
Watch: How Qatar shot down multiple missiles during Iran attack on US base in June
Tensions in the region were escalating rapidly amid Israel's wave of attacks against Iran that started on June 13, and Tehran's retaliatory missile strikes on Israel.
As the airwar extended for days, the US decided to join by striking three Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, in what US President Donald Trump called a "very successful attack," adding that the crown jewel of Tehran's nuclear programme, Fordow, is gone.
Tehran vowed to respond to these US attacks.
Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
Well-prepared
In the aftermath of the surprising US attacks on the nuclear sites, many speculated on the Iranian response, and hitting the US bases in the Gulf region was among the possible scenarios.
In a 14.14-minute-long video, the Qatari Ministry of Defence presented a detailed account of these days.
Long before the attack on the US base and amid the escalating unrest, Qatari armed forces boosted their preparedness by increasing the deployment of their maritime assets.
Rapid response jets such as Sejeel and fighter groups like Ababeel, Aladiyat and Alzaryat were hovering over the country's airspace.
Qatari officer Captain Mohammed Robeiah Alkaabi said in the video posted by the ministry on X that his forces received intelligence information that Al Udeid airbase will possibly be targeted.
Jets groups were then sent for patrols around the clock, and the number of maritime assets in Qatar's Exclusive Economic Zone were increased.
pic.twitter.com/l732DLzQKP
— Ù�زارة اÙ�دÙ�اع - دÙ�Ù�Ø© Ù�طر (@MOD_Qatar) July 21, 2025
'Breaking the spears'
To clear the skies for what is possibly coming, and ensure civilian aircraft were away from danger, Qatar decided to close its airspace completely.
At exactly at 7.29pm, Qatari forces learned about the first wave if Iranian missiles that were launched towards Qatar. And the operation "Breaking the spears" started.
Early warning sirens sounded in all the Qatari Armed Forces' bases, to inform of incoming ballistic missiles coming from the north east.
Captain Alkaabi said that by then, all units involved in the operation knew that there was no room for mistake. "The state's skies should be protected," he stated.
The video then shows how military units were coordinating work, exchanging messages to fire interceptive missiles one by one in the Qatari skies.
All missiles were intercepted, the officers said in the video, except for one.
With eyes filled with tears of joy, Qatari officers recall these tense moments. One of them said: "It was an unforgettable moment. All other officers wished to be in my place on that day."
Feelings of pride overwhelmed the Qatari officers who appeared in the video, with one of them saying: "We are ready for this and for what is bigger than this."
The aftermath
At 7.49pm the mission was successfully accomplished.
After the interceptions, orders were issued to ground forces, military police units, medical services leadership, units of defence against weapons of mass destruction and central firefighters' forces to head immediately to locations of intercepted missiles.
Directions were clear. These forces were asked to check for any damage and deal with the aftermath of the attack. There was a report of a fire that was contained within 20 minutes.
The number of teams specialised in handling missile debris and strange objects was increased. 88 reports were received during the first 12 hours of the Iranian attack.
The video shows men in protective gear checking missile debris. Field survey work was done around the country to make sure these debris did not carry any harmful chemical or radioactive materials.
After Qatar made sure the threat was completely over, authorities ordered the reopening of the country's airspace at 11.25 pm.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump deploys nuclear submarines in row with Russia
US President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines Friday in an extraordinary escalation of what had been an online war of words with a Russian official over Ukraine and tariffs. Trump and Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's security council, have been sparring on social media for days. Trump's post on his Truth Social platform abruptly took that spat into the very real -- and rarely publicized -- sphere of nuclear forces. "Based on the highly provocative statements," Trump said he had "ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that." "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances," the 79-year-old Republican posted. The nuclear sabre rattling came against the backdrop of a deadline set by Trump for the end of next week for Russia to take steps to ending the Ukraine war or face unspecified new sanctions. Despite the pressure from Washington, Russia's onslaught against its pro-Western neighbor continues to unfold at full-bore. An AFP analysis Friday showed that Russian forces had fired a record number of drones at Ukraine in July. Russian attacks have killed hundreds of Ukrainian civilians since June. A combined missile and drone attack on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv early Thursday killed 31 people, including five children, said rescuers. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire, said Friday that he wants peace but that his demands for ending his nearly three-and-a-half year invasion were "unchanged". Those demands include that Ukraine abandon territory and end ambitions to join NATO. Insults, nuclear rhetoric Trump did not say in his post whether he meant nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. He also did not elaborate on the deployment locations, which are kept secret by the US military. The United States and Russia control the vast majority of the world's nuclear weaponry, and Washington keeps nuclear-armed submarines on permanent patrol as part of its so-called nuclear triad of land, sea and air-launched weapons. Trump also did not refer specifically to what Medvedev had said to prompt his order. Medvedev had criticised Trump on his Telegram account Thursday and alluded to the "fabled 'Dead Hand'" -- a reference to a highly secret automated system put in place during the Cold War to control the country's nuclear weapons. This came after Trump had lashed out at what he called the "dead economies" of Russia and India. Medvedev had also harshly criticized Trump's threat of new sanctions against Russia over Moscow's continuing invasion of Ukraine. Accusing Trump of "playing the ultimatum game," he posted Monday on X that Trump "should remember" that Russia is a formidable force. Trump responded by calling Medvedev "the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President." Medvedev should "watch his words," Trump posted at midnight in Washington on Wednesday. "He's entering very dangerous territory!" Medvedev is currently deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council and a vocal proponent of Putin's war in Ukraine -- and generally antagonistic to relations with the West. He served as president between 2008-2012, effectively acting as a placeholder for Putin, who was able to circumvent constitutional term limits and remain in de facto power. The one-time reformer has rebranded over the years as an avid online troller, touting often extreme versions of official Kremlin nationalist messaging. His influence within the Russian political system remains limited. Agence France-Presse


Arabian Post
2 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Narendra Modi's Moment Of Truth Has Arrived After Eleven Years Of Rule
By Nitya Chakraborty It is not a cliché to say that our powerful Prime Minister Narendra Modi's moment truth has arrived after 11 years of ruling the country as the unchallenged leader. The 25 per cent tariff hike on Indian exports announced by the United States President Donald Trump on Wednesday and taking effect from Friday, August 1 is not just a trade decision, it has much more to do with the maverick President's fresh approach to his once good friend Modi, his tariff being used as the driver of the geopolitics and the establishment of the Trump doctrine that those who are not with us are against us. For Narendra Modi, the state of India- US relations has never been at such a lower level during his PM tenure beginning 2014. Trump, known for his feisty ways, continuous changing stands and always exaggerating his role, has hurled maximum insult to India and to his dear friend Narendra Modi who did everything to please Trump during his first term as also in the second non-consecutive term beginning January 20 this year. Trump was adamant in insulting Modi after the Prime Minister without naming Trump declared in Lok Sabha during Operation Sindoor debate on Tuesday that no foreign leader played any role in the ceasefire between India and Pakistan decided by the two countries on May 10. The next day, Trump again repeated that He took the main role in precipitating ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This was the 30th time, he repeated the same thing. Before Trump, other US leaders also worked from behind in organizing the end of hostilities between the two countries. For instance, the then President Clinton made serious efforts in ending the Kargil war in 1999, but he never claimed any credit for this. Trump is different, He thinks that nothing in global diplomacy moves without him. The decision on India regarding the high tariff was a result of his personal ego also vis a vis Narendra Modi. The US President was looking for total surrender in trade talks, but Narendra Modi could not afford that on the agricultural products sector, especially milk and dairy. Here Modi's state interests are highly involved. The dairy and milk industry is the key to the growth of Gujarat and lakhs of farmers form the supporting base of BJP. Prime Minister as a BJP leader could not afford to compromise the economic interest of his party's supporting base.. The trade talks are still dragging on. Now after this 25 per cent tariff hike on Indian exports, if Indian officials at the instance of the PM change their stand agreeing to the diktat of the US, there might be a deal facilitating the process of lowering the tariff rate from 25 per cent. Further, Trump's threat to impose penalty as high as 100 per cent on India for imports from Russia poses a real threat to the balance of payment state of the country since in the last two years, the cheap crude imports from Russia saved a huge amount of foreign exchange helping the government to tame inflation. Now, it is to be seen whether the Prime Minister musters enough courage to continue with the cheap Russian crude oil imports or starts the process of diversifying the imports though the price will be higher and more foreign exchange will be required. In this Russian oil context, Trump has used the undiplomatic language by saying that let both the dead Russian and Indian economies go down. This comes from a sort of hate syndrome because this is untrue. India is not a dead economy. The economy is growing but there are problems of distributive justice and unemployment. Some of the policies are flawed needing course correction, but in global context, India stands out. Rahul Gandhi through his support to Trump on this dead economy issue has only brought disrepute to the Congress Party. Somebody senior with knowledge of economics must properly guide the Leader of the Opposition. Otherwise, he will not only create problems for the Congress but also harm the cause of INDIA bloc. Narendra Modi is certainly on a backfoot but if he is compelled by circumstances to defy Trump and fight him, the opposition should support him. Narendra Modi is not India, so supporting Indian cause does not mean strengthening Modi What is most discomforting for India is that India the Prime Minister of which country is considered as the closest among the heads of South Asian nations to the US President, has been charged the maximum tariff rate of 25 per cent. As against India, Pakistan has been charged 19 per cent, Sri Lanka 20 per cent, Bangladesh 20 per cent and Afghanistan 15 per cent. Bangladesh was originally charged 37 per cent, but in the final list, it was charged 20 per cent-17 per cent less. Similarly Pakistan's original rate was much higher compared to the present 20 percent. Another important development is to be noted. Trump concluded a deal with Pakistan in a hurry on oil exploration just to spite India. In Pak media, there was no indication of this, nobody knows where are such big reserves and whether those are really worthy of exploration and development. But Trump quipped by saying that perhaps Pakistan would one day sell oil to India. To be frank, India has not much leverage in the present trade negotiations with the US. US is very adamant on their access to Indian market in agri products, especially dairy. There are historical reasons. US farmers have a strong lobby in the Congress and the White House. The farmer organization leaders decide the fate of the government. This writer was present at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in December 1999 at Seattle in US President was then Bill Clinton. The meeting collapsed without any declaration as the US and the European Union fought over farmers subsidy issue and no side was ready for a compromise. Clinton was virtually mobbed by the EU negotiators after his address to persuade the US team members to compromise. But Clinton did not listen. American journalists covering the WTO meeting told me at that time that no US President can win elections by antagonizing the farmers who are most subsidized in US through different schemes though the US government officially denies that in WTO which was active then. The US media people told me after the collapse that the US failed to get its proposal favouring the farmers passed. This will have big impact in the elections next year against the Democrats. Actually, in 2020 presidential elections, the Republican George Bush won and the Democratic Party lost. So Trump also is committed to help his supporting base among the farmers by getting them bigger access to the Indian market of agri products. Narendra Modi must have taken note of this but he has also the same stake in defending his own party base. Now, what is the emerging scenario? There are two possibilities.. First, through back channel discussions at the level of our PMO and the Trump office, a sort of compromise trade deal is concluded meeting a part of demands of the US side and the PM camp projecting it as a big victory. If that is not possible and the talks collapse, Prime Minister will be facing big choice. He will be attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in China on August 31 and September 1.. President Xi Jinping and President Putin will be attending. PM can calibrate his foreign policy and take a more independent stand vis a vis USA. For the second option, Prime Minister will have to decide immediately on India's stand on QUAD which has four members USA, India, Australia and Japan. India is the host of the summit in 2025. Trump is scheduled to visit India during the summit later this year. If the India-US relations continue this way and Trump's hostile attitude remains, what will be the impact of this on Narendra Modi and his tackling of QUAD summit?- That is a major issue.. Trump has attacked BRICS members. India is a member of BRICS. How is our Prime Minister going to react to that? All these are relevant issues which the PM will have to deal with. For Narendra Modi and the BJP, the best possible scenario will be the first one. If back channel negotiations lead to an understanding between Trump and Modi, Indian Prime Minister will be back again trying to get back his old form and talking of strategic autonomy. Then they will cohabit again for some time at least. (IPA Service)


Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Does Trump care about the issue of Palestinian statehood?
The US president's sentiments on Palestinian statehood have shifted significantly over the past week, as three of his G7 allies proclaimed they would recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. French President Emmanuel Macron's somewhat sudden announcement on X came first, to which Donald Trump - prompted by a reporter - said nonchalantly, "That's fine if he does that. It's up to him. I'm with the United States, I'm not with France". On Monday, just hours after a sit-down with Trump in Scotland, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he too would recognise a Palestinian state in September. "I'm not in that camp... if you do that, you really are rewarding Hamas," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. By Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had joined the UK and France, as all three parties argued that this was the only pathway to ending the 77-year-old Israel-Palestine conflict and the war on Gaza. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh' [sic] Canada!" Trump wrote on his TruthSocial account. He then raised tariffs on Canadian products from 25 percent to 35 percent. Is Trump just feeling the isolation of now having nearly 150 countries - many of them US allies - recognise that Palestinians are entitled to a state, or are others in his close circle driving his policy for him? Why Trump has little interest in delivering a ceasefire in Gaza Read More » "I think that Trump was caught flat-footed initially, and so he was just dismissive, and anything that's not an initiative that he would take, or any action or comment that doesn't turn the attention to him and give him the impression that he is the master of whatever issue is under discussion, he will viscerally reject or oppose," Glenn Carle, a national security expert who spent 25 years in the CIA's clandestine services, told Middle East Eye. "Once matters had evolved a little, he started to think, well, this could create some headaches for me," he added. "The bureaucracies weighed in to the extent they remain capable and relevant. That would be the State Department largely saying, 'Well, this is fraught'." Indeed, US Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio has been leading the administration's official messaging on the matter. Rubio had been a staunch pro-Israel voice during his years in the Senate. "Irrelevant. It's irrelevant," he said of the recognition of Palestinian statehood on Fox Radio on Thursday. "The UK is like, well, if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognise a Palestinian state. So if I'm Hamas, I say, you know what, let's not allow there to be a ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees a Palestinian state will be recognised by all these countries in September," Rubio said in the radio appearance. 'Trump's not in control' A ceasefire that was in effect for six weeks in January - brokered by the Biden administration and enforced by the Trump administration - was broken by Israel on 1 March. Since then, Hamas has insisted that a full restoration of UN aid distribution and a permanent end to the war are the only two conditions it would accept for another deal with Israel. 'Trump's not in control. I think we need to take a look at the first three months of Trump's presidency, and then we need to compare that to the last four or five months,' Abdelhalim Abdelrahman, a political analyst and host of the podcast Uncharted Territory, told MEE. Abdelrahman says that in the first three months, Trump managed to negotiate a successful ceasefire with the Houthi rebels, diplomacy with the Iranians, and his envoy Steve Witkoff managed to twist Netanyahu's arm into accepting a ceasefire. 'If you look at who Trump has surrounded himself with, there's no doubt who's guiding his Middle East policy' - Abdelhalim Abdelrahman, host of Uncharted Territory "I know that Senator Lindsey Graham has been in the president's ear, pushing back against this. Mark Levin, who's a host at Fox [News], who was really pushing Trump to bomb Iran, has also been pushing back on this." There's also the Heritage Foundation, a highly influential right-wing, Evangelical Christian think tank in Washington that was key to formulating Trump's playbook for both his terms in office. The organisation celebrated this achievement back in 2018, and has undoubtedly seen more of its recommendations go into action now with the doxxing, firing, and deportation of students and faculty who took part in pro-Palestine protests last year. At a Thursday event in the US capital hosted by Heritage, speakers included the US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and the chairman of the scandal-plagued Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, Johnnie Moore. Organisers pledged to help Israel annex Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the occupied West Bank, and never once mentioned the word Palestine or Palestinians during the 90-minute discussion. Moore in particular referred to them as the "Arabs of Gaza". "The Heritage Foundation has very much been peddling this idea that A, Palestinians are not indigenous to the land, and B, that the Trump administration should take just about every pro-Israel avenue that they possibly can," Abdelrahman said. "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people," to the Evangelical Christian community to which officials like Huckabee and groups like Heritage belong, Carle said. Is the two-state policy dead in the US? Washington adopted the policy of two states, Israel and Palestine, at the signing of the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. It became official at the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords in the White House Rose Garden. No administration has officially, on paper, overturned that policy since, but now more than ever, no government action even remotely suggests that it remains in effect. "The two-state policy is undoubtedly dead," Abdelrahman said. Carle said that US policy now effectively only serves the objectives of the Israeli right-wing, its current government run by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party. US calls Saudi and French-led conference on two-state solution a 'publicity stunt' Read More » "It used to be a pretty clear majority of Israelis who favoured a two-state solution and opposed the colonisation of the West Bank," Carle said, but the numbers have dwindled. Just one week ago, the Knesset voted 71-13 on a non-binding motion to annex the occupied West Bank. "The Trump administration has never taken any steps towards a two-state solution. The Biden administration was quite a classic American one, in that it did want a two-state solution, but was feeling caught between the contradiction of supporting Israel's existential existence, which then meant that the US never pushed Israel," Carle said. In a move that the State Department insisted is unrelated to the momentum building around Palestinian statehood, the Trump administration on Thursday placed sanctions on officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) over their work taking Israel to international courts. The unnamed officials were "not complying with their commitments and undermining the prospects for peace", the State Department said. "Ironically enough, the PLO de-armed about 40 years ago, and has recognised Israel's right to exist, has abided by the Oslo security apparatus, and has just done about everything to appease the United States," Abdelrahman noted. Efforts by US lawmakers Also on Thursday, Jewish Insider revealed that California Congressman Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat, had begun circulating a draft letter among colleagues, calling on Trump to recognise Palestinian statehood. The US must " recognise the need to meaningfully address the decades-long conflict and injustice underlying these 22 months of horrific war", the letter read. "With such an outcome opposed by the current Israeli government and actively undermined by its accelerating annexation campaign in the West Bank - as well as open calls by Israeli ministers to annex much if not all of Gaza - meaningful action is necessary to bolster the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood," the letter concluded. At the time when it was obtained, there were no signatures added to the letter yet. Khanna quickly shared the article on his X account and insisted that its revelation hampers discussions with the White House. "Someone leaked our effort to try to sabotage it. Sad. It won't work," he wrote. "Recognising a Palestinian state is an idea whose time has come. The response of my colleagues has been overwhelming. We will build support and release prior to the UN convening," he added. Abdelrahman told MEE it's likely "going to be nipped in the bud", at least until Republicans gauge where public sentiment is after the 2026 midterm elections for lawmakers. More and more young America Firsters have questioned US loyalty to Israel's objectives over the past several weeks, highlighting a split among Trump's most ardent supporters. And even if all the other G7 countries recognise Palestinian statehood, there won't be much of an effect anyway, Carle argues. "I think the reality is that there are only two countries that can really affect Israel's foreign policy. One is Israel, and the other is the United States".