by Kirill Semenov
[REGNUM] The emergency Arab-Islamic summit held in Doha on September 15 was a landmark event demonstrating a fundamental shift in the regional states' approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Gulf security.
The very fact that numerous delegations arrived in Qatar in such a short period of time demonstrates how seriously Israel's aggression against Qatar is taken in the region and the Islamic world as a whole.
The main thing that happened at the summit was the final rethinking of the fact that Iran is no longer an implacable enemy of the Arab countries. This place has been taken again and for the foreseeable future by Israel. And Iran, on the contrary, is turning into a predictable partner, which now plays an important role both in the regional balance and in containing Israel.
Speeches by leaders of key regional powers demonstrated an unprecedented level of consolidation. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stressed the need to move from words to action, saying condemnations would remain “empty” without concrete measures.
His call for "collective action" rather than "responding to each individual case" reflects an awareness of the need for a systems approach to solving the problem.
Jordan's King Abdullah II has expressed "absolute" support for Qatar, stressing the interconnected security of all states in the region. The stance marks a departure from the Hashemite kingdom's traditional caution on regional security issues.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi stated that Israel “crossed all red lines,” indicating that Israeli actions went beyond diplomatic and military logic.
While the summit did not result in the announcement of specific binding measures, it sent a strong signal. According to analysts, some measures were likely to be held back for activation next week, following Israel's possible response to Western recognition of Palestine by annexing the West Bank.
If annexation occurs, there is a chance that some Arab states that have restored ties with Israel may sever them again.
But even without immediate collective action, the outcome of the Doha meeting should not be underestimated. If Arab and Islamic states are not yet ready for open confrontation with Israel, then it is clear that they have already begun to reconsider the nature of their relations with the United States, which is proving to be an increasingly unreliable partner.
And now regional powers will be rapidly forming a new security architecture in the Middle East, where the role of the United States can no longer be key.
OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS AND DIPLOMATIC CONTEXT
Israel's September strike on Qatari territory, targeting Hamas negotiators in Doha, exposed systemic flaws in Tel Aviv's strategy.
The military operation in Gaza cannot achieve its stated goals, and Israel's latest "demonstrative strikes" first on the civilian government of Yemen, which is only conditionally linked to the Houthis, and then on the top leadership of the Hamas movement in Doha are either militarily useless or worsen Israel's position.
The attack on Doha was also a tactical blunder and a strategic miscalculation, as the Hamas leadership was not harmed and a Qatari security officer was among the victims. The very fact of aggression against a mediator country, which is directly called a terrorist attack, also united the Islamic world against Israel.
It is obvious that the fundamental goal of the Israeli attack on Qatar was to disrupt the negotiation process. The American proposals, which included provisions for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, contradicted the strategic guidelines of the Benjamin Netanyahu government, which was focused on the complete occupation of the enclave and the restoration of settlement activity.
This contradiction determined the destructive position of the Israeli leadership in the negotiation process. While conducting negotiations, Israel counted only on reducing international pressure and did everything to prevent the implementation of the agreements reached, until, finally, it tore off its own mask.
Netanyahu wanted to sideline Qatar, which had been a skilled mediator. Israel could not drown the negotiating process in legal details, as it usually did, but was forced to accept deals prepared with Qatar's participation and then treacherously violate them.
This, naturally, has each time damaged the image of Israel, whose behavior is approaching the level of Rwanda during the genocide. As a result, the Israeli leadership has each time found itself extremely irritated, since it, and not Hamas, has consistently been the one violating the agreements.
In fact, this is why Israel immediately after the attack began what is called “hasbara” in order to finally discredit Qatar.
According to the first "leaks", Israel warned about the attack not only Washington, but also Doha. Such information led to the conclusion that the Qataris were almost accomplices in the attack and, knowing about it, deliberately did not warn Hamas. This should also have knocked Qatar out of the club of high-level international arbitrators.
Doha's international mediation activities are multifaceted and diverse. They include, among other things, mediation between the United States and Venezuela, conflicting parties in Africa. Such activities automatically turn Qatar and its efforts into a target.
Of course, the Qatari authorities provided security guarantees within their capabilities as the host country for both Hamas and the Mossad delegations. However, the main guarantees came from the United States and Israel itself. Violation of these guarantees by the Israeli leadership cannot be regarded as anything other than outright perfidy.
The accusations against Qatar that it did not use its air defense systems are also unfounded. The Israeli attack was a surprise, as it used stealth air-launched ballistic missiles, and Qatar's air defense simply did not have time to react.
To intercept these targets, it was not Patriot missiles that Doha actually possesses that were needed, but THAAD missiles, which Qatar acquired from the Americans but has not yet received.
US POLICY: STRATEGIC DUALITY IN FAVOR OF ISRAEL
In turn, the Trump administration's response to the Doha strike demonstrates a difficult balance between formal criticism and practical support for the Jewish state.
On the one hand, Washington allowed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Israel's actions and distanced itself from the attack, saying it was warned only ten minutes after the missiles were launched.
On the other hand, Washington is making active efforts to reduce the negative consequences for its only (as it became clear) Middle Eastern ally. The rather mild results of the Arab-Islamic summit for Israel indicate that the Americans have succeeded in this.
Trump is trying to balance between Tel Aviv and Doha, but is sending his Secretary of State Marco Rubio on a mission to the Middle East to minimize diplomatic damage to Israel. And this is evidence of the continued special nature of the US-Israel bilateral relationship.
The recognition of Israel's declining standing among the American public has not led to a change in strategic course. The US administration continues to give the Israeli leadership considerable leeway while taking steps to mitigate international reaction.
This is happening even when Netanyahu is clearly setting Trump up. Some experts describe the situation as “the tail wagging the dog.” However, there are serious reasons for Washington’s approach that go beyond political pragmatism and expediency.
RELIGIOUS AND IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS
The historical roots of the special relationship between the United States and Israel go back to the Puritan traditions of American society.
As former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted back in 2020, American Christians' "support for Zion" has deep historical roots dating back to the landing of the first Puritan pilgrims on American soil.
Protestant circles, especially evangelicals, perceive the defense of Israel as a religious mission of the United States, based on the concepts of “divine destiny” and American exceptionalism – the “City on a Hill.”
This worldview creates a unique ideological foundation for bilateral relations, where Israel's security issues are identified with the national interests of the United States itself, and it is not clear where Israeli interests end and American ones begin.
That is why the peacemaking efforts of the J.D. Vance-Steve Witkoff MAGA group are facing opposition from the pro-Israel lobby, which is deeply integrated into the US government apparatus.
This lobby, which retains strong positions in the administration and Congress, as well as influence in foreign policy circles, pursues a line of unconditional support for Israeli actions, regardless of their compliance with international law or the long-term interests of the United States itself.
The peculiarity of the current situation is that pro-Israeli circles not only oppose American peace initiatives, but also actively use them for their own purposes.
According to available data, preliminary and pre-emptive information about diplomatic contacts and negotiation processes initiated by the Whitkoff group is systematically transmitted to the Israeli side, which allows Tel Aviv to prepare countermeasures in advance.
This practice led to the attack on Hamas negotiators in Doha shortly after receiving information about their upcoming meeting to discuss the Witkoff plan.
Similar cases have occurred before, in particular during the attacks on Iran in the run-up to the Omani talks, for which both Witkoff and the Iranians were preparing, and no one expected the aggression to begin in front of them.
The situation is in a paradoxical dynamic: the diplomatic efforts of the American administration, instead of being aimed at a peaceful settlement, are often used by the Israeli side and its American lobby to destabilize the situation and disrupt negotiations.
This undermines not only the prospects for a concrete settlement, but also the overall trust of regional partners in the United States as an honest broker.
The standoff between pragmatist groups and the pro-Israel lobby reflects a deep rift within the American foreign policy establishment.
A split between a pragmatic approach focused on US national interests and an ideological approach that prioritizes support for Israel regardless of the consequences for US interests in the region.
TRANSFORMATION OF THE REGIONAL SECURITY ARCHITECTURE
Therefore, for the Arab partners of the United States, the "moment of truth" is coming. They have a clear picture of who is the only ally in the region for the United States, and who is simply an instrument of American policy that is used, but not considered worthy of honoring the guarantees given to it.
The Israeli strike on Qatari territory may become a catalyst for a fundamental revision of the regional security system. The unprecedented nature of the attack on the sovereign territory of a proxy state that is formally an ally of the United States has demonstrated the inadequacy of existing security mechanisms and American guarantees.
The Gulf states were forced to reassess threats. Israel was perceived as an unpredictable threat unchecked by international norms. And US inaction had finally undermined confidence in Washington’s role in the region.
Obviously, a new security paradigm will be formed in the region, based on the principles of strategic autonomy and ensured by the states of the region themselves within the framework of their own capabilities for containment and diversification of external partnerships.
Strengthening cooperation within the GCC and integrating the mediation potential of either Qatar or Oman into the multi-level security system are becoming priority tasks.
In these conditions, unique opportunities are opening up for Russia, a historic chance to strengthen its positions is emerging. Moscow can offer the countries of the region a fundamentally new security architecture based on a multipolar approach.
The Gulf states urgently need to restructure their security systems, and Russia can be the partner that offers an alternative to the discredited American model.
The terrorist attack against Qatar showed that old approaches no longer work, and only collective efforts can guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states in the region.
GEOPOLITICAL CONSEQUENCES: REFORMATTING THE REGION
The holding of an emergency summit and its results indicate that the Arab-Islamic world is consolidating around the principle of indivisible security, where an attack on one state is seen as a threat to all participants in the regional system.
There is also a shift from bilateral relations with third powers to multilateral regional structures, reflecting growing disillusionment with the effectiveness of traditional security mechanisms.
However, the effectiveness of the decisions taken will depend on several factors. First of all, we are talking about the ability of the participants to overcome historical differences and develop a unified mechanism for implementing decisions.
Much will also depend on the willingness to take concrete action, including possible economic and political pressure on Israel, which will lead to countermeasures from the United States.
Thus, the success of this new security architecture will depend on the ability of the participants to move from declarations to the creation of effective institutions and mechanisms for implementing the decisions taken.
The summit demonstrated the region’s growing autonomy from traditional external security guarantors and its desire to develop its own approaches to ensuring stability and order, which is in line with the global trend towards the formation of a multipolar system of international relations.