When peacemakers become targets: How the attack on Qatar’s sovereignty endangers global diplomacy

Warfare and conflict are not new to human nature, yet they have been fundamentally reframed, restructured, and paradoxically rebranded in the 21st century, often justified as necessary means to achieve “peace.” This contradiction lies at the heart of our contemporary international system, where violence masquerades as peacemaking and diplomatic solutions are increasingly marginalised in favor of military theatrics and narrative warfare.

In our digital age, wars are no longer fought solely on traditional battlefields but through artificial intelligence algorithms and social media platforms, where the battle for public opinion can determine the legitimacy of entire conflicts. Social media has become the primary arena for narrative construction, capable of creating, dismantling, or systematically underplaying the roles of key diplomatic actors. When major outlets like The New York Times publish headlines such as “Israel and Iran Agree to Ceasefire Announced by Trump,” completely erasing Qatar’s central mediating role, we witness how media narratives can systematically erase the contributions of smaller nations to global peace processes.

The era of nation-states since the 19th century has proven more violent than the age of empires, or perhaps warfare has simply become more normalized, capitalized, and systematically advertised (Hobsbawm, 1990). Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined communities” (Anderson, 1983) takes on a darker meaning when we consider how nationalism has been weaponized to justify unprecedented destruction. Since the dawn of the modern nation-state model, all major world wars have been fought under the banner of “my nation against yours,” yet the ultimate beneficiaries remain the same: powerful warmongers, capitalist industrialists, and politicians who profit from perpetual conflict while ordinary people bear the costs.

READ: Iran launches missile attacks at US airbase in Qatar

The Middle East as a global battleground

From the end of the age of empires through colonialism to the current nation-state system, the Middle East has served as a battleground for wars waged not merely for regional interests, but as proxy conflicts for external powers exploiting the region’s resources and strategic position. This region—the cradle of civilizations and gateway to the world has become a testing ground for new forms of imperial violence disguised as humanitarian intervention (Said, 1978).

The end of World War II left the region with the last remnants of settler colonialism: Israel, a state that justifies its existence through religious ideology while operating as a modern colonial project (Wolfe, 2006). Since the Gaza genocide began in October 2023, Israel has systematically attacked multiple countries across the Middle East Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran—all under the pretext of “protecting their interests.” The United States has provided unwavering military, political, and discursive support without ever questioning Israel’s destabilizing role in regional security architecture.

What Edward Said termed “Orientalism” continues to manifest in how Western powers view the Middle East as a space where normal rules of sovereignty and international law do not apply. The region is simultaneously portrayed as inherently violent while being subjected to external violence that perpetuates this very instability.

Qatar’s exceptional diplomatic mission

Within this context of regional upheaval, the Gulf states represent a unique subregion of relative socio-political stability. Their wealth, strategic location, and vast natural resources make them critical players in global politics. Yet among these nations, Qatar one of the smallest states in the region has carved out an extraordinary role as the world’s primary peacebroker.

Qatar’s diplomatic achievements span multiple continents and conflicts. From mediating negotiations in Lebanon and facilitating dialogue on Ukraine, to orchestrating the complex prisoner exchanges in Afghanistan and serving as the primary mediator in Gaza ceasefire negotiations, Qatar has consistently provided neutral ground where adversaries can engage in meaningful dialogue. This role represents what Joseph Nye would call “soft power” at its most effective influence derived not from military might but from legitimacy, credibility, and trust-building capacity.

The Qatari model of diplomacy challenges traditional realist assumptions about international relations. Rather than relying on balance-of-power politics or military deterrence, Qatar has invested in what we might call “mediation capital”—the institutional capacity and international credibility necessary to serve as an honest broker in conflicts where other powers are too compromised by their own interests to facilitate genuine dialogue.

READ: French president says US attacks on Iran have ‘no legal basis’

The missile incident: An attack on diplomacy itself

Yesterday’s missile incident over Qatari airspace, while causing no physical harm, represents a profound breach of sovereignty with implications far beyond the immediate security concerns. This carefully orchestrated demonstration whether intended as warning, intimidation, or mere miscalculation strikes at the heart of what makes diplomatic mediation possible: the inviolability of neutral space.

The incident reveals a disturbing trend in contemporary international relations where even countries dedicated to peaceful conflict resolution are not immune from the spillover effects of great power competition. When escalating tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States manifest as violations of Qatari sovereignty, we witness the erosion of the very foundations upon which diplomatic mediation depends.

This attack on Qatar’s territorial integrity is simultaneously an attack on the principle of diplomatic immunity writ large. It demonstrates that in our current international system, no space is truly neutral, no mediator truly protected. The message is clear: even those who dedicate themselves to peace are not safe from the machinery of war.

The crisis of international institutions and narrative warfare

The Qatar incident illuminates a deeper crisis in international governance that extends beyond traditional diplomatic channels into the realm of information warfare. If diplomatic safe havens can be violated with impunity while media narratives simultaneously erase the contributions of peace mediators, what remains of the institutional architecture designed to prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully?

This dual assault physical and discursive represents a new form of systematic marginalisation. When Qatar successfully mediates complex negotiations between adversaries, yet headlines attribute success to other powers, we witness how contemporary conflicts are fought as much in the information space as on traditional battlefields. The systematic erasure of Qatar’s diplomatic contributions in international media reflects a broader pattern where smaller nations’ agency is denied even when their mediation proves essential to conflict resolution.

The United Nations, with its emphasis on sovereignty and peaceful dispute resolution, appears increasingly irrelevant when major powers can orchestrate missile demonstrations against mediating states without consequence while simultaneously controlling the narrative about who deserves credit for diplomatic breakthroughs. This dual marginalisation both physical and discursive—represents what Antonio Gramsci would recognise as a crisis of hegemony, where the dominant order can no longer maintain legitimacy through consent and increasingly relies on both coercion and narrative control (Gramsci, 1971).

READ: Israel’s ban on entry of medical supplies to Gaza, threatens lives of hundreds of newborns

Toward a new global order

As a political sociologist observing these developments from Qatar, I argue that we are witnessing the emergence of a new global order one where traditional power hierarchies are being challenged not through military might but through diplomatic innovation and moral authority. The Qatar model suggests that in an interconnected world facing transnational challenges, the capacity to mediate and build consensus may be more valuable than the ability to project force.

This shift has profound implications for how we understand sovereignty, security, and international legitimacy. Smaller nations like Qatar, traditionally considered peripheral to great power politics, may prove more relevant to addressing global challenges than the conventional superpowers whose zero-sum thinking perpetuates the very conflicts they claim to solve.

The international community faces a critical choice: continue down the path of militarized competition that treats diplomatic mediators as expendable, or recognize that in an era of global interconnectedness, the capacity for peaceful conflict resolution represents the most valuable form of power. Qatar’s unique position as a trusted mediator makes it not just relevant but essential to any sustainable global order.

Conclusion: Protecting the spaces for peace

The world cannot afford to lose Qatar’s diplomatic capabilities to the crossfire of great power competition. Protecting Qatar’s sovereignty is not merely about defending one nation’s territorial integrity it is about preserving the institutional and physical spaces where peace remains possible through dialogue rather than force.

If we allow the current trajectory to continue, where even peace mediators become targets in orchestrated displays of power, we risk eliminating the very mechanisms through which conflicts can be resolved without devastating human cost. The Qatar incident should serve as a wake-up call: in our rush toward a new global order, we must ensure that diplomacy and peaceful mediation are strengthened, not sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical theater.

The choice before us is clear we can continue to normalise violence disguised as peacemaking while allowing media narratives to erase the contributions of genuine peace mediators, or we can recognise that true security in the 21st century requires both protecting those who dedicate themselves to diplomatic mediation and ensuring their contributions receive proper recognition in global discourse. Qatar’s mission is not just about one nation’s foreign policy; it is about preserving the possibility of peace itself in an increasingly militarised and media-manipulated world.

Part of honoring Qatar’s role means challenging the systematic narrative erasure that denies smaller nations agency in shaping global peace. When diplomatic breakthroughs occur through Qatari mediation yet are attributed to other powers in international headlines, we witness how information warfare can be as damaging to diplomatic institutions as physical attacks on sovereignty. Protecting the spaces for peace requires not only physical security but also narrative justice ensuring that those who do the patient work of mediation receive recognition for their contributions to global stability.

READ: Israel threatens to assassinate Khamenei if he does not agree to a ceasefire on its terms

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.