Diplomacy in the Spotlight
Imagine world leaders gathering in Doha’s grand halls, promising dialogue and peace amid global unrest.
The Doha Forum 2025, held December 6-7, billed itself as a platform for justice, international cooperation, and mediation in a fractured world. Sessions ranged from combating Islamophobia to promoting cultural exchange, presenting Qatar as a neutral bridge between divides. For many observers - academics, policymakers, or informed citizens - it may have seemed an encouraging example of diplomacy in action.
Intelligence agencies like the CIA, MI6, and India’s RAW view forums such as the Doha Forum with cautious eyes, and for good reason. Historical and geopolitical realities shape their perspective. In this article, I explain that caution, showing how cultural narratives and identity politics are used strategically, and why Gulf states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia engage groups the West labels as terrorists as essential political partners. This perceptual gap explains the intelligence community’s wary approach to such diplomacy.
Gulf Tactics and Media Spin
Qatar uses the forum to amplify its soft power, promoting cultural heritage, anti-prejudice initiatives, and dialogue framed as fostering understanding. Issues like Islamophobia are often presented as cultural bias rather than legitimate critique. Meanwhile, Qatar’s media outlets, especially Al Jazeera, have been accused by Western and Indian intelligence sources of promoting narratives sympathetic to groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Documents exposing Hamas’ financial coordination with Qatar highlight the real-world implications of this cultural diplomacy.
From the Gulf perspective, organizations such as Hamas represent significant segments of Muslim public opinion in regions affected by colonialism and conflict. They are often seen as necessary partners for stabilization through dialogue rather than merely as violent actors. Qatar has hosted Hamas leaders to mediate ceasefires in Gaza, arguing that exclusion risks perpetuating instability.
Saudi Arabia engages with various factions pragmatically, despite officially designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. At Doha 2025, Saudi Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Manal Radwan claimed that Palestinian leadership has reformed over the last 30 years, emphasizing the need for Israeli reforms instead. However, this statement contrasts with Riyadh’s ongoing security measures against Brotherhood affiliates and Hamas supporters, reflecting a nuanced political strategy rather than unequivocal endorsement.
Qatar’s Prime Minister’s candid discussion with commentator Tucker Carlson, himself a controversial figure known for challenging mainstream Western narratives, highlighted Qatar’s claims of impartial mediation amid recent Israeli attacks. These intersections of contested voices deepen intelligence skepticism about the narratives presented.
The Doha Forum deliberately targets Western public opinion by featuring figures like Tucker Carlson, who amplify Qatar’s messages critiquing U.S. and Israeli policies while framing Hamas ties as pragmatic mediation efforts. This strategy gives Qatar’s narrative particular appeal among U.S. skeptics and conservative audiences, blending polished diplomatic discourse with more provocative voices.
For intelligence agencies, the risk is that such campaigns impart a sanitized version of complex realities, downplaying allegations of Qatar’s material support for groups deemed terrorist by Western governments.
Past Precedents, Present Risks
This skepticism is not new. During the Cold War, the CIA covertly supported cultural initiatives like the Congress for Cultural Freedom to influence perceptions under the guise of artistic exchange, while the Soviet bloc viewed these as propaganda tools. Similar dynamics played out at the 1955 Bandung Conference, where Cold War powers approached cultural solidarity efforts with caution. More recent examples include the 2001 Durban Conference, which devolved into contentious debates over Zionism and racism, and China’s Confucius Institutes, criticized for masking state influence as cultural education. These historical parallels illustrate how cultural forums can become arenas for competing narratives and conflicting threat perceptions.
Qatar’s substantial investments in Western academia and high-profile events like the 2022 World Cup underscore how cultural narratives can infiltrate public discourse, often glossing over human rights tensions and strategic alignments. For readers, from students and analysts to policymakers, these forums shape perceptions of jihadist groups like Hamas, presenting a sanitized version that portrays violent ideologies as mere political voices essential for “stabilization.” This framing downplays explicit calls for jihad against Western interests, as seen in Hamas charters and actions targeting Europe, the U.S., and Israel.
Accepting this polished narrative risks eroding Western security by normalizing threats under the guise of cultural relativism. It weakens defenses against attacks on democratic freedoms and alliances. Public opinion swayed by viral clips or academic funding can foster complacency, emboldening extremists while undermining vigilance over the funding trails that sustain violence.
True dialogue demands exposing omissions. Does “representation” justify arming jihadist agendas? Scrutinizing these narratives is essential to safeguarding interests.
