How Qatar defused Iran's attack on the largest US-run base in the region
Top Qatari officials had been meeting with the country's prime minister on Monday afternoon to find ways of de-escalating a conflict between Iran and Israel, when defense ministry personnel called to warn of incoming Iranian missiles.
The attack, the first on the Gulf, caught them by surprise, according to Qatar's foreign ministry spokesperson Majed Al-Ansari, who recalls feeling the prime minister's residence shake with the interceptions that quickly followed overhead.
Unease had gripped the Gulf Arab states that morning. The glitzy, oil-rich capitals feared a worst-case scenario: an Iranian missile strike shattering their image of stability after 12 days of war between Israel and Iran, which had culminated in a series of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Bahrain, where the US Naval Command is located, told residents not to use main roads and Kuwait, which hosts several US military bases, activated shelters in ministerial complexes. In nearby Dubai and Abu Dhabi, some residents were booking early flights out and others stocking up on supplies.
In Doha, nervous residents were on high alert. US and UK citizens in the country had been told to seek shelter and American military personnel had been evacuated from the US-run Al Udeid Base.
Qatar's early warning military radar system, one of the most advanced in the region, and intelligence gathered indicated that Iranian missile batteries had moved toward Qatar earlier that day, the spokesperson said – but nothing was certain until shortly before the strikes.
'It could've been misdirected to lead us away from the actual target. There was still a lot of targets in the region…but towards the end it was very clear, their missile systems were hot and we had a very clear idea an hour before the attack, Al Udeid Base was going to be targeted,' a Qatari official with knowledge of defense operations said.
Around 7 p.m. local time, Qatari officials were informed by their military that Iran's missiles were airborne and heading towards Al Udeid base, Al-Ansari said.
Qatar's armed forces deployed 300 service members and activated multiple Qatari Patriot anti-air missile batteries across two sites to counter the 19 Iranian missiles roaring toward the country, according to Al-Ansari. US President Donald Trump has said that 14 missiles were fired from Iran.
Qatari forces coordinated closely with the US, but the operation was 'Qatari led,' Al- Ansari told CNN.
Seven missiles were intercepted over the Persian Gulf before reaching Qatari soil, he said. Another 11 were intercepted over Doha without causing damage and one landed in an uninhibited area of the base causing minimal damage.
According to Trump, Iran had given the US early notice ahead of the attack. While Doha received intel from Washington, it did not receive any warning directly from the Iranians, according to Al-Ansari – though officials were well aware that the US bases in the region could be targeted.
'The Iranians told us months ago … if there was an attack by the US on Iranian soil that would make bases hosting American forces in the region legitimate targets,' Al-Ansari said.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that warning was reiterated to his Gulf counterparts in an Istanbul meeting a day before Iranian strikes on Qatar.
Iran's National Security Council said after the intercepted attack that its strikes had posed 'no dangerous aspect to our friendly and brotherly country of Qatar and its noble people.'
Still, Al-Ansari rejects speculation that Qatar – given its working relationship with Tehran – might have given a greenlight for the strikes in order to create an off-ramp for regional escalation.
'We do not take it lightly for our country to be attacked by missiles from any side and we would never do that as part of political posturing or a game in the region,' he said.
'We would not put our people in the line of danger. I would not put my daughter under missiles coming from the sky just to come out with a political outcome. This was a complete surprise to us,' Ansari said.
In the moments after the attack, Trump called Qatar's Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani telling him the Israelis were willing to agree to a ceasefire and asked him to do the same for the Iranians, according to Al-Ansari.
'As we were discussing how to retaliate to this attack … this is when we get a call from the United States that a possible ceasefire, a possible avenue to regional security had opened,' Ansari said.
Doha's role as mediator quickly became key in the aftermath of the strikes. Qatar's chief negotiator Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Al-Khulaifi spoke to the Iranians while the Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani was speaking to US Vice President JD Vance. Soon, 'we were able to secure a deal,' Al-Ansaris says – and in the nick of time.
'All options were on the table that night … we could have immediately retaliated or pulled back and say we're not talking to a country that sent 19 missiles our way. But we also realized that was a moment that could create momentum for peace in a region that hasn't been there for two years now,' Ansari said.
Shortly after, Trump declared on social media that a ceasefire between Iran and Israel had been brokered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The '12-Day War,' World War III, and how we describe what's happening in Iran
President Donald Trump wants to call the most recent round of fighting between Iran and Israel the "12-Day War," but he may not get his wish. That's because journalists and historians are usually the ones who put names on wars, and they often don't choose the titles that government officials put on them. It's even less likely that the conflict could be named World War III, even though Trump has been warning about it for more than a decade, and even told the leader of Ukraine this year he was risking starting it. 'There's no official naming body, international or national,' said David Sibley, a military historian for Cornell University who is based in Washington, D.C. 'It's really just kind of agreed on by historians, by countries, and sometimes not even that.' USA TODAY interviewed experts on international relations and military history to talk about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, said the most recent fighting between Iran and Israel marks a "historic turning point in the Middle East,' comparable to the Six-Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Trump's suggested title might be a way to invoke 1967, "where Israelis used a preemptive airstrike to defeat the Arab countries around them," Sibley said. Israel emerged politically stronger and with more land. 'It certainly would invoke that in Israel and in the Middle East," Sibley said. "It certainly has that sort of pithiness that is appealing, and so it would be interesting to see. I don't know. It might stick." On June 26 and June 27, the news wire Reuters used the phrase '12-day war' to describe the sparring between the two countries earlier in the month, but not as the official name of the war, which would have a capitalized the "D" and "W." USA TODAY has used the term in quotation marks. Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the attacks between Iran and Israel amounted to a war at all, or just a flare-up of a long-simmering conflict the countries have engaged in for decades. He pointed to airstrikes between Iran and Israel in March, predating the most recent conflict that led the United States to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 'Does that shift the start date to the left, so it is now longer (than) 12 Days?' he asked. Peter Singer, a political scientist and author specializing in 21st-century warfare, said if Trump wants the name to catch on, he needs "better marketing." Graphic: How 70 years of history led to the U.S. bombing in Iran Even if the the name a president or military leader catches on, names catches on, journalists and historians may change them over time. 'WWI was commonly called the Great War until the media needed to name its successor,' said Don Ritchie, a former Senate historian. 'Historians are usually writing long after the fact and follow the common usage.' Wayne Lee, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points to the usage by President George H.W. Bush's administration of 'Operation Desert Shield" and 'Operation Desert Storm' to describe early 1990s conflicts in the Middle East. Most people refer to those conflicts as the Gulf War, the First Gulf War, or the Persian Gulf War. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his administration named it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' but most people call it the Iraq War. 'Sometimes even the names of wars aren't agreed on,' said Sibley, from Cornell. 'What we call the American Civil War, it depends on where you are what you call it − 'The War Between the States,' 'The War of Northern Aggression,' things like that.' When the U.S. bombed Iran on June 21, Americans grew anxious that World War III had started. Experts caution against declaring armed conflicts worldwide "world war." 'I would be really surprised if this morphed into something that looks anything like the past world wars we've had,' said Will Todman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'But that does not mean peace is likely around the world. … I just don't think those will all be connected in the same way it was in World War I or World War II.' Russia has been at war with Ukraine for more than three years, at times threatening to use nuclear weapons but never following through. Experts said tensions between North Korea and South Korea could escalate. Or they said China, another nuclear country, could invade Taiwan. 'Forces were fighting just about everywhere around the globe,' during both world wars, Sibley said. 'So even a conflict in the Middle East between two sets of alliances, I don't know that that would rise to the level. I don't know. It retroactively could be labeled that if it gets bad enough.' Sibley said nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to attack, because countries fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." Sibley said countries tend to be more cautious about invading or attacking nuclear powers because they fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." 'Post-1945, the assumption has been that World War III is going to be a nuclear one,' Sibley said. 'And, so, short of that, it's hard to see something getting that label.' Singer pointed to the massive casualties from world wars, numbers that the world has not seen in several of the most recent conflicts combined. "As many as 22 million people died in World War I and 85 million people in World War II,' he said. 'Stop trying to make World War III happen.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Why Trump won't be the one to name the war in Iran
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
South Korea says seeking extension to US 90-day tariff pause
SEJONG, South Korea (Reuters) -South Korea will seek an extension to the 90-day pause in U.S. tariffs that is set to expire next week, as negotiations are likely to continue past the deadline set between Seoul and Washington, a senior South Korean trade official said on Monday. South Korea's new administration held its first senior-level trade talks with the U.S. last week, and a third round of working-level technical discussions since the two countries agreed in late April to craft a trade package reducing U.S. tariffs before the U.S. 90-day pause ends on July 9. "It seems some countries will reach a deal by July 8, some might be granted an extension to continue negotiations, while others will decide if they want to continue negotiating under tariffs or not," the official told a briefing. "We will do our best to be granted by July 8 an extension to continue negotiations," the official said, adding that the U.S. is expected to make a decision on a further extension on the day. During the talks last week, the U.S. mainly raised issues related to South Korea's non-tariff barriers, as South Korea already imposes nearly zero tariffs on U.S. imports under a free trade agreement, the official said. Other issues of foreign exchange rates and defence costs are being discussed via separate channels, the official said. Some 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as a deterrence to North Korea and U.S. President Donald Trump has often complained about the cost-sharing arrangement. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Dubai Property More Affordable Than London, New York
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Now turning to the UAE, because despite its record of managing to thrive during global instability, the Iran Israel confrontation does pose one of the most stringent tests yet for the countries neutral and open for business stance. We can get more on this with Clementine Monaro, whose House and House sales director. Clementine, it's really good to have you with me. Thank you so much for stopping in. This conflict, I feel must have been the first time for a whole generation of ex-pats that they've been exposed to the risks in the Middle East, particularly when you had those strikes on the US airbase in Qatar. Do you think that it's going to have a lasting impact on sentiment in the region of people living here and moving here? Investment sentiment as well, that for the first time they've had to really think about their safety? I think last week certainly there were some uncomfortable conversations that we were having, both as management, how do we empower our team to have conversations with buyers and sellers? But the reality is when there is geopolitical instability in the region, it only makes Dubai look safer. Yeah, and anecdotally, house and House Holiday Homes Department had a huge increase in Iranians seeking shelter in Dubai. Okay, that's really interesting. So Dubai is seen as a safe haven and that continues. Maybe this is even beneficial. What's been driving Dubai's continued price growth then? This has been the underlying trend, even amid the global headwinds, even amid the, say, for dollar soft dollar as well. I think Dubai is just an incredibly safe place to want to be. The Times reports at 16 and a half thousand millionaires have left the UK and 9800 of those have landed into Dubai. And I think what that is talking of is just brilliant infrastructure. The ease of doing business here just is seen as a really safe place to come. We mentioned the UK. I wonder with my UK correspondent hat on how much that's to do with Dubai benefiting from the Labour government in the UK dismantling the non-dom regime? Absolutely. But that's definitely what we're seeing. And even just the education now here has really caught up health care. I think people, even with things like the private school fees, VAT that went on, still much cheaper to educate your children here and yet arguably you're getting the similar quality of education. And so you're forecasting for that trend to continue. We are okay because that's a real worry for the Chancellor if more than one in four non-dom actually leave the UK. So that's really interesting. And then how does Dubai actually stack up globally when it comes to value and investor appeal? Because of course there are lots of cities where the non-dom is, but other rich and mobile people could go nuts. It Dubai is still so affordable to buy blends out an average of $418 per square foot. If you look, that's nearly half of Paris, which is $700 per square foot. And then London, 1400 dollars a square foot. New York, 1650, Singapore topping out at 1750. So it's almost four times cheaper to live in Dubai than it is in London. And that's not including the fact that you're also not paying tax on your income here. And is it the luxury segment that's driving things or is it also the mass segment? And how does it pan out? I mean, those are those numbers are over a blended average. But what we are seeing is that the mid level has been pretty buoyant, although with the supply that's coming in the next couple of years. That's a segment to watch. But the prime segment is absolutely flying.
