Why Gulf states could be key to a lasting Iran-Israel ceasefire

A ceasefire emerged from the smoke of Iran's face-saving attack on Qatar, with Gulf states key to preserving de-escalation and longer-term regional stability

24.06.2025

By Giorgio Cafiero*

Source: https://www.newarab.com/analysis/why-gulf-states-could-be-key-lasting-iran-israel-ceasefire

Less than 48 hours after the US carried out strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’, Tehran launched its retaliation.

On 23 June, Iran fired short- and medium-range missiles at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which is the forward headquarters of US Central Command. Qatari air defences intercepted 14 of the missiles, while one struck a building near the base. There were no casualties, and the US military infrastructure at Al-Udeid remained unharmed.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took to X to share an image of a burning American flag, declaring that the “logic of the Iranian nation” would never allow Tehran to “surrender to anyone’s aggression.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme National Security Council issued a formal statement emphasising that the missile strike targeted a location “far from urban facilities and residential areas in Qatar,” and assured that it “posed no threat to our friendly and brotherly country, Qatar, or its noble people.”

The statement also noted that the number of missiles launched at Al-Udeid mirrored the number of bombs used by the US in “Operation Midnight Hammer.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s statement hailed the “devastating and powerful missile attack” against the “largest strategic asset of the US terrorist army in the West Asia region” as a reminder that the Islamic Republic “will not leave any attack on its territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national security unanswered under any circumstances.”

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry condemned Iran’s attack on Al-Udeid, affirmed that Qatar’s air defences “thwarted the attack and successfully intercepted the Iranian missiles,” and urged the parties to return to negotiations.

“We express the State of Qatar’s strong condemnation of the attack on Al-Udeid Air Base by the [IRGC], and consider it a flagrant violation of the State of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace, as well as of international law,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari in a statement.

Shortly after Iran launched its missile attack on Qatar, US President Donald J. Trump thanked Tehran for the “early notice” of its “very weak” strike on Al-Udeid. For now, Trump appears content with the outcome of his decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities, while Tehran, at least for the moment, seems to consider its retaliation complete.

It is important to highlight the pre-signalled nature of Iran’s strike on Al-Udeid. According to Trump, Tehran had communicated its intentions in advance - an admission that sheds light on Iran’s strategic calculus and its desire to control escalation rather than allow hostilities to spiral out of control.

In essence, Tehran aimed to strike a delicate balance in which it delivered a military response sufficient to save face and maintain a sense of dignity, while also carefully avoiding a cycle of escalation involving both the US and Israel, which the Islamic Republic could not afford at a time in which the country has suffered greatly from the unprovoked and brutal war which Israel launched on 13 June.

“A confident power doesn't typically telegraph its punches. This action, on reflection, was a symptom of weakness and a carefully managed performance designed to mask the fact that that its key proxies have been degraded, and its own military capabilities have been significantly damaged,” said Dr Steven Wright, an associate professor of International Relations at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, in an interview with The New Arab.

"It was an admission that they could not afford a multi-front, escalating conflict,” he added.

The choice of Qatar

An interesting question to raise is, given how much of a footprint the US military has all over the region, why did Iran decide to wage this attack on a base in Qatar?

Deciding to strike Al-Udeid was Iran’s way of delivering a message that was “stronger than what Iran had to send,” Dr Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at the Defence Studies Department of King's College London, told TNA.

“Attacking a Gulf state, and, of course, most importantly Qatar, with 19 missiles - and it was also the command of CENTCOM - is a response which is somewhere in the middle of the escalatory ladder,” said Dr Krieg.

He also explained that the new leadership in the IRGC has a powerful message: “Next time around, Iran will not hesitate to take action against US bases and interests in the Gulf, which was always kind of off-limits, especially in Qatar.”

As Dr Krieg sees it, the missile attack on Al-Udeid was Iran’s “desperate” way of trying to reestablish deterrence.

When asked why Iran chose Al-Udeid as opposed to targets elsewhere in the neighbourhood outside of Qatar, Dr Wright described this as an “intentional piece of political theatre.”

It was inevitable that Iran would strike back following Washington’s ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’, and when choosing a target, nothing carries more symbolic weight than the nerve centre of American military power in the region: the headquarters of US Central Command in Qatar.

“It was more of a token retaliation and the intent was not to inflict large-scale casualties, as that would have guaranteed a major escalation with the GCC, but Iran needed to make a bold statement that would satisfy its domestic calls for retaliation,” added Dr Wright.

Switzerland of the Middle East

Although Qatar was understandably disappointed with Iran for firing these missiles at Al-Udeid, and this episode will likely be a source of trauma for people in the gas-rich country, the Qataris at the end of the day will “want to use this opportunity to get an offramp and to create the possibility for stability,” Dr Krieg told TNA.

“Qatar is not a country that has it in itself to escalate. If you look at Qatar’s strategic culture, it’s always one of engagement rather than confrontation, and that’s not going to change. So, in that respect, in the bigger scheme of things, it’s fairly positive,” he added.

Although the Iranian missile strike was, without question, a blatant and provocative violation of Qatari sovereignty, the irony is that this attack ultimately served to underscore, not undermine, Doha’s role as a regional mediator and an effective diplomatic bridge.

In a part of the world where enmities run deep, Qatar has carved out a rare position for itself as a credible and pragmatic interlocutor able to speak to all sides, including Tehran, without succumbing to the gravitational pull of any one geopolitical bloc.

Rather than pushing Qatar into a more combative posture, Iran’s telegraphed retaliation highlighted just how indispensable Doha has become in preventing the region from sliding into worse chaos.

Far from being a passive victim, Qatar is a state that navigates geopolitical firestorms and security crises with finesse, which was highlighted by Doha’s handling of the 2017-21 blockade. The country’s track record as an honest broker between adversaries, a facilitator of ceasefires, and a discreet channel for backdoor diplomacy suggests that Qatar, even in the face of direct aggression, will probably double down on its commitment to de-escalation.

“Qatar seizes the moment as the Switzerland of the Middle East to translate conflict into ceasefire, swallowing grievances to mediate a ceasefire between Iran and the US,” said Dr Krieg.

Within this context, Doha and Tehran’s bilateral relationship is unlikely to face major problems due to this episode, even if the Qataris are disappointed with the Iranian decision to make Al-Udeid their target.

“Iran is in a historically weak position which allows Qatar to manage the situation without having to cut relations. As no loss of life occurred, Qatar can now continue to work towards de-escalation, and provide an off-ramp for an Iran, as it likely does not want to escalate conflict but needed to show strength," Dr Wright told TNA.

"Both states want to see this issue through, and neither is willing to allow escalation to threaten their common economic opportunities in the North Dome/South Pars gas field.”

Gulf support for Qatar

In response to Iran’s missile attack on Al Udeid, the rest of the GCC came together to stand by Qatar.

Bahrain affirmed “full support” for Doha while expressing “full solidarity with the sisterly State of Qatar, as required by the bond of brotherhood and blood, which confirms the solidarity of the [GCC] countries in these sensitive circumstances the region is going through…”

Kuwait responded with “strong condemnation and denunciation of the attacks targeting al-Udeid Air Base in the sisterly State of Qatar by the [IRGC]” while calling the attack a “flagrant violation of Qatari sovereignty and airspace, as well as of international law and the United Nations Charter” which poses a threat to “peace, security, and stability in the region.”

Oman articulated its “firm rejection of any actions that threaten the security of the region or undermine the sovereignty and stability of its states”, praised Qatar’s “wisdom in containing the repercussions of the escalation,” and expressed “full solidarity” with Doha.

Saudi Arabia denounced “the aggression launched by Iran against the brotherly State of Qatar” which Riyadh condemned as a “flagrant violation of international law and the principles of good neighbourliness, and an entirely unacceptable act that cannot be justified under any circumstances.”

The UAE also called out the IRGC for “targeting of al-Udeid Air Base in the sisterly State of Qatar, considering it a flagrant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace, and a clear contravention of international law and the UN Charter” while stressing Abu Dhabi’s rejection of “any attack that threatens the security and safety of Qatar and undermines the security and stability of the region.”

Following their swift condemnations of Iran for violating Qatar’s sovereignty, Dr Wright expects the GCC states’ focus to shift toward achieving de-escalation in the region and, ultimately, longer-term reconciliation.

“The initial condemnations were diplomatically essential for upholding the principle of sovereignty. From my perspective, however, the far more powerful driver is the unified call for de-escalation, which is rooted in a clear-eyed economic pragmatism. The Gulf states have staked their futures on massive national transformation projects that are entirely dependent on regional stability,” he explained.

A peaceful path ahead?

Following Iran’s unprecedented missile strike on Al-Udeid, President Trump succeeded in cajoling Israel and Iran into a fragile ceasefire. This was welcome news in the Gulf.

In a conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on 24 June, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman expressed his hope that the truce would serve to “restore security and stability” and thwart further escalation. He reaffirmed Riyadh’s commitment to addressing regional crises through dialogue and diplomacy. Officials in other GCC members welcomed the ceasefire too.

At this stage, it remains uncertain whether this truce will endure or merely serve as a pause at the beginning of a long, drawn-out war. All Gulf Arab states have a deep stake in the ceasefire holding together, hoping it will hold and pave the way for meaningful de-escalation between Tel Aviv and Tehran.

Although diplomacy is essential, diplomats will face immense challenges operating in the current climate. Trust between the US and Israel on one side, and the Islamic Republic, on the other, is virtually non-existent.

Compounding this is a new and dangerous shift: after twelve days of war with Israel, Tehran is now significantly more likely to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and rush for nuclear weapons - something it was not doing before Israel waged this month’s unprovoked war on the Islamic Republic.

Despite the grim outlook, regional actors remain eager to see diplomacy succeed - however far-fetched lasting peace and stability may seem at this point. Building on Qatar’s pivotal role in helping Trump secure the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, other states in the region - including Oman, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE - could be counted on to support efforts to reopen channels of communication between Washington and Tehran.

As a signatory to the Abraham Accords, the UAE may be uniquely positioned to serve as a bridge between Israel and Iran.

Dr Mira Al Hussein, a fellow at the Alwaleed Centre at the University of Edinburgh, underscored how conflict dynamics between the American-Israeli alliance and Iran opens an opportunity for the Gulf Arab states to present themselves to the Trump administration as Washington’s allies and partners which are level-headed, reliable, and stable - qualities that Israel severely lacks.

“For global markets to thrive, the world needs actors with diplomatic acumen, who can maintain harmony with neighbours and navigate the interests of rising powers in both the East and the West. That is what the Gulf represents today,” she told TNA.

Looking ahead, while a new nuclear accord between the US and Iran - let alone a grand bargain between the two countries across nuclear and non-nuclear issues - remains remote, GCC members are likely to concentrate their efforts on preserving the precarious Israel-Iran ceasefire. Should these efforts succeed, they may lay the groundwork for cautious optimism about the prospects for longer-term peace and regional stability.

Nonetheless, Gulf Arab leaders will remain uneasy in the months ahead, acutely aware of the truce’s fragility and the unpredictability of US foreign policy under Trump.

At any moment, Washington could ease pressure on Israel to uphold the truce. Should Iran rush to nuclear weapons, the US and Israel could likely resort to further military action, risking a dangerous unfreezing of this month’s 12-day war.

*Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics

Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero