Friday, June 05, 2026

Al-Aqsa: The moment of peril is here. Will the Muslim world act?

This is the final act of colonisation. Jerusalem’s Islamic identity will be effaced, its name and meaning repurposed to serve the Israeli colonial order 
by Ismail Patel

Muslim worshippers flock to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, located in the Old City of East Jerusalem, to perform the Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) prayer on May 27, 2026. [Mostafa Alkharouf – Anadolu Agency]
An exclusive investigation by Middle East Eye last week revealed that both US and Israel were coordinating to remove Jordan’s custodianship over Islam’s third holiest site.

This is not a diplomatic manoeuvre. It is the culmination of a systematic campaign to erase the Islamic presence in Occupied Jerusalem and a direct call upon Muslims worldwide to awaken from a dangerous and complicit slumber.

When the announcement arrives, it will wear the language of pluralism as a mask. It will invoke “multi-faith coexistence”, “equal access”, and “shared heritage”.

Yet, beneath this veneer lies the reality; it is the final act of Israeli colonisation. Jerusalem’s Islamic identity will be effaced, its name and meaning repurposed to serve the Israeli colonial order.

Middle East Eye reported that both Washington and Tel Aviv were “actively working” to strip Jordan of its historic custodianship over Al-Aqsa Mosque. The plan would abolish the authority of the Jordanian-backed Islamic Waqf and replace it with a body created by the Israeli government.

That new entity would declare Al-Aqsa a “multi-faith centre” and would grant Jews “equal access”. It would allow Israel to appoint imams and officials. Israeli authorities would have a sign-off over the content of Friday sermons.

A blueprint for ethnocide

The Trump administration wishes to see al-Aqsa stripped of its Islamic identity. It would then be repackaged as a tourist attraction hosting all three Abrahamic religions.

This is not a mere proposal. It is a blueprint for ethnocide.

The systematic campaign aims to purge Jerusalem of its Muslim identity and render invisible the histories and presences that have shaped this sacred space.

The current process of removing Jordan’s custodianship is not new; rather, it is the officialisation of ongoing Israeli colonisation.

The reality is that the status quo, recognising Al-Aqsa as an Islamic sanctuary under the Waqf, has been eroded incrementally, reflecting the deliberate strategy to shift authority and identity away from Muslims and toward an Israeli colonial order.

This is not a matter of speculation. The evidence is concrete, documented, and mounting with each passing year.

A 2025 report by the Israeli monitoring group Ir Amim recorded an unprecedented rise in Jewish raids on the Aqsa compound. Israeli authorities provide police protection.

They increasingly exploit Jewish and national holidays to increase the number of Israelis entering Al-Aqsa. Researcher Aviv Tatarsky stated plainly, “Under the guise of religious Jewish connection, Israel is steadily taking control of the holy site.”

Al-Aqsa once welcomed hundreds of thousands for Friday prayers. Now, due to Israeli restrictions and harassment of Muslims, it sees only a few thousand and sometimes hundreds for daily worship.

Israel already has total control of who enters and exits al-Aqsa.

The restrictions imposed on Palestinian worshippers are not arbitrary. They are the calculated expression of a colonial logic of attrition. In this year alone, over 600 Palestinians have been banned from Al-Aqsa. Thirty Waqf employees had their entry permits revoked, and six imams have been silenced and barred from delivering sermons.

As Ekrima Sabri, senior imam of Al-Aqsa, observes, these are “unprecedented actions” designed to impose domination. Where once we warned that Al-Aqsa was in danger, now we must recognise it faces a multiplicity of dangers, each compounding the other.

Axis of Islamic identity

Last month, Israeli ministers and parliamentarians orchestrated mass incursions into Al-Aqsa.

An Israeli lawmaker openly called for Al-Aqsa to be demolished and replaced with a Jewish temple. Israeli flags were hoisted within the Aqsa compound.

At the same time, Israel has advanced the confiscation of Palestinian property near the Chain Gate street, a vital entryway in Jerusalem’s Old City. This is part of the accelerating Judaisation of Jerusalem.

Eight Arab and Islamic states condemned the closure of Al-Aqsa during Israel’s war on Iran. During this period, al-Aqsa was sealed for 40 days. It was an act of colonial domination that rendered Muslim sacred space subject to the whims of occupation.

I say this as directly as I am able to say anything. The Muslim world’s greatest threat at this moment is not only Israeli aggression, backed and bankrolled as it is by American power – it is the apathy, the division, and the institutional paralysis of those who claim al-Aqsa as their own.

For Muslims, Al-Aqsa is not a heritage site to be managed by diplomatic communiques. It is the first qibla, the site of the Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey and Ascension, the holiest Masjid, and a living axis of Islamic identity and civilisation. Its desecration is not merely a geopolitical provocation. It is an assault on the collective memory and selfhood of over two billion people.

And yet the Muslim world watches, issues statements, and returns to its silence. Governments that could apply genuine economic and diplomatic pressure calculate their interests and look away.

The ummah that could fill streets instead scrolls past.

Silence is complicity

For those outside the Muslim world, the stakes remain profound. What is unfolding is the formalisation of colonial sovereignty over a site revered by more than two billion people.

This act would enshrine a precedent. That the slow violence of erasure, when executed with sufficient propaganda and imperial backing, is not only tolerated but ultimately rewarded.

The Arab Organisation for Human Rights has meticulously documented the systematic nature of these violations. The global community, for the most part, has chosen silence. That silence is not neutral. It is complicity.

The 11th hour has already arrived. The Muslim world, and everyone opposing colonial erasure, must mobilise all tools, diplomatic, legal, economic, and moral immediately.

If we do not act now, with the full weight of conscience and conviction, the language of coexistence will have been used to complete a Zionist dispossession decades in the making.

UAE invites citizens and residents to pledge allegiance to president

United Arab Emirates President, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on February 24, 2025 in Rome, Italy. [Antonio Masiello/Getty Images]
The United Arab Emirates has launched a nationwide campaign inviting citizens and residents to sign an online pledge of loyalty and allegiance to President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

The “Pledge and Commitment” initiative was launched by Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, the UAE’s minister of tolerance and coexistence, and later opened to the public through a dedicated website.

According to UAE media, the campaign began at an event in Abu Dhabi attended by more than 4,800 people, including citizens, residents, students, investors, academics, business leaders and community representatives.

The pledge asks participants to declare: “Hand in hand, we, the citizens and residents of this blessed land, pledge our loyalty and allegiance to our wise leader, His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.” It describes Sheikh Mohamed as embodying the UAE’s “honour and dignity” and as a leader who provides “security and safety”.

Those who sign the pledge online are asked to provide their name and email address and receive a digital certificate of appreciation which can be downloaded and shared.

UAE media reported that the campaign will continue through companies, universities, organisations, a multilingual online platform and community events. Officials have framed the initiative as an effort to strengthen national identity, coexistence and civic responsibility, while expressing gratitude for the UAE’s stability and development.

The campaign comes at a time of heightened regional tension, with the UAE navigating the political fallout of Israel’s war on Gaza, wider instability across the Middle East and growing scrutiny of Arab states which normalised relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords.

The National also linked the campaign to a broader public display of patriotism following what it described as Iran’s attack on the UAE on 28 February, after which residents were encouraged to fly the national flag outside homes and offices.

The launch of a public loyalty pledge has prompted questions over its timing. Analysts and observers are likely to examine whether the initiative reflects an effort by Abu Dhabi to reinforce national cohesion at a moment when Gulf states face pressure from regional conflict, public anger over Israel’s assault on Gaza and uncertainty over the future direction their country.

The UAE has long promoted itself as a model of stability, prosperity and tolerance. At the same time, its regional policies have drawn criticism, including over its normalisation with Israel, its role in Yemen and Sudan and its security ties with Washington.



The US creates convenient loopholes for Israel

by Ramona Wadi


Smoke rises following an Israeli strike targeting Palestinian homes near the “Yellow Line” in the eastern areas of Jabalia Refugee Camp in northern Gaza, Palestine on June 1, 2026. [Ramez Habboub – Anadolu Agency]
Seizing 70 percent of Gaza is not part of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on Tuesday at the House Appropriations subcommittee meeting. “We have a plan. That plan does not envision such a thing. Netanyahu made that statement, but it is not part of the plan,” Rubio said.

Point 16 does state that Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. However, it also includes a loophole for Israel to exploit. The Israeli military is supposed to hand over occupied territory to the International Stabilisation Force “according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are completely withdrawn from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.”

The Yellow Line, at first ostensibly marking areas in which Hamas was not operating, has now expanded into the unmarked Orange Line. Israel’s primary justification was its security narrative which it based on Hamas’s refusal to disarm – a premise which the US Board of Peace, mostly through Nickolay Mladenov, has repeatedly asserted. The lines have been blurred for a long time, as they usually are rhetorically, to allow colonialism to appropriate territory unhindered.

Rubio repeated Mladenov’s reiteration that reconstruction happens based on Hamas’s willingness to disarm, although he does not directly link disarmament as the justification for Israel’s military occupation of Gaza. Between what Mladenov asserts directly, and what rubio hints at, Israel has the perfect excuse for manipulating Point 16 of the US plan for Gaza to its advantage.

There is no real conflict between the US and the Board of Peace. The Board of Peace exists as an extension of what the US for now prefers not assert overtly. Even if the Trump administration has expressed several times that it is against Israel’s military occupation or annexation of Gaza, the US is doing nothing to stop Israel from territorial appropriation. If logic was truly applied, the argument of disarmament to appease impunity does not hold.

Mladenov made it clear that Palestinians have no say in what happens in Gaza. Giving Israel the green light to break the ceasefire terms and opening the way to genocide once again does not give Hamas an incentive to disarm.

Not to mention the discrepancy between the weapons used by Hamas and Israel’s military technology, funded also by Western countries. However, for the Board of Peace, the US and the West, the discrepancy is justified because of the need to vilify the colonised in order for Israel’s security narrative to gain political relevance.

The question, therefore, should have never been about Hamas’s willingness or unwillingness to disarm. Israel should have been put continuously in the spotlight – not to validate its purported justifications, but to expose the colonial logic behind genocide and the ongoing forced displacement, which leaves Gaza’s territory vulnerable to appropriation. If the US was truly against annexation and military occupation, Point 16 would contain no loopholes to accommodate Israel’s colonial enterprise.

Lebanon factor piles pressure on Trump, F-word tirade at Netanyahu

The aftermath of Israeli airstrikes on a residential area near Lebanon’s southern city of Tyre on Tuesday. AFP

  • Trump is desperate. Pressure is also mounting from within, with Americans expressing frustration over rising fuel and fertiliser prices. Trump cannot afford to lose the midterm elections in November and lose control of Congress. A Democrat-majority Congress could resume scrutiny of Trump’s past misdeeds, especially the Epstein file cover-up, and even impeach him

Did it really happen? Yes, US President Donald Trump insulted and reprimanded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and for good measure, he even used expletives.

 The story was reported by Axios, one of Trump’s favourite news outlets. On the one hand, the news was shocking, given the control Israel and the Zionist lobby exerted over US leaders. On the other, it confirms not only the growing frustration of the Trump administration over its failure to strike a deal with Iran but also the White House’s realisation that Israel was blocking the peace Trump was desperate to achieve.

Here is how Middle East Eye reported the Trump-Netanyahu phone conversation:

“American officials cited by Axios described the call as ‘expletive-laden’, saying Trump had ‘steamrolled’ Netanyahu, warning him that further attacks on Lebanon would isolate Israel internationally.

“Summarising Trump’s comments, the official said, ‘I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.’

“A second source said that at one point during the call, Trump yelled, ‘What the f* are you doing?’

“Two officials reported that the US president accused Netanyahu of ‘ingratitude’ for keeping him out of prison—an apparent reference to the Israeli leader’s ongoing corruption trial and Trump’s public calls for Netanyahu to be pardoned.”

On Wednesday, piling more pressure on Trump, the US House of Representatives passed a bill, with several Republican members defying the party whip and voting to limit Trump’s war powers. The bill’s passage reflected growing public dissent, including within Trump’s voter base, against the war.

Yet, for strategic purposes, Trump is advised not to demonstrate his frustration publicly, lest it hand an advantage to the enemy in the on-off negotiations. The Trump administration apparently wants to confuse Iran. Hence, Trump claims that he is not in a hurry for a peace deal and that he will resume the war if Iran carried out actions A, B, or C—whereas the opposite is more likely to be true. The answer lies in Trump’s tough talk with Netanyahu, who is now destroying Lebanon after leaving nothing left in Gaza to destroy. Netanyahu aims to make peace with Iran nearly impossible. Trump is beginning to understand the plot now. No peace in Lebanon means no peace with Iran. As far as Iran is concerned, peace in Lebanon is a precondition the US must fulfil before Iran can even agree to a preliminary peace deal. Tehran will not and cannot abandon Hezbollah, its strategic ally and asset in Lebanon. Iran’s foreign minister announced there won’t be peace with Iran if there is no peace in other theatres. Iran is ratcheting up pressure on the Trump administration to rein in Israel. Ahead of Trump’s expletive-laden call, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps announced its negotiating team had “suspended talks and message exchange through mediators” over Netanyahu’s announcement of further attacks on Dahieh, Beirut’s southern suburb.

As usual, Trump resorted to rhetoric—a pressure-relief tactic. On Iran’s announcement of suspending the talks, he said, “I don’t care if they’re over, honestly... I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less.”

Trump then picked up the phone and poured out his anger on Netanyahu. After the call, he unilaterally announced that Israel had agreed to a ceasefire and claimed Hezbollah had expressed its consent to abide by it.

Trump boasted that Israel would not bomb Beirut, but that was exactly what Israel did. Netanyahu subtly proves that he is controlling war and peace in the Middle East. In an interview with a podcast channel this week, Trump asserted that it was he, not Israel, who decided to attack Iran in February. 

Israel attacked Lebanon and invaded the south to neutralise Hezbollah, but the resistance group proved its mettle. It developed tiny FPV drones that are difficult to detect by radar. The more casualties Israel suffers on the ground, the more it resorts to aerial attacks.

Trump is desperate. Pressure is also mounting from within, with Americans expressing frustration over rising fuel and fertiliser prices. Trump cannot afford to lose the midterm elections in November and lose control of Congress. A Democrat-majority Congress could resume scrutiny of Trump’s past misdeeds, especially the Epstein file cover-up, and even impeach him.

After voting for the Democrat-sponsored House resolution limiting Trump’s war powers, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie said, “People are tired of this war. They’re tired of $5-a-gallon gas, $6-a-gallon diesel, and fertiliser we can’t afford to use on our fields in Kentucky.” He added that the war powers vote “sends a good message that the people’s House, which represents the people, is tired of this war.” The resolution passed in the Republican-controlled House, with 215 members voting in favour and 208 against.

Trump’s phone call to Netanyahu came on the eve of the House vote, which is not binding but sends a powerful warning signal. Yet, it appears Trump’s F words have had hardly any effect. The Israeli hardliners rose in anger. Israel’s National Security Minister and war crimes suspect, Itamar Ben-Gvir, called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reject the ceasefire in Lebanon brokered by Washington. “Mr Prime Minister, you said that a strong prime minister tells the president of the United States ‘yes’ when possible, and ‘no’ when necessary,” Ben-Gvir wrote on X. “This is the time to tell our friend, President Trump, ‘no’.”

In Israel, hardliners such as Ben-Gvir are mainstream. Playing into their hands, the crisis deteriorated into a mini war this week, driving up oil prices. The US attacked Iran’s Qeshm Island, while Iran’s IRGC targeted a US-linked vessel and US bases in the region. Kuwait came under drone attack; its airport, among other sites, was hit. One person was killed and more than 60 injured. Iran also claimed that it struck the US Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain and other US military assets in the region. Even before the dust settled, the US claimed the peace talks were not affected. To back this up, the US announced yet another ceasefire in Lebanon, the second in a week after talks between Israeli and Lebaon representatives in Washington. But Israel failed to honour it. Lebanon burns. Iran waits until it sees results.

The UN says at least 11 children are killed or wounded in Israeli strikes on Lebanon daily. Yesterday was the United Nations–declared International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression. The UN website states: “Every day, children living in wars across the globe are facing unspeakable horrors. They are not safe sleeping in their homes or playing outside, learning in school or seeking medical care at hospitals. From killing and maiming, abduction and sexual violence, to attacks on education and health facilities, and the denial of the humanitarian assistance that they desperately need, children are being caught in the crosshairs of warring parties at a staggering scale.”

A profound statement, indeed. But it also shows the UN’s helplessness in protecting children in armed conflicts. In the Middle East, children are killed as indiscriminately as flies are sprayed with poison. Israel continues to do this in Gaza and Lebanon. The US did in Iran, by bombing primary girls’ schools, killing more than 160 children and their teachers. No one is held accountable for these horrific war crimes against children. Yet, the US and Israel proclaim they are governed by values.

As Israel encroaches upon Gaza, the UN should be reckoning with its colonial complicity

by Ramona Wadi


Palestinian worshippers gather to perform the Eid al-Adha (Feast of Sacrifice) prayer near the ruins of the Yarmouk Mosque, which was destroyed in Israeli attacks, in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood of Gaza City, Palestine, on May 27, 2026. [Saeed M. M. T. Jaras – Anadolu Agency]
“A hundred percent of Gaza should be for the Palestinian people, right? That’s what we want to see. And we’ve been calling on Israel to pull back from its occupation from the so-called yellow line and that will continue to be our position,” UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric stated last week.

Dujarric’s comments were uttered after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated he ordered the Israeli military to encroach further on Gaza, to 70 percent of the territory. The Yellow Line, which Dujarric mentioned, is already an expired demarcation, while the Orange Line, recently briefly making news headlines, is the physically unmarked border that will determine Israel’s entire military occupation of Gaza. Further Israeli colonial expansion has the backing of the US Board of Peace, led by Nickolay Mladenov, who has already absolved Israel from not keeping to the ceasefire terms since Hamas refused to disarm.

Since Mladenov’s narrative remained unchallenged, Netanyahu does not even have to justify Israel’s military occupation of Gaza, which sets the scene for recolonising the area.

Mladenov already warned that Hamas would be blamed for any repercussions after refusing to disarm, bringing the narrative back to the start of the genocide. For the UN, the deception works well. It allows Israel’s ongoing security narrative unlimited and unwarranted justification. Hamas takes the blame for Israel’s military occupation, and the UN maintains relevance through its humanitarian paradigm for a while longer.

UN officials can embellish their rhetoric, but their credibility has long been pulverised. If one goes back to history, as should be done, ignoring Palestinian self-determination to vote for partition in 1947 represents the foundations of the lie upon which all UN rhetoric is based. Palestine has been repeatedly throttled by the UN to pave the way for Zionist colonial encroachment.

The Yellow Line, which Dujarric referred to, was only the beginning of the visible manifestation of Israel’s territorial appropriation. Calling upon Israel to pull back from the Yellow Line when military occupation has already expanded ignores the fact that Israel had already moved past the demarcation which was linked to purportedly rebuilding Gaza.

The question, therefore, is not what the UN’s spoken position is, but what lies beneath its rhetoric, which can be linked to decades of the international community’s approval and endorsement of various forms of Israeli colonial violence.

The Yellow Line and the Orange Line are not just demarcations; they are proof of Israel’s ongoing forced transfer of the Palestinian people. Genocide was the first step; military occupation of utterly destroyed territory is the second. Instead of talking about the Yellow Line, for example, can UN spokespersons and officials recognise the political implications of the Palestinian people’s forced displacement from Gaza? Can UN officials speak of Palestinians outside of the humanitarian paradigm, or as appendages to what Israel is planning for Gaza? What the UN allegedly wants is not the main issue here, and neither should it be. Palestinians are being forced out of Gaza and restricted into a humanitarian paradigm that robbed them of rights alongside land. That is what Dujarric should have addressed – the forced absence of the Palestinian people’s political agency, which facilitates ongoing colonisation, as the UN envisaged since 1947.

Thursday, June 04, 2026

Qatar Chooses Geography Over Ideology in Its Iran Diplomacy

by Dr Mustafa Fetouri


An Iranian-launched missile is intercepted and destroyed by defense systems over Doha, Qatar on February 28, 2026. [Ali Altunkaya – Anadolu Agency]
Over the years, tiny Qatar has emerged as a pivotal regional mediator, deploying balanced approaches to critical crises stretching from the Gulf to the Horn of Africa with a high degree of success. More recently, Doha has had to navigate increasingly volatile conflicts closer to home, most notably the fallout from the current U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

By positioning itself as an indispensable diplomatic conduit, Doha has transformed its inherent geographic vulnerability into a strategic asset, proving that in a region often defined by rigid ideological blocs, pragmatic functional diplomacy remains the only viable path toward stability.

This approach acknowledges the unyielding reality of geography: Iran is a permanent fixture of the regional landscape. Consequently, Doha’s policy is built on the premise that neighbors, whether they approve of Tehran’s policies or not, must prioritize sustainable engagement over the cycle of permanent confrontation.

Despite finding itself on the receiving end of significant Iranian missile and drone barrages during the opening weeks of the 2026 war—a direct consequence of its role as the host for the largest U.S. military base outside US territory, at Al-Udeid—Doha has pointedly returned to the route of mediation. While other regional powers have found themselves sidelined by their own military postures or perceived lack of neutrality, Qatar has leveraged its functional middle status to maintain a seat at the table. This diplomatic dexterity is not merely a choice of style but a calculated necessity born of its specific surroundings. For Qatar, the shift from ideological alignment to geographic realism is most visible in its complex relationship with Tehran—a partnership dictated more by the shared coordinates of the massive offshore gas fields than by the shifting winds of unpredictable political calculations. Even as strikes on the Ras Laffan industrial hub forced a temporary declaration of force majeure on energy exports, Doha remained the only capital capable of facilitating the high-stakes negotiations over tens of billions in frozen Iranian assets. This underscores a sobering reality: in the Gulf, one can choose their allies, but they cannot choose their geography.

Historically, both Qatar and Oman have distinguished themselves as the two Gulf nations capable of maintaining a delicate equilibrium between their GCC commitments and their relationship with Tehran.

For decades, when regional tensions have threatened to spill over into open conflict, Doha and Muscat have frequently acted as the “safety valves” of the Gulf.

Through its history of mediation—ranging from the 2008 Lebanon crisis to the 2020 U.S.-Taliban deal—Qatar has demonstrated a strategic preference for the “table” over the “trigger.” This role has become particularly vital in June 2026; following the intense military escalations of Operation Epic Fury, Doha has once again positioned itself as the indispensable broker. While Oman pioneered the pre-war “Rome and Muscat rounds” in early February, the post-war phase has seen Qatar take the lead in facilitating the current negotiations for a 60-day ceasefire extension. By managing the release of $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets, a top Iranian demand, Doha isn’t just mediating a dispute; it is providing the essential financial “carrots” required to prevent a regional conflagration that would devastate the global energy market. In this context, Qatar’s intervention is a masterclass in regional survival, proving that functional dialogue remains a more effective deterrent than the most advanced missile defense systems.

The most acute test of Qatar’s “Geography over Ideology” diplomacy has been its response to the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Since it start in October 2023, Doha has successfully mediated three major breakthroughs: the initial November 2023 truce, the January 2025 pause, and the current October 2025 Comprehensive Peace Plan. These interventions have solidified Qatar’s position as the primary interlocutor between the West and the Palestinian resistance. Critically, Qatar’s hosting of the Hamas political office since 2012 was a direct response to a U.S. request during the Obama administration to facilitate a trackable, manageable channel for dialogue. By maintaining this policy, Doha has provided the only functional venue where hostage releases and humanitarian truces could be negotiated. In a region where other capitals have opted for either total isolation or rigid normalization, Qatar’s willingness to engage with all parties—regardless of their international standing—proves that a “neutral ground” is not just a diplomatic luxury, but a humanitarian necessity.

Unlike other GCC neighbors who rushed to sign the Abraham Accords—effectively decoupling their security from the Palestinian cause—Qatar has maintained direct technical links to Israel without formalizing diplomatic normalization.

By refusing to follow the path of the UAE or Bahrain, Doha has demonstrated that regional influence does not require abandoning the Palestinian file.

Instead, it has leveraged its unique position to act as a vital financial and humanitarian conduit, overseeing the reconstruction efforts in Gaza after previous wars and managing the flow of aid that keeps the territory from total collapse. This approach proves that true mediation requires keeping lines open to all without being pulled into their ideological orbits. In the volatile landscape of 2026, Qatar’s refusal to normalize serves as its greatest diplomatic asset; it remains the only state capable of speaking to both the Israeli security establishment and the Palestinian resistance, bridging a gap that formal normalization has, ironically, only widened.

However, the current U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran has exposed the precarious limits of this “balanced” approach. Despite Doha’s years of investment in de-escalation, the outbreak of war on Iran last February saw Qatar caught in a violent pincer. Two days after the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on February 28, Tehran responded with a barrage of drones and missiles targeting Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG complex—the very heart of the state’s economic power. This escalation forced QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on several European deliveries, a stark reminder that while geography dictates Qatar’s diplomacy, it also makes the state a primary collateral victim in any regional conflagration.

Ultimately, Qatar’s geography before ideology tactics represent a sophisticated, albeit high-stakes, survival strategy in a region where external traditional security alliances come with high price tag. Doha has effectively turned a potential flashpoint over the frozen Iranian cash into a mechanism for regional cooling down. While critics may view this pragmatism as a dangerous double game, the reality suggests otherwise: in a landscape where the “Abraham Accords” and various normalization projects failed to prevent the direct U.S.-Israeli agrresion on Iran, Qatar’s functional middle ground remains a viable exit ramp.

Whether this model can withstand the pressures of a fragmenting international order remains to be seen, but for now, Doha has proven that in the heart of the Gulf, the “table” is a far more resilient tool than the trigger.

The end of American forward presence in the Persian Gulf

by Jasim Al-Azzawi 

A view of streets as daily life continues amid fragile ceasefire in Tehran, Iran on May 12, 2026. [Fatemeh Bahrami – Anadolu Agency]
Something fundamental has shifted in the Persian Gulf, and the analysts who have spent careers watching American power projection are now saying what was once unsayable: the era of U.S. forward military basing in the Middle East is effectively over. Whether Washington chooses confrontation or withdrawal, the strategic outcome appears to be the same: the slow, irreversible erosion of American influence in a region it has dominated since the 1970s.

This diagnosis has crystallized around the current standoff with Iran. For scholars like John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago’s preeminent offensive realist, the crisis confirms a structural reality that American strategic culture has long refused to accept.

“The United States is in the unfortunate position,” Mearsheimer has argued, “of being unable to roll back Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf without paying enormous costs.”

That judgment encapsulates what two decades of costly interventionism have produced: a regional order that has drifted decisively away from Washington, and a military posture that is increasingly difficult to sustain.

The numbers are sobering. The United States currently maintains roughly 40,000 troops across the Gulf Cooperation Council states, concentrated at bases such as Al Udeid in Qatar and the Fifth Fleet’s headquarters in Bahrain. These installations were engineered for an obsolete strategic reality: one characterized by unchallenged U.S. air supremacy, nascent Iranian missile capabilities, and the unwavering compliance of regional partners. None of those conditions holds today. Iran’s ballistic and cruise missile arsenal now numbers in the thousands, and its precision-strike capability has been demonstrated with lethal credibility, most dramatically in the 2019 Abqaiq strikes on Saudi Aramco infrastructure, which temporarily knocked out roughly five percent of global oil supply.

United States policymakers currently face a profoundly challenging dilemma. Rather than neutralizing the Iranian threat, military intervention targeting its nuclear and missile capabilities would likely catalyse it. Retired Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, has warned that a conflict with Iran would be “extraordinarily difficult,” adding that the Gulf’s geography “creates enormous vulnerability for our surface assets and our land bases.” The missile and drone salvos that would follow any American first strike could render the very bases from which the operation was launched operationally unusable within days. The infrastructure underpinning U.S. power, the runways, fuel depots, command nodes — becomes a liability the moment deterrence fails.

Opting instead for a structured drawdown carries distinct strategic penalties, enacted under the watchful eyes of anxious Gulf partners. UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash has spoken of the need for the region to develop “strategic autonomy,” a phrase that would have been diplomatically unthinkable a generation ago. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s government has actively engaged in parallel diplomacy with Beijing. This effort culminated in a landmark 2023 deal, brokered by China, to restore ties with Tehran—a geopolitical shift that would have been unthinkable without Washington’s blessing in the past. The message embedded in these moves is unmistakable: if Washington cannot guarantee security, the Gulf states will hedge elsewhere.

Although American think tanks have lagged in internalizing these strategic dynamics, more rigorous assessments are emerging. Analysts at the RAND Corporation, for instance, have conceptualized a “deterrence gap” in the Gulf, defining it as the discrepancy between the threats the United States purports to deter and the actual capabilities it can effectively deploy in contested environments. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, for its part, has noted that American credibility in the region “rests on a paradox”: the more Washington threatens force, the more it exposes the limits of what force could actually achieve.

What makes this moment distinctive is not the crisis itself, but its finality. The logic was always that America could afford to lose a battle because it would never lose the region. That confidence is harder to sustain now.

The combination of Iranian anti-access capabilities, eroding partner confidence, and a domestic American political culture that is exhausted by Middle Eastern entanglements has closed off the options that were once available.

The fundamental issue is no longer the sustainability of the U.S. military footprint in the Gulf, which the evidence heavily refutes. Rather, it is whether Washington possesses the strategic capacity to execute a deliberate drawdown before deteriorating conditions force an involuntary, disorderly exit.