By Uriel Araujo
InfoBrics
October 11, 2025
The US has become, in effect, a military guarantor for Qatar. With Trump's unprecedented Executive Order of September 29, 2025, Washington now "shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure" of Qatar as a threat to the US, pledging to respond with "military" measures, "if necessary".
For the first time, with the exception of NATO's Turkey, the US has formally committed to the defense of a regional partner in the Middle East (not Israel).
Expert Bilal Y. Saab argues that the move is "accidental" in the sense that it appears to have been rushed, even sloppy - but it is no less consequential for being so. The timing, indeed, suggests this military guarantee is less the culmination of long strategic planning, and more a reactive wager - a bold recalibration of US posture toward Qatar and, by extension, the Gulf.
I have long been writing about Qatar's geopolitical relevance as a kind of magnified "small state" actor, so to speak - a diplomatic playmaker in a volatile region. In May I argued that Trump's Gulf tour (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE) - notably excluding Israel - signaled a deliberate attempt to rebalance the intricate enough US-Israel relationship. Back then, I observed that while Trump's gestures in the Gulf appeared transactional, they also served to subtly remind even Washington's closest ally (Israel) that it cannot act unchecked.
The Gulf states, with their financial heft and mediation roles (especially in Gaza and sometimes even Ukraine), arguably offer more immediacy and leverage to Trump's vision than Israel sometimes does. In that light, Qatar's elevation to de facto protectorate status may be the logical next step in a broader pivot.
To be sure, Qatar is no newcomer to regional behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Already in 2021 I chronicled how the Qatari authorities in Doha, even during the Gulf blockade (2017-2021), maintained back-channels to Iran and Turkey, and later brokered reconciliations between the Gulf states themselves. Qatar's ability to straddle Riyadh and Tehran, Ankara and Washington, is part of its diplomatic capital. In short, Qatar' mediation portfolio has earned it outsized influence.
So, what explains Trump's unprecedented guarantee? Several interlocking dynamics are at play, and the move cannot be reduced to theatrical one-upmanship.
First, the immediate trigger was clearly Israel's September 9 missile strike on Doha, targeting Hamas operatives during ceasefire talks. The attack killed a Qatari security officer and jolted the diplomatic equilibrium. Netanyahu eventually apologized - urged so by Trump - with a phone call to Qatari Prime Minister bin Abdulrahman. But that was not enough. In short order, Trump signed the executive order, anchoring the apology in power. The guarantee both shores up Qatar's mediation role (which the White House explicitly supports in the text) and deters Israel from repeat strikes against the Arab country.
Second, this move is emblematic of Trump's Gulf tilt and his recalibration of Washington's regional assumptions, especially regarding a reordering of the US-Israel axis. By empowering Qatar so overtly, Trump signals that Gulf states can secure more direct reciprocity from Washington than Israel might expect - a blunt message, but one consistent with his transactional foreign-policy mindset. The calculus goes: if Qatar mediates Gaza, Russia and Ukraine, even Iran channels, then binding it militarily ensures sustained alignment. This is underreported in most commentaries, but thus far the Qatari guarantee works as both shield and leash, so to speak.
Third, it is also a bet on deterrence as diplomacy. By elevating Qatar's status through formalized defense guarantees, the US seeks to generate risk for any state considering strikes on Doha. That said, Saab's critique deserves attention: a presidential Executive Order is easily reversible; it lacks congressional buy-in; and it arguably does not really commit the US in practice. Under scrutiny, the credibility of such a guarantee is thus questionable. If Israel bombs again, will the US confront it? If Iran or its proxies attack Doha, will Trump risk American lives? The absence of mutual obligations in the text is a striking omission too.
Fourth, this may be a signal to other Gulf powers eyeing guarantees. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has long sought a US mutual defense pact, especially in connection with normalization with Israel. Yet somehow Qatar got the prize first. Can Washington afford formal commitments to multiple Gulf states? That would be a recipe for strategic overstretch. Be as it may, Qatar becomes the test case in a way - the barometer for whether the US is ready to anchor regional security rather than outsource it.
At bottom, this Trump guarantee does reflect a broader shift: the Gulf has arguably become the center of gravity in Middle East geopolitics, and not just Israel. The United States now seeks to anchor itself more deeply in regional intermediation networks - and it would appear that little old Qatar, ever graceful amid turbulence, is its chosen vehicle.
Yet history reminds us: power is not just declared in paper, but enforced in presence. For this guarantee to be really more than a rhetorical flourish, Washington would need to translate words into posture: joint exercises, missile defenses, etc.
In the end, one should neither dismiss the surprise guarantee as impulsive theatre, nor accept it at face value as a solid treaty. Rather (as is the case with so many other things pertaining to Trump) one can see it as a bold gamble.
In this scenario, this moment could mark the beginning of a truly new US-Gulf bargain: Qatar as military partner, mediator, and semi-shield - with Washington more tightly bound than ever in the Gulf chessboard. One should also expect further complications arising from an America-Israeli relationship that today is more complex than ever.
Source infobrics.org.