Connect with us

Middle East

Qatar, a small country but a big player

Published

on

Qatar is a small country on the Persian Gulf – it has neither a large population nor a vast land. Despite the fact that a large population and the size of the land are traditionally considered the main criteria for measuring the power of governments, but Qatar is totally different. Qatar’s population is estimated at over 2.8 million people, and the land has a total area of 11,610 km. But it is worth mentioning that there are other small countries with less population that were able to emerge as regional and sometimes international powers. Among them are the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and Singapore which are small and sparsely populated countries but have a lot of political and economic power. Qatar is also on the same page and has been able to maintain power while having no large population and vast territory. Qatar has been considered small compared to many countries in the Middle East.

However, these small countries, including Qatar, play roles in the region and the world that large and vast governments are incapable of doing so. The roles that Qatar is taking on today and playing well should have been played by Saudi Arabia, Iran and other countries, which are considered as the great powers in the Middle East. Qatar had just hosted the World Cup and it also hosts hostile groups and countries to mediate between them to end their hostilities. Doha also hosts meetings that are launched to address major human crises. The latest example is the organization of a meeting led by the Secretary General of the United Nations regarding the Afghanistan crisis.

The question that is raised about Qatar is, what factors have caused this small country to become a big player in the region and the world? Here we try to explore some factors that caused Qatar to become a powerful country.

Qatar believes and uses soft power

One of the factors that have brought Qatar to the stage of being the most trusted partner to the world, can be found in this country’ successful use of soft power.

The big countries always want to use a carrot and stick approach to resolve an issue, and if a big country wants to force a small country to change its behavior, it either threatens it with military force or considers economic restrictions.

But soft power is the opposite of “hard” power. Soft power emphasizes more on culture, value, norm and procedure, which is what Qatar is doing today.

Soft power does not deal with coercion; That is, it can be said that it is a kind of non-coercive force that relies on persuasion and satisfaction. At the same time, the expansion of the phenomenon of globalization and the information and media revolution has made soft power more visible. The use of soft power has given small countries the opportunity not to accept every legal/illegal demands of the bigger countries.

For that cause, Qatar has resorted to the use of soft power in order to keep herself away from the danger of the influence of rival neighbors.

The power of media

Indeed, the media outlets are considered as the most important, simple and effective means of spreading soft power. Qatar has used this tool well so far. Qatar uses Al-Jazeera, a big, famous and spectacular media to benefit its country.

Al Jazeera has been able to spread Qatar’s soft influence not only in the region, but also in the world. Today, this media has become one of the biggest international media and has many branches all over the world.

Two factors have contributed to the growth of this media – one is that it had a critical view of the situation in the Arab world. Before, there was no reliable media in the Arab countries and if it existed, it would serve the rulers, not the people.

But Al Jazeera broke the tradition of the ruling media and criticized the rulers and political systems ruling the Arab countries.

Second, Al Jazeera did well in critical coverage of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and also the Arab Spring in 2011. It also had a critical view of the US military attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, which was able to direct public opinion in the Islamic world towards supporting this media.

Similarly, it has repeatedly reflected the killing of Palestinians by the Israeli army with a critical view and emphasis on the Arab-Islamic identity.

The establishment of Al Jazeera and its unflinching support has helped Qatar to expand its soft power while no other Arab countries owned any media outlet instead hell-bent on its suppression.

Sports, another key soft power

Sports and the latest launch of the football world cup are another means of expanding soft power that Qatar has the capacity to use. Important to mention that Qatar pays special attention to sports, especially football, as a major global game, and welcomes the launch of sports competitions in different forms.

Football cannot be called only a sport in today’s world. It is true that football is a kind of sport, but it is a sport whose value cannot be denied in the political relations of the world.

It is difficult to separate between sports and politics, especially football. This difficulty is either due to the influence of politics on sports or sports on politics.

It can be said that football has gone beyond the field of sports and has surrounded the field of politics as well. Countries try to use sports for the benefit of politics. Any country that shines in the field of sports also affects its brilliance in the field of politics. For example, consider holding the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Qatar proved to be a good host for launching such big tournaments. It was the first time that the World Cup was held in an Arab country and Qatar’s brilliant hosting shocked the countries of the region.

The public opinion across the world was more on Qatar as a host country rather than the winner and loser of this big tournament.

Less population

Interestingly, Qatar’s small population has been more of an advantage than a disadvantage. It is true that a large population can demonstrate the “hard” power of a government, but if the proportion between large population and economic growth is not established, it becomes an “Achilles’ heel” that can lead to the downfall. But in regards to China, it is a different story with its number one population in the world. Top secret of China’s success lies in its ability to balance a large population with economic growth.

The advantage of Qatar is that it has a small population, low diversity, but high accumulation of wealth. High population is not compatible with low accumulation of wealth and if the population grows it does not fit the society and will lead to the government’s failure to provide adequate services to the people and provide economic welfare. It was difficult for Qatar to deal with a population existing in Iraq and Lebanon.

Worth mentioning that less population and low diversity have caused Qatar to effectively use its natural resources, including oil and gas.

It has been said that Qatar ranks third in gas exports after Russia and Iran and thirteenth in oil exports in the world.

Meanwhile, there is general satisfaction with the ruling political system in Qatar. This satisfaction is owed to the government’s success in providing economic welfare for the citizens.

Another important point about Qatar is that it has no internal rifts and that’s why it focuses more on world issues. As can be seen, Qatar is less concerned with domestic issues and spends most of its energy on foreign affairs.

Qatar opens office for Taliban

In 2013, Qatar established an office for the Taliban, the current ruler of Afghanistan. Taliban returned to power in15 August 2021 after the hasty withdrawal of foreign troops.

Taliban still maintains its office in Doha, and is busy carrying out political activities, including meetings with top foreign diplomats. The Taliban and the US also signed the Doha agreement under which a republic system in Afghanistan which was supported by the US and western countries in the past 20 years has collapsed and its army has been disintegrated.

Qatar, for many years, hosted talks between Taliban members and US delegation to negotiate over safe withdrawal with foreign troops from Afghanistan.

Qatar had also hosted delegations of the Taliban and the previous government of Afghanistan as part of peace talks.

Success in holding political talks as well as sports events and interaction with the countries of the region has been able to increase Qatar’s role-playing power.

Despite the fact that this country is at odds with some of its neighbors and countries in the region, it has never stopped interaction with them and didn’t let these difference become larger.

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.

According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.

The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.

The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.

In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.

At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.

The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.

Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion

The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.

Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.

At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.

The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.

In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.

In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.

In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.

The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.

The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.

As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.

For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.

In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.

The report listed several additional limitations:

Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.

Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.

No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.

Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.

Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.

No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.

Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.

Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.

Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.

The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.

US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.

According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.

US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal

According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.

US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.

The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.

Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.

Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement

An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.

During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.

Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.

In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.

Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.

Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.

The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.

In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.

Negotiations to continue in Switzerland

According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.

A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.

According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.

The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.

In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey