AhlulBayt News Agency: The brutal recent attack by the Zionist regime on the headquarters of Hamas leaders in Doha has sparked multiple reactions internationally, especially among Arab states. The regime’s threats against Qatar—and notably the statement by the Speaker of Israel’s Knesset that the attack conveyed a message to all Middle Eastern countries—have been met with diverse interpretations.
Meanwhile, Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency recently reached an agreement to set a framework for cooperation, a development welcomed by regional and global actors, who described it as a step toward reducing tensions.
In an interview with ABNA News Agency, Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and military affairs expert, responded to questions analyzing such developments and outlining prospects for the next stage.
ABNA: Considering that Qatar is a U.S. ally and that the United States maintains a military base there—obliging Washington, in a sense, to support Doha against foreign attacks—how did the U.S. allow Israel to carry out this strike? How is such a green light interpreted under international law?
Ritter: First of all, as far as I know, there is no formal treaty between Qatar and the United States. There is a Status of Forces Agreement that defines the role of the Al Udeid base and the coordination between the United States and Qatar in this regard and in other matters. But when it comes to the United States being obligated to defend Qatar against any foreign attack, I do not believe such a formal treaty exists.
It can be said that this agreement reflects an understanding of mutual self-defense and similar provisions. But in any case, Qatar is an independent country, and the United States has neither the authority nor the legitimacy to give a green light to another party, such as Israel, to attack Qatar.
Therefore, this was a decision made between the United States and Israel without coordination with Qatar, and it constitutes a violation of international law. This strike, in the true sense of the word, was an attack on Qatar, a breach of the United Nations Charter, and under international law, there is no justification for it.
ABNA: By disregarding all international laws and regulations, Israel has shown that it recognizes no red lines. First, what message did the attack on Qatar send to Arab states? And second, what impact will it have on America’s international image?
Ritter: Israel has a history of violating international laws and norms. Its surprise attack against Iran was a violation of international law. Israel’s ongoing military operations against Lebanon, against Syria, and against Yemen are all violations of international law. There are no red lines for Israel. This is an established pattern. Therefore, the message sent through this attack on Qatar—and to other Arab countries—is that Israel will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants. This is what Israel does.
In fact, one reason Israel continues to avoid accountability for such behavior is that Arab states have shown themselves, both individually and collectively, incapable of standing up to it.
As for the impact on America’s international image, the United States has once again demonstrated that its national security policy is entirely subordinate to Israel and its interests. The strike on Qatar is no different from countless other Israeli military operations over the years carried out with Washington’s full knowledge and support.
The attack on Qatar is no different from any other military operation Israel has carried out over the years with the full knowledge and support of the United States.
America’s image in the aftermath of this attack will remain unchanged: a country that blindly backs Israel, regardless of international law, norms, or basic human values.
ABNA: Given that regional developments are interconnected, how do you assess the impact of Israel’s recent attacks against Doha on rising tensions and the likelihood of a new confrontation involving other countries such as Egypt or Turkey?
Ritter: The attack on Qatar should not be seen as an isolated incident; rather, it is part of a broader pattern of behavior that Israel, with U.S. backing, has pursued for decades. While the strike on Qatar does inflame tensions, history suggests there will be no new confrontation with other countries such as Egypt, Turkey, or Iran. No state is going to step in to defend another.
In the wake of this attack, there will be plenty of posturing and loud rhetoric, but ultimately nothing will happen—because the United States supported this strike. And nothing can be done against Israel unless Washington is part of it, and in this case, the U.S. stands fully and unequivocally with Israel.
In the wake of this attack, there will be plenty of posturing and loud rhetoric, but ultimately nothing will happen—because the United States supported this strike. And nothing can be done against Israel unless Washington is part of it, and in this case, the U.S. stands fully and unequivocally with Israel.
ABNA: How do you assess the new agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? Could this deal prevent the snapback mechanism from being triggered and pave the way for the U.S. and Iran to return to the negotiating table?
Ritter: The reality is that Iran needed to reach an agreement with the IAEA. Iran currently enjoys the support of countries like China, Russia, and others, which are aware of the IAEA’s missteps in facilitating the Israeli and U.S. strike. At the same time, there is an understanding that Iran must remain a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This can only be operationalized if Iran and the IAEA maintain a working relationship regarding the safeguard obligations Iran has as an NPT member.
So, this agreement is a necessary step. I believe it also prevents Europe and the United States from re-imposing sanctions—regardless of whether it ultimately facilitates the return of Iran and the U.S. to the negotiating table. The question of whether Iran and the U.S. will resume talks is an entirely separate issue. The United States acted in bad faith and used the negotiations as a pretext to lay the groundwork for Israel’s surprise strike against Iran.
Another point is: what would they even negotiate? Iran’s position, grounded in international law and its status as an NPT member, conflicts with the views of Israel and the United States. For this reason, I am not optimistic about any meaningful negotiations. However, it is essential for Iran to restore its relations with the IAEA, because through this channel it can avoid being encircled—not only by its adversaries but even by its allies.
.....................
End/ 257
Your Comment