iran's radar systems, severed communications between key defence units, and paralysed air-defence responses in critical zones. Israeli officials described it as the most complex military action the country had carried out since the destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. The strikes were surgical in design, aiming to degrade Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade material while minimising civilian casualties. Bunker-busting munitions were used against hardened targets, while drones were employed to hit mobile launchers and missile depots. The precision of the attacks was praised in the Israeli media, yet their political and strategic consequences have cast a long shadow. For all its technological superiority, Israel's operation did not eliminate the deeper threat posed by Iran's dispersed and resilient nuclear programme. In Washington, US President Donald Trump's initial public reaction was brief but revealing. Declaring that 'Israel is doing what it must,' he offered what many interpreted as tacit approval. The administration's posture appeared to be designed to align with Israel's objectives without formal entanglement. But beneath the surface, unease has mounted in the Pentagon and State Department. Senior military officials have warned that the strikes risk dragging the United States into a conflict it has not planned for. 'If Iran's retaliation touches a US base or our forces in the region, this could become our war overnight,' a CENTCOM officer reportedly warned. Analysts pointed to what they described as dangerous ambiguity. Commentator Aaron David Miller argued that 'by giving Israel space to act without consequence, the US has encouraged Netanyahu's calculus that this was a risk worth taking.' Robert Gates, a former US defence secretary, added that 'a first strike does not guarantee safety. It raises stakes, complicates diplomacy, and makes containment harder.' European capitals responded with alarm, though many echoed Israel's right to defend itself. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the strikes as a deliberate provocation at a moment when the priority should have been de-escalation, yet reaffirmed Israel's right to protect its people. French President Emmanuel Macron called the attack a destabilising act that threatened to engulf the region in war, urging restraint on all sides. Kaja Kallas, the EU's Foreign Policy chief, said the operation undermined what little remained of efforts to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. China and Russia condemned the strikes outright, calling for an emergency session of the UN Security Council and accusing Israel of violating international law. Inside Israel itself, Netanyahu framed the operation in existential terms. In a televised address, he declared that Israel had acted to prevent a 'second Holocaust,' invoking national trauma to rally support. His hard-right allies, including government ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, praised the action as a necessary defence of the state. But dissent was quick to surface. Former Israel Occupation Force (IOF) chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, in a closed-door briefing, said the strikes were tactically brilliant but strategically blind. 'We have exposed ourselves to multi-front retaliation with no clear plan for what comes next,' he warned. Smotrich himself expressed discomfort that such a monumental decision had been taken without full cabinet debate. Opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of exploiting national security to deflect from domestic crises – ballooning inflation, unrest over the Gaza war, and mass protests in Tel Aviv and Haifa. IRAN'S RESPONSE: Iran's response was immediate and multilayered. Within hours, the IRGC launched waves of ballistic missiles and suicide drones aimed at Israeli military and civilian targets. While Israel's Iron Dome and David's Sling air-defence systems intercepted the majority of incoming projectiles, several made it through. A missile struck near the Haifa port, wounding civilians and damaging infrastructure. In Tel Aviv, the impact of a drone attack near the city's outskirts caused widespread panic, though no casualties were reported. Air-raid sirens blared across the country, and schools were closed in multiple cities. Hizbullah, Iran's most formidable proxy, escalated tensions along Israel's northern border. In Southern Lebanon, rocket fire targeted Israeli outposts in the Galilee region. The Israeli Air Force responded with surgical strikes on Hizbullah command centres near Nabatieh and Tyre. Meanwhile, in Iraq and Syria, Iranian-aligned militias launched coordinated attacks on American positions and Israeli intelligence outposts. In Yemen, the Houthis attempted to strike Eilat with long-range drones, one of which reached southern Israel before being shot down. The unfolding exchange revealed not only the scale of Iran's retaliatory capacity but also the resilience of its regional proxy network. Israel's military superiority in technology and precision warfare was clear, but Iran's ability to open simultaneous fronts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen underscored the limits of unilateral deterrence. Israeli military officials confirmed that over 1,000 projectiles including missiles, rockets, and drones had been launched at Israel within 72 hours. The Israeli response included retaliatory airstrikes, cyberattacks, and covert sabotage operations against missile launch sites and logistical nodes in the Iranian-backed network. Yet, even as Israel hit back effectively, the scope of the escalation left the strategic landscape altered. Tal Inbar, a senior defence analyst in Tel Aviv, said the strikes may have delayed Iran's nuclear timeline, 'but they have simultaneously legitimised a more aggressive Iranian posture. Tehran now has both a narrative of victimhood and a motive for acceleration.' Inbar also warned that the Iranians had likely dispersed their enrichment capabilities across dozens of secret underground locations in anticipation of such strikes. Tehran responded by severing cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expelling inspectors, and declaring its right to enrich uranium 'without constraint.' Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, addressing the country's parliament the Majlis, said that 'from this day forward, the Islamic Republic will determine its path with no interference. We will not be bullied into submission.' Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei vowed 'strategic patience,' but hinted that Iran's future steps would be 'calculated to ensure a historic reversal of Israeli aggression.' Former Israeli Mossad chief Tamir Pardo argued that Netanyahu's operation had shifted Israel from a strategy of calibrated deterrence to one of precarious dominance. 'We've broken the regional order without knowing how to remake it,' he said. Uzi Arad, Netanyahu's former National Security adviser, warned that 'Israel has made itself the focal point of a regional conflagration it cannot manage alone.' ARAB RESPONSE: Across Arab capitals, alarm was growing that a broader regional war could erupt. Marwan Muasher, Jordan's former foreign minister, said the strike 'not only shattered fragile diplomatic channels – it handed Iran a golden opportunity to rally allies and delegitimise Israel on a global scale.' Emile Hokayem of the International Institute for Strategic Studies added that 'this is not 1981. The world is not applauding.' In the Gulf, public reaction was muted but nervous. While governments in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have long viewed Iran's nuclear programme as a destabilising threat, both states urged immediate restraint. The UAE called for an emergency session of the Arab League, while Saudi Arabia signalled concern that further escalation could unravel regional economic and security gains. Qatar and Kuwait condemned Israel's action more explicitly, warning that the use of force outside legal frameworks set a dangerous precedent. Egypt, while expressing sympathy with Israeli concerns, called on all parties to return to diplomacy before the conflict spiralled further. At the United Nations, the Security Council failed to adopt a resolution condemning the Israeli strikes due to US opposition, but discussions highlighted growing isolation. China accused Israel of acting as a 'rogue nuclear saboteur,' while Russia likened the strikes to 'state-sponsored terrorism.' Western allies of Israel walked a finer line recognising its right to self-defence but urging proportionality and a return to negotiations. Canada, Australia, and the UK joined NATO in calling for calm. The Trump administration, under pressure from Congress, reiterated support for Israel's security while avoiding direct endorsement of the strikes. 'Israel has the right to defend itself,' the White House statement read, 'but our shared goal remains regional stability through diplomacy.' Despite Israel's military success in executing Operation Rising Lion, the price of that success is becoming clearer. Netanyahu, having framed the strikes as a historic necessity, faces a dramatically altered security and diplomatic environment. His declaration that 'weak nations wait; strong nations act' captured the bravado of the moment, but behind closed doors Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and senior IOF commanders reportedly warned that Israel is now navigating uncharted waters. 'One miscalculation could ignite a region-wide war, with no exit ramp,' Gallant is said to have told Cabinet colleagues. The domestic political impact inside Israel was immediate. A temporary rally-around-the-flag effect boosted Netanyahu's support in overnight polls, but protests resumed within days, with thousands gathering in Tel Aviv demanding clarity on Israel's long-term plans and accusing the prime minister of risking national security for personal survival. The opposition, led by Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz, has demanded an emergency debate on military and diplomatic options. Within the governing coalition itself, fissures appeared, as more moderate voices warned against pushing the confrontation beyond the point of no return. Iran, meanwhile, appears to have seized the opportunity to unify its domestic audience. The strikes, widely seen as an assault on national sovereignty, have emboldened hardliners and marginalised moderates who once advocated limited engagement with the West. In a speech broadcast nationwide, Pezeshkian promised 'decades of resistance' and vowed that Iran's nuclear programme would advance at a pace and scope 'never before witnessed.' Khamenei, adopting a tone of steely resolve, warned that Israel would 'face the full force of the axis of resistance in due course'. Regional diplomacy has entered a period of intense activity but with few signs of progress. NATO continues to call for de-escalation. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) convened an emergency summit, issuing a statement that balanced concern about Iranian capabilities with condemnation of Israel's actions. The Arab League's united voice in condemning the Israeli strikes was notable for its rare cohesion, reflecting widespread fears that further escalation would destabilise the entire Middle East. Russia and China, seeking to capitalise diplomatically, offered to mediate, though Israel swiftly dismissed such overtures as 'insincere and unhelpful.' In Washington, divisions within the administration became increasingly visible. While Trump and his closest advisers praised Israel's 'decisive action,' others in the Pentagon and State Department warned that the strikes could undermine years of effort to contain Iran diplomatically and risk dragging the US into a direct military confrontation. Former officials, including Robert Gates, argued that 'the focus must now shift to containment and de-escalation before events overtake policy.' Aaron David Miller added that 'Netanyahu's gamble may well reshape the region but not necessarily in ways that serve Israel's long-term interests or those of the United States.' CONSEQUENCES: The balance of power has shifted but not as Netanyahu may have hoped. Israel's military advantage remains intact, but its political capital has been depleted. Its deterrence may have been demonstrated, but at the cost of emboldening Iran's nuclear ambitions, strengthening its proxies, and uniting adversaries. Iran's asymmetric capabilities – its network of partners and proxies, its missile forces, and its growing cyber capacity – remain intact, and perhaps more motivated than ever. The prospect of a prolonged, multi-front conflict now looms larger than at any point in recent memory. Leading think tanks have warned that the region's strategic landscape has entered a period of dangerous flux. While Israel demonstrated unmatched precision and technological might, striking at the heart of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and missile production sites, it did not achieve what some had hoped would be a decisive shift in the balance of power. Analysts argue that Iran's geographic depth, combined with its layered system of proxies across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, grants it a resilience that cannot be neutralised through airstrikes alone. Rather than collapsing under pressure, Iran appears poised to recalibrate its strategy, leaning even more heavily on asymmetric tools that can sustain a long-term campaign of attrition against Israel. Strategic assessments emerging from Western and regional policy institutes suggest that Iran's response to the Israeli strikes will likely be twofold. On one front, Tehran is expected to redouble its investment in missile and drone technologies, deepening partnerships with its regional allies to offset its conventional military losses. On the other, Iran is predicted to accelerate efforts to disperse and harden its nuclear programme, taking critical activities deeper underground and beyond the reach of conventional air power. This dual strategy, experts warn, will not only complicate future pre-emptive actions by Israel but also embolden Iran's position in the region, transforming it from an embattled actor to one that can claim the mantle of resistance in the face of external aggression. Within Israel, sober voices in the military and intelligence communities have cautioned that technological superiority, while vital, does not in itself guarantee lasting security. The capacity to strike with precision has done little to blunt the determination of Iran's leadership or its allies. On the contrary, the current confrontation appears to have strengthened the hand of Iranian hardliners, marginalising voices that once entertained the possibility of limited engagement with the West. Israeli planners now face a dilemma: how to contain the multifaceted threats posed by Iran and its proxies without becoming bogged down in an open-ended confrontation that could drain resources and erode public confidence at home. The confrontation between Israel and Iran has entered a critical phase, as Iran urgently signals its willingness to de-escalate and return to negotiations over its nuclear programme, provided the United States refrains from direct involvement in the conflict. According to messages relayed through Arab intermediaries, Tehran seeks to contain the violence and prevent further damage to its already battered military and nuclear infrastructure. Yet, with Israeli airstrikes continuing unabated, targeting key Iranian military leaders and energy facilities, Israel shows little inclination to halt its offensive. Netanyahu insists the campaign will continue until Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities are neutralised. As Gulf states urge Washington to pressure Israel towards restraint, the risk of a wider regional war looms, with energy security and global markets hanging in the balance. As the dust settles, what will emerge is a balance of power that remains as precarious as ever, albeit with new complexities and risks. Israel will retain its edge in air power, intelligence, and missile defence, but its margin for unilateral action has narrowed, with international patience wearing thin and regional tensions at a breaking point. Iran, though bruised, is far from broken. Its capacity to wage asymmetric warfare remains intact, and its determination to assert its influence across the region seems only to have hardened. The coming period is likely to see both sides engaged in a tense, high-stakes chess match, with the risk of miscalculation casting a long shadow over an already volatile region. As air-raid sirens fall silent, and as the region assesses the wreckage from this dramatic escalation, the fundamental questions remain unresolved. Will diplomacy regain its footing? Or will the Middle East slide further into conflict, driven by miscalculation, vengeance, and hardline posturing on all sides? The choices made in Jerusalem, Tehran, Washington, and beyond in the coming days will determine whether Operation Rising Lion is remembered as a turning point towards a new, more dangerous era or as the moment when leaders chose, against all odds, to step back from the brink. * A version of this article appears in print in the 19 June, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
