Trump’s Sloppy Security Guarantee to Qatar

Last month, a stroke, President Donald Trump played security in the Middle East. For the first time in its history, Washington officially adhered to defending a regional partner (except for Türkiye, NATO ally). This partner is not Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, but the small Arab Gulf nation in Qatar.

Saying that Trump’s executive command was a shock to be with great underestimation. It was a historical decision, even if he did not get the attention of the audience who deserves one. But recognition of its importance does not mean that he suggested that he was prepared with any degree of care.

Last month, a stroke, President Donald Trump played security in the Middle East. For the first time in its history, Washington officially adhered to defending a regional partner (except for Türkiye, NATO ally). This partner is not Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, but the small Arab Gulf nation in Qatar.

Saying that Trump’s executive command was a shock to be with great underestimation. It was a historical decision, even if he did not get the attention of the audience who deserves one. But recognition of its importance does not mean that he suggested that he was prepared with any degree of care.

The period before the decision indicates its hasty normal. On September 9, Israel launched an attack on Hamas officials in Doha, as they were collected to discuss a proposal from the Trump administration to release the Israeli hostages and reach a ceasefire in the conflict with Israel. Initially, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to apologize to Qatar for the attack (which killed a katan citizen), and pledges that he would strike again if the Qatari authorities did not expel Hamas from Doha.

But to save his 20 -point management plan to end the war, Trump enters. He knew that Qatar, the broker appointed between Israel and Hamas, had to be returned after the threat of resignation. Trump urged Netanyahu to contact Qatari Prime Minister Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani and apologize for strikes. Netanyahu reluctantly complied, saying, according to the White House readings of the phone call, “He targeted Hamas leadership during the hostages negotiations, Israel violated the country’s sovereignty.” He also stressed that Israel will not take place such an attack again in the future. “

After that, completely out of blue and unlike decades of American Middle East policy, Trump signed an executive order committed by the United States to defend Qatar in the event of an armed attack against him. “The United States considers any armed attack on the region, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.”

Trump’s decision was consistent with his impulsive style in general in foreign policy. It seems that a little strategic thinking and planning were behind this. First, it did not take into account the changing geopolitical priorities of America. Previous departments have suggested that these should focus on the Middle East, but in Europe and India from the Pacific Ocean. Trump’s national defense strategy may confirm the American homeland and half of the Western football.

If it is driven by a strategic evaluation of regional dynamics and American considerations, we would not have seen the signs. There will be hints of US security commitment to Qatar in the last strategic dialogue in March last year. We would have seen adjustments to the main defense mode made by the Pentagon in the Middle East and other places we expect this main commitment. In a town like Washington where it is difficult to maintain the secret, there was at leakage at least internally or with the country about such a decision. However, there was not any of the above, which indicates that the whole thing was an incentive.

The disturbing reaction to this announcement may be unjustified because it is just an executive. Although he reads like a security commitment in Article 5 of NATO, it has not been ratified by the US congress and therefore not legally binding. This means that the moment Trump leaves his post, the document should be considered its expansion. The next administration may keep it, but this is a guaranteed thing, especially if a democratic president is elected.

But this is more than two years away. A lot can likely happen in the region from time to time, you should consider the new context that this security guarantee has created. Perhaps Trump’s security guarantees on Doha were necessary to persuade it to resume mediation role and eventually to help him close the Great Peace Agreement in the Middle East, as he announced his administration. But there are at least three reasons to believe that Trump’s executive is an exaggeration.

First, it is not clear if the guarantee is reliable. Consider the scope of the potential threats of Qatar. Although Netanyahu expressed his regret for the strike and pledged not to do this again, his extremist government is not satisfied with his apology, he is still committed to the destruction of Hamas. It is unlikely to change a phone call to Qatar, the fact that Netanyahu will do anything to stay in power (as it has been repeated and repeated), including violating his promise to his Qatari counterpart.

Therefore, if Israel strikes Hamas in Doha again, will the United States intervene militarily against Israel? One American does not think that this will happen at all. This immediately undermines the credibility of the American security commitment.

Then there is Iran. What if Tehran attacked Doha again as it did on June 23 in response to the bombing of Iranian -American nuclear sites? Or if any of the Iranian regional agents hit Doha? Will Trump, who loves “America first”, will risk American life to defend Qatar and go to war with Iran?

Second, while Qatar hosts the largest American military base in the region and plays a useful security and mediation role, nothing in Trump’s executives indicates that he has any obligations towards the United States in the event of an attack against American forces in the region. No single security partnership should be. A mutual defensive agreement must be with an explanation language that Qatar will respond militarily to attacks against American interests in Qatar, at least. It is not necessary to determine how exactly, just something that indicates that Qatar bears responsibilities, as well, as well as hosting American forces and assets on their soil.

Third, if Trump has just committed to defending Qatar, one is wondering if the United States has offered the expansion of the mutual defense agreement to Saudi Arabia. This is the security guarantee that Middle East monitors were more expecting, as it was discussed in some detail for more than two years by Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden. But somehow, it was Doha that won the award for the first time. Can the United States now grant official security guarantees to several partners in the Middle East? This is a recipe for strategic increases.

Ironically, Qatar and all other Arab Arab partners deserve something more reliable and effectively military than an executive matter or even a defensive agreement approved in Congress. These are pieces of paper at the end of the day, regardless of how strong it is. It should still be translated into measures and mechanisms for cooperation and cooperation on the ground that can effectively support promises in those documents and improve the security relations of the United States.

Verbs speak higher than words. The best way to ensure Qatar’s security, interests and strategic plans for America in the Middle East is to continue to upgrade security relations with patience and strive to integrate militarily at multiple levels. The former was going on for years, but the latter has not yet happened.

The next time that the United States has decided, perfectly after studying carefully, to extend the mutual defense agreement or security assurances of any partner in the Gulf, it will have a strong enough foundation.

Bilal Y. Saab is the first administrative director of Trends US and a co -fellow of Chatham House.