How Qatar helped Trump broker peace in Iran
Qatar is basking in its latest diplomatic success. On Monday evening, Qatari diplomats brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. This truce remains intact despite Iran's parliamentary vote to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog and brinkmanship over alleged breaches of the ceasefire.
Qatar's success was the product of years of tenacious diplomacy and capitalisation on time-tested partnerships with the key warring parties. During the summer of 2022, Qatar hosted indirect nuclear negotiations between US and Iranian officials. While these talks did not produce immediate results, Qatar continued its efforts. In August 2023, Qatar facilitated a US-Iran hostage deal that led to the unfreezing of $6 billion (£4.4 billion) in sanctioned Iranian funds and the release of five captive Americans.
Qatar transformed a moment of grave peril into a historic opportunity for peace in the Middle East
After President Donald Trump's return to the White House in January, Qatari officials discreetly engaged with their Omani counterparts on facilitating nuclear talks between the US and Iran. On 20 May, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani warned of the dire consequences of a 'nuclear race or round of escalation next to our countries' and suggested a trilateral format involving Oman, the US and Iran. When Israel instigated its Operation Rising Lion offensive against Iranian military infrastructure on 13 June, Qatar convened talks between energy companies on the war's economic fallout and coolly responded to the Iranian missile attack on its Al Udeid base to prevent an escalation spiral.
The Qatar-brokered ceasefire deal is the culmination of an extraordinary comeback story which has seen Qatar transform vilification into grudging praise from Trump's closest allies. It also underscores Qatar's integral place within the grand strategies of Western powers in the Middle East and efficacy as a conflict arbiter in numerous global theatres of instability.
Before Trump's inauguration, there were widespread expectations that his second presidency would witness a downturn in US-Qatar relations. Pressure groups accusing Qatar of supporting Hamas and of mediating between Israel and Hamas in bad faith had gained traction. These organisations influenced the views of key members of the Republican party. Bitter memories of Trump's initial alignment with the 2017 Saudi Arabia-led blockade against Qatar and dismissal of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who reportedly stopped Saudi Arabia and the UAE from invading Qatar, lingered uncomfortably on the horizon.
Despite the negative signals emanating from his closest allies and past conduct, Trump had incrementally developed a much more sanguine view of Qatar's regional role and a warm relationship with its Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Trump admired Qatar's role in brokering an end to the US's forever war in Afghanistan and growing investment footprint in the American economy. During their September 2024 meeting at his Palm Beach mansion Mar-a-Lago, Trump hailed the Qatari Emir's commitment to peace in the Middle East and pledged that his return to the White House would make US-Qatar relations 'even stronger'.
Trump's historic two-day visit to Doha last month, the first by a sitting US president since George W. Bush gave his infamous 2003 'mission accomplished' speech at Al Udeid, energised Qatar's allies and detractors within the Maga universe in equal measure. US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff was undoubtedly a tacit supporter of the trip, as he had recently hailed Qatar's 'well-motivated' involvement in regional diplomacy. Qatar's offering of $243.5 billion (£177.4 billion) in economic deals to the US and pledge to invest $10 billion (£7.2 billion) in the Al Udeid base gratified Trump.
For Qatar's critics, reports that it was in talks with the US for Doha to transfer a Boeing 747 for Trump to use as Air Force One became an obsessive point of focus. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz warned that the Qatari jet raised 'significant espionage and surveillance problems' and framed Trump's acceptance of it as a national security threat. In a not-so-implicit jab at Witkoff, Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton lambasted Qatar's hosting of Hamas and warned that it was a less reliable US partner than Saudi Arabia or the UAE.
Qatar's brokering of the Israel-Iran ceasefire deal will not end its divisive reputation, but it does underscore its ability to serve as a trouble-shooter and force-multiplier for the US in the Middle East. It is a vindication for Trump's decision to entrust the emirate with high-stakes diplomacy and should soften the strident criticisms of Witkoff in the conservative media echo chamber.
Qatar's success will also elevate its status as a partner for the United Kingdom and counter the criticisms that accompanied Sheikh Tamim's state visit to London in December 2024. A recent Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) report revealed that Qatar contributes £120 billion per year to the British economy.
As the UK edges closer to a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and seeks global partners to burnish its Global Britain agenda, Qatar has strategic value. It is little wonder that Prime Minister Keir Starmer consulted with Sheikh Tamim after the Al Udeid attacks and discussed facilitating the swift resolution of the Gaza war.
Aside from shoring up its Western partnerships, Qatar's diplomatic success was a triumph for its national identity construction mission. As a relatively new country that only earned its independence in 1971 and a small nation with 330,000 native citizens, Qatar's outsized role as a conflict arbiter is a profound point of national pride. Mediation is even ensconced within Article 7 of the Qatari constitution. The trauma of Iran's attack created a palpable patriotic rally on the streets of Doha and Qatar's diplomatic achievement augmented that nationalist upsurge.
The momentum generated by Qatar's arbitration triumph has already extended to other conflict theatres. On Wednesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari declared that Qatar had been in touch with 'all sides' of the Gaza war and hailed Trump's sincerity about a potential Israel-Hamas ceasefire. As the families of Israeli hostages clamoured for the Israel-Iran ceasefire to lead to a truce-hostage deal in Gaza, Qatari diplomacy has highly visible allies.
Beyond the Middle East, Qatar's global mediation efforts have received a shot in the arm. As Trump's efforts to facilitate US-Russia dialogue and an end to Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine blew up in smoke, Qatari diplomats continue to broker the return of abducted Ukrainian children to their families. Earlier this month, Qatar advanced a draft peace proposal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda-backed M-23 rebels. This plan follows months of Qatari shuttle diplomacy in the eastern Congo crisis and serves as a roadmap to end the DRC's three decades of bloody internecine strife.
During the darkest phase of the US and Israel's war with Iran, Qatar transformed a moment of grave peril into a historic opportunity for peace in the Middle East. Now is the time for Trump to build on this success and fulfil his vow to be America's peace president.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
18 killed in Israeli strike targeting Gaza police distributing flour, officials say
Eighteen people have been killed in an Israeli strike targeting Palestinian police distributing flour in a market in the central Gaza city of Deir al-Balah, medical officials have said. The reported strike, on Thursday afternoon, is the latest in a series of air attacks, shootings and bombardment by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that has killed hundreds of desperate civilians seeking aid in the devastated Palestinian territory. It appears to have targeted members of a security force set up by the Hamas-led interior ministry to target looters and merchants who sell stolen aid at high prices. The unit, known as Sahm, or Arrow, confiscates stolen aid which it then distributes. Witnesses said many of the casualties were ordinary civilians who had gathered to receive sacks of flour from a warehouse near the Birka crossroads in the northern part of Deir al-Balah. The dead included a child and at least seven Sahm members, according to the nearby al-Aqsa Martyrs hospital, where casualties were taken. There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military. Food has become extremely scarce in Gaza since a tight blockade on all supplies was imposed by Israel throughout March and April, threatening many of the 2.3 million people who live there with a 'critical risk of famine'. Since the blockade was partly lifted last month, the UN has tried to bring in aid but has faced major obstacles, including rubble-choked roads, Israeli military restrictions, continuing airstrikes and growing anarchy. Hundreds of trucks have been looted by armed gangs and by crowds of desperate Palestinians. The strike in Deir al-Balah on Thursday night came shortly after Israel closed crossings into northern Gaza, cutting the most direct route for aid to the parts of the territory where the humanitarian crisis is most acute. For most of the war, aid in Gaza was distributed mainly by the UN and other international humanitarian organisations, but Israel said Hamas diverted and sold supplies to finance its military and other operations. The UN and other aid groups deny the charge and say their monitoring of their distribution networks is robust. Israel has backed an American private contractor, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which started distributing food boxes in Gaza last month, attracting crowds of tens of thousands to its four hubs. To reach the GHF sites, which open intermittently and unpredictably and often at night, Palestinians must cross rubble-strewn roads and Israeli military zones where witnesses say troops often fire on them with mortars, tanks and machine guns. Health officials say hundreds of people have been killed and wounded seeking aid in recent weeks and medical records from independent NGOs working in Gaza, seen by the Guardian, confirm hundreds of lethal injuries from bullets and some from shelling. The Israeli military says it has only fired 'warning shots' at individuals it believes are a threat to its forces. Israel has continued to allow a smaller number of aid trucks into Gaza for UN distribution, with about 70 entering the territory each day on Monday and Tuesday. The World Health Organization said on Thursday it had been able to deliver its first medical shipment since 2 March, with nine trucks bringing blood, plasma and other supplies to Nasser hospital, the biggest hospital still functioning in southern Gaza. Humanitarian officials in the territory say the amount of aid is 'grossly inadequate'. The IDF has targeted the Hamas-run police in Gaza since the early months of the conflict, which was triggered by a Hamas attack on southern Israel in which militants killed 1,200, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostage. During the 12 days Israel was fighting Iran, more than 800 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, either shot as they desperately sought food in increasingly chaotic circumstances or in successive waves of Israeli strikes and shelling. The overall death toll in Gaza in the 20-month conflict has reached 56,259, mostly civilians. Pedro Sánchez, Spain's prime minister and an outspoken critic of Israel's offensive, on Thursday became the most prominent European leader to describe the situation in Gaza as a genocide. Israel vehemently denies the allegation of war crimes and genocide, which it says are based on anti-Israel bias and antisemitism. AP contributed to this report
BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
What to know about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most consequential cases in modern US history on Friday - whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect case stems from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. It will instead focus on federal judges' use of nationwide injunctions, which have stunted key aspects of Trump's agenda. The Trump administration has argued that the judges have overstepped their power, but others say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos". A quick road to the Supreme Court On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits that ended in judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump's executive order "blatantly unconstitutional". Trump's Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be the case being heard at the nation's highest court is not about birthright citizenship directly - but about whether lower courts should have the authority to block nationwide presidential orders with injunctions. The argument against court injunctions The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum. Conservative and liberal justices alike have argued that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."Similarly, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that "universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious". Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact. The Trump administration is arguing in the birthright citizenship case that lower judges did not have the right to put time-consuming legal obstacles in front of the Trump's agenda. The arguments for nationwide injunctions Without nationwide injunctions, backers of the measure say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits. Injunctions are often the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump's executive orders from taking immediate legal effect. Such orders are a marked contrast from laws passing through Congress, which takes longer and subjects them to additional Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system."Your argument says 'we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'" Jackson said. "I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law," she other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws. Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that, in the birthright citizenship case, there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship. What are the arguments around birthright citizenship? The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution establishes the principle of birthright citizenship."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."However, the Trump administration's arguments rest on the clause in the 14th Amendment that reads "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It argues that the language excludes children of non-citizens who are in the US legal scholars say President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive the 15 May hearing, Justice Kagan noted that the administration had lost on the birthright citizenship issue in every lower court and asked: "Why would you ever take this case to us?" Here are some of the ways the justices could rule On nationwide injunctions, the justices could say injunctions can only apply to the people who sued, including class actions, as government lawyers have advocated justices could also say injunctions can only apply in the states where the cases are brought, or that injunctions can only be issued on constitutional questions (like birthright citizenship). Constitutional questions, though, concern the bulk of the cases with nationwide injunctions that the Trump administration is appealing. If the court rules the injunctions should be lifted, then the Trump administration could deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants while the court cases the injunctions hold, the individual court cases challenging the birthright citizenship order will likely work their way to the Supreme Court. The high court could decide on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but justices have indicated they would prefer a separate, full hearing on the could also give indications or hints in their written opinion on which way they are leaning on the citizenship question, without ruling directly on it.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Former CIA director says people must understand ‘how dangerous a world we live in right now' in the wake of Trump's Iran strike
Leon Panetta, the former director of the CIA during Barack Obama 's first term, has warned that President Donald Trump 's decision to bomb Iran – and the intelligence disputes surrounding it – only serve to emphasize 'how dangerous a world we live in right now.' Panetta, 86, who also served as Bill Clinton 's chief of staff and currently co-hosts the foreign policy podcast One Decision, told The i Paper: 'I don't think there's any alternative but to understand how dangerous a world we live in right now. 'Not only because of the adversaries that are out there – whether it's China, or Russia, or North Korea, or Iran, or terrorism – but also because of the concerns about leadership, and whether or not the U.S. will exercise the right kind of leadership in a dangerous world.' After Israel launched air strikes against Iran on Friday June 13 as part of its Operation Rising Lion offensive, intended to stop Tehran developing a nuclear weapon, Trump initially kept his distance before dropping bunker-busting bombs on three Iranian uranium enrichment sites over the weekend. In the run-up, the president dismissed the significance of his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard briefing Congress in March that Iran was not currently advancing its efforts to build a weapon of mass destruction. He also sidelined her from Situation Room meetings discussing the conflict but offered no evidence of his own to contradict her assessment. The president and his administration have since attacked The New York Times and CNN for reporting on a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that found the damage done to the Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan facilities was not as severe as Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had indicated. Responding to those tensions, Panetta said: 'There's no question that when the U.S. president makes a statement that our intelligence assessments are wrong and doesn't believe our own intelligence, that creates a very dangerous moment. 'It undermines the work of our intelligence professionals who really are focused on trying to provide the president with the truth. When the president questions their credibility, that certainly undermines their morale, I'm sure. 'But secondly, it also creates a real problem for the president, because if he rejects the intelligence he's receiving, then what will be the basis for the decisions that he makes in the future, and that is a very scary prospect.' The former official added: 'I have always been confident about our intelligence assessments with regards to Iran… The fundamental question is: did they make a decision to proceed with developing a weapon? And I think our intelligence indicates that that still was not the case.' For Panetta, the episode provides the latest example of Trump's 'unpredictability' as a leader, which poses a risk to America's NATO allies, who met this week in the Netherlands, at a time of heightened international unease. 'It really does rest with our European allies to do everything necessary to make sure that NATO is prepared militarily, to be able to respond if necessary,' he said.
