The first Israeli attack on a Gulf state causes changes in Arab politics: there are more and more calls for regional cooperation and common defense. Some even ask to create an "Islamic NATO".
Qatar could do almost nothing against the ballistic missiles that it had Israel fired at that country two weeks ago.
According to media reports, a dozen Israeli fighter jets flew over the Red Sea on September 9 — careful not to enter the airspace of other countries — before firing missiles into the so-called attack "over the horizon", reports Deutsche Welle.
In such an attack, ballistic missiles climb into the upper layers of the atmosphere or even into space, and then fly to the target from there. The final target of the Israeli rockets were members of the militant Hamas, who met in a luxury neighborhood of the Qatari capital, Doha, to discuss a possible cease-fire in Gaza. Six people died, although it appears that they were not the target.
As the rockets came unexpectedly, "over the horizon", there was little Qatar could do to defend itself. At the same time, one of the most important defenses of Qatar against Israel has nothing to do with sophisticated anti-missile systems. Israel's biggest ally, the United States of America, has its largest base in the region precisely in Qatar and recently granted that country the status of "major non-NATO ally".
But that apparently wasn't enough to stop Israel from carrying out its first known attack on a Gulf Arab state. Also, it's a move the US probably had to be informed about.
The US is seen as an unreliable ally
"The Israeli attack ... has shaken the confidence of the countries of the region in their ties with the US and will bring them closer to each other," Christine Dewan, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Gulf Institute, wrote shortly after the attack. "Those oil monarchies are too similar ... such a direct attack on their sovereignty and sense of security for all of them is unacceptable."
As a result, "Gulf rulers continue to seek greater strategic autonomy and are increasingly determined to reduce the risks of dependence on the US," Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, said in an author's text for the British The Guardian.
Because of all this, in recent weeks there has been more and more talk about the formation of a kind of "Islamic NATO", a defense alliance of Islamic and Arab states that would function similarly to the Western military alliance.
At last week's extraordinary summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Egyptian officials proposed the creation of a joint NATO-style force. Speaking at the summit, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammad Shia al-Sudani also called for a collective approach to regional security. The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) announced that they would activate a provision of the joint defense agreement signed in 2000, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. It is a wording similar to that of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
After the first summit, the defense ministers of the Gulf states held another meeting in Doha and agreed to increase the exchange of intelligence and information on the airspace situation, as well as to speed up the establishment of a new regional ballistic missile warning system. Joint military exercises were also announced.
In the same week, Saudi Arabia announced that it was entering into a "strategic mutual defense agreement" with Pakistan. The two countries declared that "any aggression against one country will be considered as aggression against both."
Is this the beginning of an "Islamic NATO"?
Maybe it all sounds like an "Islamic NATO" is being formed to oppose Israel, but in reality the situation is somewhat different, according to DW observers.
"An alliance based on the NATO model is unrealistic, because it would commit the Gulf states to wars that they do not consider crucial to their interests. No Gulf ruler wants to be drawn into a conflict with Israel over Egypt, for example," says Andreas Krieg, an associate lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King's College London.
However, after the attack on Doha, things are changing. "Security in the Gulf has long been based on the logic of patronage—effectively, you pay someone to look after your protection," Krieg explains. "That logic is now beginning to change, but slowly."
Instead of the "Islamic NATO", the world will probably see the so-called "6+2" format, explains Cynthia Bianco, an expert on the Gulf states at the European Council on Foreign Relations. The term "6+2" refers to six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), plus Turkey and Egypt.
Bianco believes that format is likely already being discussed this week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
"It's not really Article 5 in the true sense," she told DW. "The Gulf states' commitment to mutual defense is not as strong as NATO's. It's more about the collectivization of security and defense positions and, perhaps most importantly, about sending a message of deterrence to Israel."
Military assistance from abroad
The "6+2" format makes more sense than the "Islamic NATO," Krieg continues. Turkey is actually "the most reliable non-Western partner for the Gulf, with an army stationed in Qatar since 2017 and a real capacity to react quickly in crises." "Egypt is a more complex case. It has military mass, but its reliability is questioned in some Gulf capitals."
Even if the "6+2" format is implemented, it will happen slowly and discreetly, both Krieg and Bianco expect.
"Most of the serious changes will happen behind the scenes," Krieg predicts. "We will see public announcements, summits and joint exercises, but important business, such as the exchange of radar data, the integration of early warning systems or the approval of rights to military bases, will remain in the shadows."
It is also possible that the Gulf states, which have long been dependent on the US, will try to expand defense ties with other countries.
"There are certainly other actors, like Russia and China, who are willing to replace the US," Sinem Cengiz, a researcher at Qatar University, at the Center for Gulf Studies, told DW. "But it is unlikely that any outside actor will replace the US overnight."
After all, the Gulf states don't even want that, Bianko adds. They are still dependent on American military technology. For example, after the attack on Doha, Qatar sought assurances from the US that they still remain their partners.
"An important note is that the US has never actually been openly against this kind of regionalization of defense," Bianco points out. "On the contrary, they have always encouraged the establishment of a unified missile defense architecture in the Gulf countries."
In fact, more military integration in the Gulf could mean more of the United States – because American systems are the backbone of regional defense, Krieg explains.
"But political thinking has changed," he concludes. "Washington is no longer seen as the ultimate guarantor of security, but as a partner whose support is conditional and transactional. The leaders in the Gulf are adapting to the idea that the US has interests, not allies. That's why they are trying to create a security pillar led by the Gulf countries, which would be a middle ground between Iran and Israel."
