listen to this article | 8 minutes
The conflict between the United States and Iran has entered a more volatile phase, marked by direct military attacks, heightened rhetoric, and the steady erosion of years of restraint. From attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities to Tehran’s coordinated retaliation across the region, the risk of escalation has become less theoretical and more concrete. The impact will be immediate for Gulf states whose security and economic stability are directly exposed to the conflict between the United States and Iran. It is in this environment that Qatar’s diplomacy between Washington and Iran should be understood. Neutrality should be understood not for its own sake, but as a calculated effort to contain the risk of escalation, which would only increase.
Periods of heightened tensions between the United States and Iran have long had repercussions far beyond Washington and Iran. Discourse between Iran and the United States has hardened significantly following a wave of protests in Iran that have left thousands of people dead, according to various estimates. This included Trump’s threat to intervene on behalf of the protesters, further increasing the urgency of Gulf diplomacy. The Gulf’s geography, concentrated energy infrastructure, and interconnected security environment mean that even a limited conflict risks rapid regional spillover. Against this backdrop, Qatar’s approach to Washington and Iran has consistently prioritized de-escalation, mediation, and maintaining political channels at a moment when those channels appear increasingly fragile.
Qatar has emerged as an effective and reliable mediator during moments of acute tension between the United States and Iran, providing practical means to prevent further escalation of the crisis. Doha has leveraged its enduring relationship with Tehran and strategic partnership with Washington to maintain discreet and trusted channels of communication between the two sides even when direct engagement is politically constrained. This position has enabled Qatar to foster face-saving détente outcomes for both sides, strengthening its role as a mediator that creates political space for restraint rather than confrontation.
This role was most evident in September 2023, when Qatar helped facilitate a prisoner exchange between Iran and the United States, alongside the release of Iranian funds that had been frozen for humanitarian purposes. This process required months of indirect negotiations, careful sequencing, and political comfort on both sides. Although the agreement did not signal broader rapprochement, it emphasized the important point that diplomacy is possible even in deep hostility, provided there is a trusted mediator.
For Doha, such mediation is not an end in itself. This reflects a widespread belief that Iran’s nuclear issue, and U.S.-Iranian tensions more generally, cannot be managed sustainably through coercion alone. Qatar has consistently agreed that dialogue, rather than military action, is the only viable path to containing risks and preventing escalation. This position does not imply indifference to Iran’s regional actions or proliferation concerns. Rather, it reflects an assessment of the costs, uncertainties, and unintended consequences for regional security. Therefore, in the aftermath of Iran’s coordinated missile attack on Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base (a Qatari military facility housing US forces) launched in June 2025 in response to a US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Doha moved quickly to engage both sides and contain the crisis. Through urgent aid operations and established communication channels, Qatar contributed to broader efforts to support the fragile ceasefire that has been widely maintained since then, underscoring both its effective mediation capabilities and confidence in Qatari diplomacy.
A military conflict aimed at overthrowing the Iranian regime would almost certainly have repercussions far beyond Iran’s borders. Internally, such a scenario risks causing state collapse, fragmentation of authority, and repoliticization of ethnic and sectarian identities within large and highly complex societies. External spillovers could include large-scale refugee movements to neighboring countries, including the Gulf, and severe disruption to maritime security and energy markets. Taken together, these results will pose an immediate challenge for the Gulf states, whose domestic stability is closely tied to regional peace.
Recent developments in the region have already shifted the strategic balance. Since the October 7 attacks and the ensuing regional conflict, Iran’s network of non-state actors has been under continued pressure. Several elements of the “Axis of Resistance” have weakened militarily and politically, reducing the Iranian government’s ability to exert influence in specific theaters. At the same time, the US attack on Iran in June 2025 dispelled the lingering misconception that the US was prepared to attack Iran directly and reduce its nuclear enrichment capabilities.
However, from the Gulf countries’ perspective, further escalation would result in diminishing returns. Weakening Iran’s regional influence will not automatically lead to regional stability, especially if pursued through a strategy that risks state collapse. The priority for Gulf states is not to dramatically reshape Iran’s political system, but to avoid chaos that would be costly, unpredictable, and difficult to contain. This assessment is not limited to Doha. In recent years, Qatar’s position has increasingly aligned with that of Saudi Arabia and Oman, both of which have invested in easing tensions with Iran through dialogue and confidence-building measures. Their efforts to communicate the risk of military escalation to the Trump administration reflected a broader regional mood favoring containment and engagement over confrontation. This convergence is remarkable given the political differences that have historically separated the Gulf capitals.
Qatar’s mediation efforts provide an avenue to help prevent regional turmoil at a time when escalation has increasingly diminishing returns. Doha seeks to reduce the possibility of miscalculation by keeping channels open, encouraging limited agreements, and discouraging maximalist strategies. Such efforts rarely result in dramatic progress and are often invisible by design. But without them, escalation is likely to be more likely, not less.
In an increasingly polarized regional environment, the value of détente is often overlooked. There is a lack of clarity about deterrence and a sense of excitement about military action. Still, as Qatar’s engagement with Washington and Iran shows, diplomacy, however gradual and imperfect, remains one of the few tools that can prevent a crisis from spilling over into a broader conflict. In a region where the cost of war is shared far beyond the battlefield, its contribution should not be dismissed lightly.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
