Qatari emir holds calls with Iranian and US presidents, condemns targeting Al-Udaid
LONDON: The emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, received separate phone calls from Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump on Tuesday following the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' missile attack on Al-Udeid Air Base.
Sheikh Tamim strongly condemned the Iranian attack at the outset of his call with Pezeshkian. He said the act was 'a blatant violation of Qatar's sovereignty and airspace, as well as a breach of international law and the United Nations Charter.'
The IRGC on Monday night fired missiles at Al-Udeid Air Base, the largest US military base in the Middle East, accommodating about 10,000 service members, located 30 kilometers southwest of Doha. The attack was a retaliatory action after the US hit three of Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend.
Sheikh Tamim said that Iran's action contradicted the principles of good neighborliness and highlighted Doha's ongoing commitment to dialogue with Iran.
He urged an immediate halt to military operations and a return to negotiations to resolve the crisis and ensure regional security and safety, the Qatar News Agency reported.
Pezeshkian expressed regret to Sheikh Tamim for the damage caused by Monday's attack. He said that Qatar and its people were not the intended targets of the military operation and that 'the attack does not constitute a threat' to Qatar.
Sheikh Tamim also spoke with Trump, who affirmed Washington's solidarity with Doha after the Iranian attack and rejected 'any aggression that threatens the security and safety of the State of Qatar and undermines the security and stability of the region.'
During the call with Sheikh Tamim, Trump urged restraint and seeking diplomatic solutions.
Sheikh Tamim thanked Trump for the supportive stance of the United States. He also mentioned that the readiness of the Qatari armed forces and the precautionary measures authorities took resulted in no fatalities or injuries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
18 minutes ago
- Arab News
Closing Strait of Hormuz would hurt Iran's allies the most
Iran makes threats, but it will not act. It will not mine the Strait of Hormuz or block it by bombing passing ships. This scenario would backfire and primarily harm China — the largest buyer of Gulf oil, which would lose 4 million barrels a day. Iran's enemies — the Americans and Israelis — would be the ones to benefit because Beijing would adopt an angry stance toward Iran. When a cargo ship blocked the Suez Canal for just six days in 2021, the world was paralyzed — similar to what happened when the Houthis disrupted global maritime movement by targeting ships passing through the Bab Al-Mandab Strait. Therefore, closing the Strait of Hormuz would hurt Iran's allies the most. In the past, the Strait of Hormuz was a card used to blackmail the world. Today, it is no longer a strategic concern for the Americans, who have become nearly self-sufficient thanks to their own oil production and that of neighboring Canada. What if Iran's goal in closing the strait was to choke its Gulf neighbors and pressure them without entering into military confrontation? These countries have been planning for such a dark day for decades. Even if the strait were completely closed for several months, they could absorb the losses with limited damage. If Iran were to act, such a move would drive up oil prices and cause harm to China and Iraq, primarily Abdulrahman Al-Rashed The biggest producer, Saudi Arabia, owns a pipeline that allows it to export through the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Its capacity is 5 million barrels per day — and it can be increased. This means it would not lose a single barrel from its market. The UAE also has the port of Fujairah, located beyond the Strait of Hormuz, through which it can export more than 1.5 million barrels a day. Then there is Qatar, the largest gas producer. Although it has no alternative sea routes, it can withstand several months of forced interruption thanks to its massive financial reserves. Kuwait and Bahrain will be affected, but their Gulf Cooperation Council partners can support them. The biggest Gulf loser would be Iraq — Iran's ally — as it exports nearly 3 million barrels per day through Hormuz. If it were deprived of its exports, it would not have the financial capacity to meet its obligations to its citizens or its external commitments. We know that Iran has repeatedly trained for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz through dedicated military drills. If it does act, it would drive up oil prices and cause harm to China and Iraq, primarily. The Gulf states have prepared for such a possibility by building export networks that bypass Hormuz Abdulrahman Al-Rashed Since the 1980s, the threat of closing the strait has been Tehran's card to intimidate both the Americans and the Gulf states. But yesterday's strategies are no longer effective today. The US has become the world's largest oil producer. China is the Gulf's biggest buyer. And the Gulf states have prepared for such a possibility by building export networks that bypass the bottleneck that is Hormuz. Tehran's other options to widen the scope of conflict remain dangerous for the region — and dangerous for itself. Each option is akin to a suicide mission that would threaten a regime long bent on domination and expansion. This may be its last chance. It must accept peaceful coexistence in the region and stay within its borders.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Iran and the craft of politics
For decades, Iran's patience has not been merely a political tactic, it has been a way of life in how the country navigates crises, negotiations and power projection. But the recent war with Israel, which lasted for 12 days of unprecedented military escalation — including a US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and Tehran's retaliatory attack on the American Al-Udeid base in Qatar, followed by President Donald Trump's announcement of a ceasefire — tested this model in an unprecedented manner. The question now is: Is this model still valid or is it time for a fundamental shift in Tehran's political doctrine? Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has been known for a foreign policy approach that combines ideological pragmatism with long-term patience in managing complex challenges, especially under sanctions and international isolation. Many analysts have labeled this approach as 'strategic patience,' a term that describes not just the regime's behavior but also reflects deeper traits of the Iranian national character, rooted in its cultural and historical legacy. The metaphor of Persian carpet weaving is often invoked to describe this mindset: a slow, meticulous process that unfolds not under pressure but in accordance with an internal rhythm of precision and long-range vision. Just as crafting a Persian carpet can take years of detailed work, so too does Iran build its foreign policy, step by step, thread by thread, through cumulative, deliberate moves rather than sudden leaps. But the recent Iranian-Israeli war has changed many equations. For the first time, the confrontation moved beyond proxy battles to a direct exchange, with strikes hitting targets inside both Iran and Israel. The turning point came when Trump ordered a precise strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, reasserting America's role as a military actor, not just a distant negotiator. Iran's response was swift yet calculated: targeting the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, home to US forces, in what it described as a 'measured warning' rather than a declaration of war. This rapid and volatile escalation brings Iran's strategic patience face to face with a new geopolitical era Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy This rapid and volatile escalation brings Iran's strategic patience face to face with a new geopolitical era — an era of precision missiles, drone warfare, real-time diplomacy and a shifting regional map that does not wait for anyone to finish weaving their political carpet. And yet, Iran's response did not appear impulsive. While the Al-Udeid strike was bold and direct, it came 72 hours after the US attack, following internal deliberations and calibrated messaging. Tehran signaled clearly that it was retaliating but not escalating. It remains within its familiar logic: punish without provoking all-out war, respond without crossing the point of no return. This dynamic echoes an old anecdote from the Iran-Iraq War. In 1980, an Arab politician reportedly warned his Iraqi counterpart during the early days of the war: 'Don't celebrate your initial victories too soon. A war with Iran is never short. This is a people who spend 10 years weaving one carpet, they will endure even longer in war.' It seems that Iran has not abandoned that long breath, even in the age of fast-moving conflict. The real transformation, however, lies not in Iran's military behavior but in how patience is being redefined within its strategic doctrine. Previously, patience served as a tool for negotiation and building leverage. Today, it has increasingly become a way of absorbing global chaos and delivering timed responses — carefully selected and publicly claimed, but tightly controlled. Looking back at Iran's behavior over recent years, one sees the same disciplined pattern: calculated delays in the nuclear talks, indirect power-building through regional proxies, and strategic ambiguity when it comes to responsibility for attacks. But the latest war laid these methods bare, putting them under a global spotlight at a moment when options are narrowing, margins are shrinking and pressure is mounting. So, the key question is no longer whether Iran has strategic patience but whether today's world still allows it to be an effective tool. Waiting is no longer a virtue in itself, but a component in a more agile, more assertive strategy Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy It could be argued that Iran is not abandoning patience but rather redefining it. Patience no longer means abstaining from action, it means responding with precision, without falling into the trap of prolonged attrition. Waiting is no longer a virtue in itself, but a component in a more agile, more assertive strategy. Today, with Trump announcing a ceasefire, Iran emerges as a player that lost nothing essential: it responded militarily, maintained its deterrent image and benefited from a Qatari-mediated de-escalation that likely came with new diplomatic channels or concessions. In this, we see a new face of Iran's patience: assertive patience. Patience that enables a response, not only restraint. Patience that preserves control while wielding credible threats. But this approach is not without its limits. Domestic pressure is growing, the regional landscape is fluid and technological escalation leaves little room for slow maneuvers. That is why the question is no longer: Does Iran possess strategic patience? Rather, it is: Is the regional and global tempo still compatible with this model of slow, deliberate endurance? Perhaps the answer lies in adapting rather than abandoning. Iran may not be able to wait 10 years for every policy outcome, as the old carpet metaphor suggests. The craft remains, but the pace must evolve. Like the modern Persian carpet, sometimes produced in six months with new tools and techniques, Iranian strategy may need to integrate faster, more responsive tactics without losing its long-range character. Between the roar of missiles and the whisper of weaving needles, Iran remains a state that excels at survival. But the greater test now is not how long it can wait, but whether it can change while waiting.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Iran eases internet curbs after ceasefire with Israel
Iranian authorities on Wednesday announced the gradual easing of internet restrictions imposed during the 12-day conflict with Israel, following the implementation of a ceasefire between the longtime foes. 'The communication network is gradually returning to its previous state,' said the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' cyber security command in a statement carried by state media. The country's communications minister, Sattar Hashemi, said in a post on X: 'With the normalization of conditions, the state of communication access has returned to its previous conditions.'
