When Israeli jets struck a residential compound in Doha last week, reportedly aiming at Hamas’s political leadership, the impact spread far beyond Qatar. The attack reignited old debates across the Arab and Islamic world.
Within days, leaders gathered in Doha. Their message was not only anger over the strike but also a renewed call to revisit an idea that has surfaced repeatedly over the years: a joint Arab military alliance, sometimes referred to as an “Arab NATO.”
This time, the conversation unfolded in the middle of a crisis. At the emergency summit, the proposal moved to the forefront. For some, the strike served as proof that Arab states need to stand together militarily. For others, it was a reminder of the divisions and rivalries that have kept such efforts from turning into anything more than words on paper.
Doha Summit: From Discussion To Potential Action
The Arab-Islamic summit opened in Doha on Sunday, and the question of a joint military alliance was at the center of the agenda.
Regional reports suggested that delegates were prepared to consider forming a combined military force, a move that, if it happens, would represent one of the most significant steps toward Arab military coordination in decades.
This push did not come out of nowhere. Just days before the Doha summit, Egypt and Saudi Arabia had secured Arab League approval for a joint security framework, giving the discussions a concrete foundation. The timing made the talks feel less like abstract debate and more like a possible turning point.
Egypt, with its large military, is positioning itself as the anchor for the alliance. Cairo is presenting itself as the natural center for any Arab NATO, a role that would strengthen its influence across the region.
Pakistan also made its presence felt. As the only Muslim majority country with nuclear weapons, Islamabad called for a joint task force to monitor what it described as “Israeli designs in the region” and to pursue coordinated deterrent measures.
At the opening session, Pakistan’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, went further, stating that “Israel must be held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
The rhetoric was sharp, and the urgency was clear. Whether the summit will produce concrete action beyond words, however, remains uncertain.
A Broader Security Agenda In Motion
Earlier this month, the Arab League approved plans for joint efforts on counterterrorism, maritime security, and protecting critical infrastructure. The idea was to boost regional stability without forming a standing military alliance.
The airstrike in Doha, however, changed the conversation. What had been framed as cooperative security now faces pressure to become something more permanent. Some governments argue the moment calls for deeper integration, while others worry that moving too quickly could backfire, turning a unifying initiative into a source of division.
The Political Paradox
The summit’s joint statement urged Arab and Muslim countries to review ties with Israel, explore economic and diplomatic measures, and even consider legal action.
But the reality is far more complex. Several countries at the table—including the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco—have formal diplomatic ties with Israel. For them, breaking or downgrading relations would undo years of careful diplomacy, including agreements like the Abraham Accords.
This is the core tension of the Arab NATO debate. Leaders speak of collective defense against Israel, yet many of them maintain embassies, trade agreements, and security contacts with Tel Aviv.
Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, said the strike put the whole region at risk and called for a collective response.
Washington, meanwhile, walked a careful line. Donald Trump described Qatar as “a great ally” while noting that Israel “has to do something about Hamas.” The statement highlighted the U.S. balancing act: supporting Israel without alienating Gulf partners.
The Irony Behind “Arab NATO” Push
There is a certain irony in the current push for an Arab NATO. Years ago, Washington and Tel Aviv quietly supported the idea. The goal then was straightforward: a bloc of Arab states working with Israel to balance against Iran.
Today, the concept is resurfacing, but the roles have flipped.
Arab leaders in Doha are discussing military coordination similar to what the US once encouraged, yet this time Israel is viewed not as a partner but as a potential threat. The summit ended with fiery statements, but the fundamental contradictions that have always haunted the idea remain unresolved.
Lessons From the Six-Day War
Whenever discussions about Arab military unity resurface, the shadow of history is hard to ignore. The Six-Day War of 1967 stands out as a stark reminder of the challenges Arab coalitions have faced—and often failed to overcome.
The story begins in 1948, with the creation of Israel and the first Arab-Israeli war. A coalition of Arab states moved to eliminate the new state, but Israel survived. The conflict ended with Israel losing some territory to Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, yet remaining firmly in place.
In 1956, Israel teamed up with Britain and France in the Suez Crisis, attacking Egypt, only to withdraw under pressure from the United States.
By the mid-1960s, tensions were rising again. Palestinian guerrilla attacks and clashes backed by Syria created a volatile environment.
Misinformation from Soviet sources about Israeli troop movements pushed Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to act. He deployed troops in the Sinai, expelled UN peacekeepers, blocked Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran, and signed a defense pact with Jordan.
Israel responded with a swift preemptive strike on June 5, 1967. Its air force destroyed most of Egypt’s aircraft on the ground and neutralized Jordanian and Syrian air power.
Within days, Israel had captured the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.
The war lasted only six days, but its consequences were far-reaching. Arab states were left reeling, and the idea of a united front quickly unraveled into blame and mistrust.
The Khartoum Resolution, later that August, summed up the mood with its “Three No’s”: no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations with Israel. The conflict not only redrew borders but also deepened divisions that still affect the region today.
For leaders meeting in Doha, this history is a clear warning. Every effort to forge a united Arab military front has faced the same obstacles: war, rivalry, and deep-seated mistrust. Time and again, those efforts have fallen short.
Can Arab NATO Work Without The United States?
Even if Arab states manage to overcome their longstanding rivalries, a bigger question remains: Can an Arab NATO succeed without Washington?
For decades, Gulf states have relied on the US as their ultimate security guarantor. But history shows that American support can be unpredictable.
In Vietnam, the US withdrew after years of backing South Vietnam. Within NATO, successive American presidents have signaled a willingness to scale back commitments if allies fall short on defense spending. Donald Trump even suggested that member states should spend five percent of their GDP on defense or risk losing US protection.
This uncertainty has ripple effects in the Middle East. Last week’s airstrikes in Doha only reinforced doubts about Washington’s reliability after US systems failed to prevent the attack. Even as officials sought to reassure Qatar about ongoing security ties, the incident clearly shook confidence.
Without US involvement, Arab states would face a tough challenge in building the military strength needed to deter major threats.
With Washington’s involvement, however, the alliance risks being shaped more by American priorities than the region’s own needs. That tension—between dependence and independence—is at the heart of the Arab NATO debate.
Why Arab NATO May Fail
At first glance, the idea of a unified Arab military alliance seems bold and promising. In reality, it faces hurdles that are hard to overcome.
The first problem is long-standing rivalries. Relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, or Egypt and Turkey are marked by deep mistrust.
Expecting these countries to share intelligence, coordinate troops, or operate under a single command structure is more wishful thinking than practical planning.
Pakistan’s potential role adds another layer of complexity. As a nuclear-armed state, its involvement would trigger caution among Arab partners and allies like Washington. Even the hint of nuclear considerations could slow or block meaningful cooperation.
There is also a significant gap between statements and action. The Doha summit featured strong rhetoric, but turning words into functioning institutions, joint command structures, and reliable commitments would take years. Historically, such sustained efforts have struggled to gain traction in the region.
For now, Arab states are likely to stick to smaller, practical steps. Coordinated counterterrorism operations, limited intelligence sharing, and joint maritime patrols are feasible and useful. They don’t amount to a NATO-style alliance, but they are realistic starting points.
The recent strike on Doha brought the idea of an Arab NATO back into the spotlight, but a catchy slogan cannot undo decades of rivalry, mistrust, and political contradictions. The summit in Doha gave the concept some momentum, but it also highlighted its weaknesses.
For an Arab NATO to work, member states would need unambiguous goals, real trust, and the ability to act without dependence on external powers. Today, none of these conditions exists.
- Shubhangi Palve is a defense and aerospace journalist. Before joining the EurAsian Times, she worked for ET Prime. She has over 15 years of extensive experience in the media industry, spanning print, electronic, and online domains.
- Contact the author at shubhapalve (at) gmail.com
