Follow us on social

Saudi-qatar-scaled

The blockade of Qatar has ended, but the Gulf rift persists

Air, sea and land access has been restored between Doha and its neighbors, but there are plenty of loose ends remaining.

Analysis | Middle East

When Emir Tamim al-Thani of Qatar landed in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to attend the 41st annual meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, he was greeted at his plane by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. While normally such a welcome from a hosting head of state would not draw headlines, it is extraordinary under the circumstances. Up until today the two men and their countries had been bitterly estranged. 

Tamim’s visit was preceded by an announcement Monday from Kuwait’s foreign minister that Saudi Arabia would lift the blockade of Qatar. The blockade had been in place since June 2017, when Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt ended all relations with Qatar and imposed what they referred to as a “boycott,” sealing off the border to Saudi Arabia, Qatar’s only land bridge, as well as much of the surrounding air space.

The announcement that Riyadh would reopen land, air, and sea links with Qatar signaled real progress in resolving the Gulf rift that has divided the GCC, with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain on one side, Qatar on the other, and Kuwait and Oman trying to remain neutral.

On Tuesday the countries signed a “Solidarity and Stability” agreement: the blockading countries will lift the blockade of Qatar, while Qatar will rescind lawsuits against Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain filed with the World Trade Organization. The countries also agree to end their media campaigns attacking each other.

Yet despite the warm reception Tamim received from MBS upon arriving, the Gulf rift is far from healed. The underlying sources of tension remain unresolved, and the mistrust and anger on both sides are likely to persist, due in part to three-and-a-half years of negative press and propaganda.

Two weeks after imposing the blockade in 2017, Saudi Arabia and its allies issued 13 demands, which in their extremity were seen as “designed for rejection.” Yet the demands did identify several real sources of concern, including Qatar’s ongoing relations with Iran — which the years of blockade only strengthened —  a Turkish military base in Qatar, and the usually strident criticism emanating from the Qatari network Al Jazeera (although the network has toned down its critique for the past several weeks, likely in anticipation of a potential resolution).

Qatar’s support for Islamist groups remains problematic in the eyes of the de facto ruler of the UAE, Mohammed bin Zayed, who views groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the main threats to the region. In contrast, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and MBS view Iran and the groups it assists, including the Houthi movement in Yemen, as a more significant source of danger than Sunni groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Therefore, the end of the blockade signals a degree of movement in the Saudi/Emirati calculus vis-à-vis the desirability of resolving the rift with Qatar. As recently as November, the influential Emirati ambassador to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba, had said that resolving the Qatar dispute “was not on anyone’s priority list.” In contrast, in early December, the Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan stated that an agreement with Qatar was “within reach.”

The latest developments also reflect expectations in the region about the incoming Biden administration. By normalizing relations with Israel in August, the UAE had already cemented its status on the list of America’s key regional partners, regardless of who won the U.S. presidential election.

In contrast, the Saudis expect to face political pressure from Biden, who has described Saudi Arabia as a “pariah,” and has committed to ending arms sales. By working to mend the rift with Qatar, the Saudis may hope to also convey their constructive utility as a regional partner, or perhaps deflect attention from their ongoing bombardment of Yemen. 

Saudi Arabia and the UAE initiated the blockade of Qatar two weeks after Trump visited Saudi Arabia during his first trip abroad as president in May 2017. Although the Trump administration had expressed interest in coordinating America’s Gulf partners against Iran as Trump prepared to leave the JCPOA, the Saudis and Emiratis pushed a narrative in which Qatar played an equally damaging role in sponsoring terrorism. 

An advisor to the UAE, George Nader, paid $2.5 million to a Trump fundraiser, Elliott Broidy, to help persuade Trump that Qatar was an enemy, despite Qatar hosting Al-Udeid, the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. Broidy used some of the funds on an anti-Qatar conference held by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish registered lobbying group in Washington, at which then-Representative Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at that time, announced legislation designating Qatar as a state sponsor of terrorism. These and other instances of political corruption were later revealed in the Mueller investigation.

Blindsided by the blockade and the apparent green light from the Trump administration, the Qataris launched a lobbying blitz, including the establishment of the Qatar-America Institute. In May of 2020, the QAI was required to register as a foreign agent after receiving $5 million from Qatar, and subsequently rebranded as the Qatar-America Institute for Culture. In general, the lobbyists for all three Gulf monarchies benefited significantly from Trump’s openness to monetary persuasion and eagerness to sell weapons. 

The incoming Biden administration will likely welcome the easing of tensions as one less foreign policy headache left behind by the Trump administration. Yet although Tamim and MBS may feel prepared to hug and make up, Biden should hold all the Gulf regimes responsible for ongoing abuses, most egregiously the Saudi war on Yemen, the imprisonment and torture of human rights activists by both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as Qatar’s mistreatment of migrant workers as it races to prepare for the 2022 World Cup. Indeed, Biden should consider the Saudi and Emirati leaders’ willingness to overlook their frustration with Qatar as primarily reflecting their determination to oppose his administration’s likely outreach to Iran. Due to the Trump administration’s extreme antipathy towards Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE felt they could concentrate on other grievances, like Qatar. Now faced with the possibility of the US rejoining the JCPOA, MBS and MBZ are effectively circling the wagons, trying to reunite the Arab Gulf states in order to refocus attention on the perceived threat from Tehran.


Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman welcomes Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani upon his arrival to attend the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) 41st Summit in Al-Ula, Saudi Arabia January 5, 2021. Bandar Algaloud/Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court/Handout/Reuters
Analysis | Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.