Follow us on social

170403-d-pb383-001-scaled

Kushner leaves Qatar blockade talks in the Middle East empty handed

Reports emerged of a possible breakthrough, but details were scant.

Analysis | Middle East

Jared Kushner returned to Washington, DC from what may be his last official trip to the Middle East after a short visit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in a last-ditch attempt to resolve at least a part of the Gulf crisis before the Trump administration leaves office in January.

Accompanied by Avi Berkowitz, the White House Special Representative for International Negotiations, and Brian Hook, who worked on reconciliation efforts during his recent stint at the State Department, Kushner met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Neom — site of the secret November 22 meeting between the Crown Prince, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- and Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha. 

In the aftermath of Kushner’s meeting with Emir Tamim on December 2, media outlets, including Bloomberg and Al Jazeera, reported that a preliminary agreement between Saudi Arabia and Qatar was imminent. Speculation also swirled on social media that Kuwait, which has sought to mediate throughout the Gulf crisis, might issue a statement on a “breakthrough.”

The reports suggested that the outlines of the deal focused on reopening Saudi airspace to Qatari air traffic and potentially reopening the Saudi-Qatar land border as well. Both measures would effectively have ended the blockade of Qatar launched on June 5, 2017 by a quartet of states including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt as well as Saudi Arabia, as Qatar would have regained air and land access closed for the past three and a half years.

And yet, no announcement of a deal, preliminary or not, to end or ease the Saudi part of the blockade of Qatar was made, as an eventual statement by Kuwait’s Foreign Minister on December 4 referred only to “fruitful discussions” and a “keenness” to reach an eventual agreement.

The statement provided no specific details and all parties, including the Saudis and the Qataris, are remaining very tight-lipped about Kushner’s visit. It’s possible that commitments are still being worked out. It’s also possible that any agreement on bilateral confidence-building measures or dispute resolution mechanisms simply will not be made public now, but instead given time and space to evolve. 

Officials may also be mindful of the acrimonious fallout from a Trump-coordinated September 2017 telephone call between the Qatari Emir and the Saudi Crown Prince, which ended up leaving the two countries farther apart in its aftermath. The upcoming Gulf Cooperation Council Summit, set to take place in Riyadh later in December, may provide a venue for further announcements, especially as the GCC now operates under a Kuwaiti Secretary-General.  

If Kushner is looking for reasons to be optimistic about ending a crisis that erupted on the Trump administration’s watch, he might note that the Saudis and Qataris are engaging bilaterally and that the maximalist 13 demands that the four blockading states tried to impose on Doha in 2017 have been replaced by a set of issues that can at least serve as a basis for negotiation.

The 2017 conditions included demands that Qatar shut Al Jazeera, sever diplomatic relations with Iran, pay reparations for unspecified damages to the blockading states, and submit to intrusive monitoring for 12 years to ensure compliance. The demands looked as though they were designed to be rejected, so as to justify the quartet’s contention that Qatar was uninterested in engaging with its neighbors.

Moreover, the fact that Saudi and Qatari officials have been engaging each other seems like a  surer pathway toward reconciliation than the unwieldy four-versus-one nature of the blockade, where diverging interests in reaching a settlement, especially from the harder-line UAE approach, come into play.

In addition, the optics from both sides have been cautiously optimistic, just as they were in a previous period of dialogue in November 2019, when hopes of a possible breakthrough were similarly raised. And yet on that occasion, initial progress did not ultimately result in a reconciliation agreement, just as weeks of quiet negotiation in July 2020 over lifting the airspace restrictions also failed to reach a deal. Some experts attributed the breakdown of the July talks to UAE reluctance to support a U.S.-backed Saudi-Qatar agreement. 

Abu Dhabi remains unwilling to engage with Qatar. Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s Ambassador to the U.S.,  on November 16 that reconciliation with Qatar was “not on anyone’s priority list.” Gaps have widened in recent weeks between the UAE and Saudi Arabia on a number of regional issues, including Yemen, oil policy in OPEC+, and relations with Turkey.

There are also signs that the personal relationship between Mohammed bin Salman and the UAE’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed may not be as close as it used to be. It may be to the Emiratis’ advantage to create an image of distance between themselves and the Saudis in the eyes of the incoming Biden administration and shift away from the assumption of the two countries moving in lockstep.

Regardless of what transpired behind closed doors in Kushner’s meetings, it has become apparent that diplomacy is not as easy as he thinks. He cannot simply fly in and seal a deal to end a crisis that has become deeply entrenched in the politics of the region. It will take a lot of time and sustained effort by all parties to rebuild ties of trust and confidence and any agreement will be the start of a longer process of reconciliation rather than an endpoint or a return to a pre-2017 status quo ante.

And while the Trump White House would like to claim another “success” in the Middle East before he leaves office, the decision to blockade Qatar in 2017 was rooted in the “alternative facts” free-for-all that marked the chaotic opening months of Trump’s presidency. It is proving far harder to pick up the pieces of a crisis that now looks set to be one of the many legacy issues that await President-elect Biden’s in-tray in January.


Jared Kushner, left, senior advisor to President Donald J. Trump, speaks with Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before leaving Ramstein Air Base, Germany, en route to Baghdad, April 3, 2017. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Dominique A. Pineiro
Analysis | Middle East
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.