Conflicts in the Middle East are relentless and seemingly endless—ranging from international disputes to civil wars—where lives are lost and displacement continues without pause, as if this land were destined never to know peace.
And as communication technologies advance, documenting events has become easier and faster. It no longer requires a professional photographer or a war correspondent to capture scenes of conflict; today, anyone can snap a photo or record a video and instantly share it with anyone eager to see and understand what is happening up close.
You may think you are safe—far from the flames of conflict—simply because you live in a country not on the frontlines. But in reality, wars today creep in uninvited. Whether you accept it or not, you may find yourself, quite literally, part of the conflict.
The Qatari citizen was born and raised in a country globally recognized for its natural wealth and ranked among the world’s top exporters of natural gas, playing a significant economic role in international equations.
Its people enjoy a comfortable standard of living and are often regarded as among the most secure and stable populations in the world. Yet this apparent safety does not mean isolation from a volatile region. The state’s policies, alliances, and international relations often place it at the heart of confrontations—and at times in direct clashes that cannot be ignored.
Over the past five decades, Qatar has not remained immune to the Middle East’s conflicts; rather, it has often found itself an active player in its turbulent landscape.
Driven by its political position and regional choices, Qatar has had to engage in several confrontations—sometimes through direct support for one of the conflicting parties, as in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and at other times by adopting firm stances on key issues, foremost among them the Palestinian cause and opposition to the Israeli occupation.
Qatar’s role was not limited to political stances alone; the Qatari army actively participated in several confrontations, such as the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, and later as part of the Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen. This made Qatar—despite its small size—a significant player in complex, ongoing regional files.
The people of Qatar still recall the difficult period that began in June 2017, when the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt imposed a stifling blockade that lasted until January 2021. It was a blatant attempt to exert political pressure and reshape Qatar’s independent decision-making process.
It was not merely a diplomatic rupture but an actual effort to isolate and subjugate Qatar politically and economically. At one point, the crisis nearly escalated into a military invasion, as foreign forces approached the country’s borders, and their entry into Qatari territory seemed imminent—if not for the intervention of several international powers that prevented the disaster.
At the height of the crisis, Qatar affirmed that national sovereignty was non-negotiable—it was a red line that must not be crossed. In a statement published on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared: “Any dialogue with the blockading countries will not come at the expense of Qatar’s sovereignty.”
Reaffirming the principle of respect for sovereignty as a cornerstone of Qatar’s foreign policy, His Highness emphasized that “solutions must be based on mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs,” adding that “Qatar will not accept any conditions that compromise its independent national decision-making or political dignity.”
However, what occurred on June 23, 2025, was not a passing incident amid regional tensions; it marked a highly dangerous development that strikes at the heart of Qatari sovereignty.
Al-Udeid Air Base, located on Qatari territory, was subjected to a direct missile attack by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—an act officially announced by the State of Qatar, which described the assault as a “blatant violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a direct threat to regional peace and security.”
Qatar’s Ministry of Defense stated that its air defenses successfully intercepted the attack and emphasized that this assault was not merely against a military installation housing foreign forces, but an infringement upon the sanctity of Qatari territory and airspace. It further noted that the attack violated international law and the United Nations Charter—particularly Paragraph 4 of Article 2—which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
As researcher Ben Dakhan Ratiba explained in his study The Legitimacy of Intervention and the Violation of State Sovereignty, any attack on a facility within a state’s borders—even if it targets a foreign military installation—remains an attack on the sovereignty of the host state. It challenges its authority over its territory and turns its land into a battlefield against its will.
The presence of a foreign military base does not diminish the status of the host nation, nor does it justify targeting its territory under any pretext. Bilateral agreements regarding such bases—as in the case of Qatar and the United States—do not authorize any third party to breach the sanctity of the host state’s territory under the guise of self-defense or retaliatory action.
Qatar affirmed its right to respond directly in proportion to the scale of the attack and in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It warned that the continuation of such hostile acts could lead to disastrous consequences for the entire region’s security and risk triggering a broader regional conflict.
This event constitutes a dangerous precedent that demands attention. It is not merely about a missile falling on a military zone—it is about a delicate balance between independence and submission, between sovereignty and breach, and between a state that chooses its own decisions and one that is forced to react to imposed realities. Here, sovereignty reveals itself not as a mere constitutional phrase, but as the actual ability to assert will and protect land.
In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that the State of Qatar has adopted mediation as a consistent approach in addressing regional and international conflicts—clearly reflecting its firm vision of its role as a responsible actor in its regional environment and on the global stage.
Qatar has enshrined this approach in its Constitution, with Article 7 stating: “The foreign policy of the State shall be based on the principle of strengthening international peace and security by encouraging the resolution of international disputes through peaceful means, in accordance with the role of the State in resolving such disputes at both regional and international levels through mediation and dialogue. This also requires maintaining balanced relations with all parties, supporting peoples’ right to self-determination, refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other states, and cooperating with peace-loving nations.”
A brief glance at the publications of Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reveals the extent of the country’s role in international mediation. From Afghanistan to Darfur, from Lebanon to Ukraine, Qatar has served as a host for complex negotiations, a meeting point for warring parties, and a platform for signing peace agreements. It has even mediated the release of prisoners in entangled conflicts—solidifying its reputation as a trusted mediator in international diplomacy.
In 2020, the world witnessed how Doha became a critical venue for the signing of the agreement between the United States and the Taliban. Prior to that, it played a prominent role in the Sudanese crisis and in prisoner exchanges between opposing Syrian factions. It also took on a delicate role in bridging differences between Washington and Tehran over contentious issues, including the nuclear file and humanitarian swap deals.
This role was not born merely of political ambition, but of Qatar’s ability to combine what is known as “soft power” with effective neutrality. Maintaining balanced relations with diverse actors—such as the United States, Iran, Turkey, and Russia—Qatar has built diplomatic credibility that rendered it a trusted partner in the most complex files. This role has been bolstered by its global media presence, a well-developed educational and academic network, and an intellectual infrastructure that fosters dialogue and reconciliation—granting Qatar unconventional tools for supporting mediation beyond rigid official frameworks.
Qatar has chosen to channel its political, economic, and intellectual capabilities toward fostering understanding among adversaries, institutionalizing a culture of mediation as an alternative to the logic of force. In doing so, it has proven that sovereignty lies not only in owning one’s decisions, but also in possessing the ability to positively influence the course of a turbulent world.
During the press conference held immediately after the Iranian attack on the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base, Mohammed Haji, Editor-in-Chief of Al-Watan newspaper, posed a striking question to Dr. Majed Al-Ansari, Advisor to the Prime Minister and Official Spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Observing the firm consistency in Qatar’s positions, he asked, “Where does this insistence come from?”—referring to the Qatari leadership’s deep conviction in proceeding with its mediation path despite the attack.
Dr. Al-Ansari’s response reflected the core principles of Qatar’s foreign policy, citing a previous statement by His Excellency the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, in which he used the word “Ma’si”—meaning “it is beyond them” or “they cannot sway us.” He added that Qatar’s role is not tied to a specific event, nor is it a pragmatic stance or a move driven by short-term interests. Rather, it is “a belief in a divine principle revealed by Allah Almighty—that we should incline toward peace, and always be doves of peace in this world, not only for ourselves and our interests, but for all nations that seek peace.”
He continued, emphasizing that the political and media campaigns directed at Qatar—particularly in recent months—have not and will not deter it from fulfilling its role. As he put it, “This role is Qatar’s historical role. We believe it is the duty for which we exist. And if we do not carry it out, we are falling short in our duty toward the world.”
He concluded his answer with a clear message: such violations may lead some countries or decision-makers in other parts of the world to take reserved or negative positions toward peace efforts generally. But “the decision-maker in Qatar—His Highness, and all those shaping policy in Qatar—approach this issue with the conviction that it is the constant in an era of change.”
The approach Qatar has chosen amid escalating regional and international polarization keeps it away from aligning with conflicting parties—and the political and security consequences that come with such alignment—while also steering clear of withdrawal and silence, which often lead to marginalization and a loss of influence. Between these two extremes, diplomatic mediation emerges as a smart and effective solution for avoiding the trap of partisanship without abandoning its role or compromising its principles.
As researchers Mutlaq Al-Qahtani and Dana Al Thani explained in their study The Policy of the State of Qatar and Its Experience in Mediation and Conflict Resolution, published in Siyasat Arabiya, Qatar has not treated mediation as a temporary tactic but rather as a comprehensive strategic path. This approach allows it to remain present in key events without being drawn into political blocs, and to build bridges of dialogue without falling into the trap of polarization.
According to what they described as “positive neutrality,” Doha not only refrains from taking sides, but also engages actively and credibly—earning the trust of all parties, even those bound together only by hostility.
In this sense, mediation grants the state moral and diplomatic legitimacy, enabling it to act rather than merely react, and to transform pressure into opportunity, and threats into tools of influence.
By doing so, Qatar not only protects its security and independent decision-making but also establishes for itself an international standing rooted in respect for sovereignty and the ability to forge balance in a world shaken by instability.
