The Beginning of Sovereignty in the Middle East
An attack in Doha brings the stark reality of hard power into focus
It was another dusty summer afternoon in Doha.
In a tumultuous region, Qatar had been an oasis of stability. It had managed to navigate controversies related to its conflicting relationships for years. While it was caught in the crossfire of the conflict this summer between Iran and the United States when Iranian missiles struck the Al Udeid base, it seemed, after the fact, more like an orchestrated series of events.
After the October 7 attacks by Hamas two years ago, it was likely that Israeli retaliation could find its way to Doha. Conversely, the opposite occurred. Qatar’s leaders became key nodes for both Israeli and American officials, with the director of Mossad making routine visits. Perhaps it was not that surprising. After all, Qatar was one of the first Gulf nations to publicly establish a link with Israel all the way back in 1996.
At 3:46 p.m. local time, Tuesday, September 9, the feeling of impermeability evaporated as more than 10 missiles crashed into a building where Hamas officials were meeting, killing five of the group’s members as well as one Qatari security officer. Unlike the 2017 Gulf blockade, this was an unobstructed military strike within the country’s territory, not simply an outside pressure campaign. The alliance with America, the hosting of Central Command, and the hundreds of billions of dollars committed to invest in the United States did nothing to stop it.
The Israeli strike in Doha, with the world watching, represents a watershed moment not just for Qatar but also for the wider Middle East. It is the beginning of sovereignty.
While the immediate rhetoric will be sharp, the follow-on actions will be muted. More telling will be the subtle shifts to help prepare for a sovereign future.
Sovereignty in Stasis
On August 2, 1990, as the Cold War was ending and Pax Americana was searching for a footing, Saddam Hussein ordered Iraq’s forces to invade neighboring Kuwait. A petrostate effectively under American protection, this was a red line. It was also the first test of America as the now sole superpower. The Gulf War established a clear red line in the so-called rules-based order, or what we know simply as the American order.
America directly enforced that standard in defense of its allies in the region. Progressively, as this reality became more entrenched, American military capabilities were integrated heavily into the security architecture of the Gulf, even while the optics of American military bases faded. As Saudi Arabia discussed normalization with Israel, on the table was a fully-fledged American defense pact.
Countries in the Middle East have witnessed direct violations of their borders before, as seen in 2003 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. Yet this precedent often involved countries outside of the American order. When Israel would act, it would mostly be deferential to the American framework.
The consequence of this architecture was an abdication of regional sovereignty. In the Middle East, it meant that countries were empowered so long as they fully integrated into the American security architecture, at the expense of any independent military or industrial apparatus.
For countries that chose this approach, everything seemed to be working out.
Searching for Threats
After the October 7 attacks, and since the Trump administration came to power in particular, the fig leaf of notional sovereignty has fallen by the wayside in the Middle East and around the world. Even in areas within the American orbit and core geographies of interest, there is no longer any umbrella protection. While America may not intervene today, it still mediates when two allies confront each other.
For Gulf countries, that offers no solace. Although the last decade witnessed a dramatic increase in defense investment and a close relationship with America, Qatar’s air defenses were absent in the face of Israeli strikes; even if they were not activated for political reasons, there is little doubt that they would not be able to match Israel’s firepower. Localized power that is not deployable or effective remains a line item on a balance sheet.
Qatar and other countries, such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are not naïve. They recognize this. But there is still a large gap between recognition and capability. Even Qatar, which had heightened awareness of its fragility resulting from the 2017 crisis, has been unable to truly harness its sovereignty.
The United States will still arm and support its allies – for a price – but it is up to each country to defend its interests. Additionally, in the Middle East, Israel has a ‘hall pass’, meaning its imperatives sit above all others. The assault in the heart of Doha made it clear that Israeli power remains uncontested as the country assumes a broader imperial footprint in the region. It means that every border is subject to negotiation.
In the past, countries outside the American orbit in the Middle East were the ones that might come under fire. Today, any country with perceived strength and autonomy is seen as a threat by Israel. Non-adherence to Israeli demands may also lead to an overt or covert attack.
This is most acute for countries like Turkey today, but tomorrow it could mean Saudi Arabia is in the crosshairs.
Beginning of Real Sovereignty
Real sovereignty means real power, not silky displays of hardware. Further integration into the American imperium could temporarily stave off encroachment. But this would not be the case vis-à-vis Israeli interests. For the smaller Gulf states, it may translate to seeking protection from new alliances.
There are few allies to turn to that possess indigenous power not subject to American whims—Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, and now perhaps Turkey. Most likely, an intersection of alliances represents the greatest protection moving forward. This will include states acting like mercenary protectors, who will take on the risk for a sizable reward.
This will contribute to a re-ordering in the Middle East of regimes and borders, which could be redrawn. More likely, the re-ordering will be subtle, reflected in two levels of sovereignty: real and phantom. Phantom sovereigns will either be subsumed by the growing Israeli imperial footprint or develop external protectors that can mobilize – a big if.
Tone Deft
For the time being, Israeli dominance will prevail. It will eliminate or diminish all the threats it can and attempt to subjugate any emerging force. Turkey, however, appears to be already capable of asserting its sovereignty.
For Gulf states, the choices are not clear. Can they go deeper into the American orbit? Is true indigenous capability possible? The stronger they get, the more likely it is that they will face opposition from Israel. Is there an external power outside of America that can provide sustained protection?
For the rest of the Middle East, there will be deft approaches to try and thread the political needles, as attempted by Syria’s nascent rulers. That path is fraught, and for most, it will not be successful.
A new sense of malaise across the Middle East appears inevitable. In the long horizon, however, it may yet prompt a new dynamic that could surprise.
If the moment is seized, the beginning of sovereignty is a blessing in disguise. It represents, for the first time, an opening to reimagine the region beyond the recurring reality of today.