The US only established Al Udeid in 1996.

Iran on the other hand protected the Thani family during the failed 1996 countercoup, as well as collaborated with Qatar on extracting LNG from the Gulf.

In the real world, countries compartamentalize relations and are not binary in nature.

This is how India can both arm Israel [0] as well as transit Hormuz with Iranian backing [1] and continue to operate Chabahar Port [2] despite neighboring Konarak Port being hit [3].

When countries break this norm of compartmentalization, that is when they become actively belligerent.

Also, by this logic (which is flawed), we would be justified in striking Iran, as Iran has aided and abetted Russia in their war against Ukraine, thus Iran can arguably be treated as another front of the larger US-Russia and by extension US-China conflict.

[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2024/6/26/india-expor...

[1] - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-among-five-nati...

[2] - https://www.financialexpress.com/policy/economy/no-damage-to...

[3] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxzzkkkwjqo

▲

mullingitover 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I realize Qatar is in an "it's complicated" relationship, it's just amusing to me that people feign shock that Iran would consider them fair game while omitting the detail of them kinda being a client state hosting a huge US military base.

▲

alephnerd 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The thing is, if we accept the norms that Qatar can be targeted for kinetic action by Iran for hosting US assets or by the US for hosting Iranian assets, then that opens a MASSIVE can of worms.

This means Ukraine has the precedent in place to target the Chongqing–Xinjiang–Europe railway in Russia in retaliation for Chinese support of Russia [0].

This also means all of Europe is fair game to be striked by Russia in retaliation for supporting Ukraine [2].

This also means South Korea considering rearming Ukraine [4] due to North Korean involvement in the Ukraine War could make it a direct belligerent against Russia.

This is why sentiments hardened globally and especially amongst Gulf States once they were targeted by Iran.

Accepting that nations like Qatar, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan that have an avowed policy of compartmentalized relations are fair game to strike means we have to accept we are in a de facto World War.

The attempted strike on Diego Garcia was similarly destabilizing in it's implications [5]

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing%E2%80%93Xinjiang%E2%...

[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/10/zelenskyy-warns-ru...

[2] - https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/eu-s...

[3] - https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-saudi-arabia-mbs-gulf-...

[4] - https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20260220/korea-m...

[5] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47469049

▲

maxglute 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no can of worms.

Hosting US assets actively being used in war vs Iran = being active co-belligerents. Host countries no longer neutral when they don't adhere to duty of abstention (Hague Convention V). This not even Iran using deniable proxies, this is Qatar allowing sovereign territory to facilitate attack on Iran, which unambiguously makes them legitimate target. Ditto with Diego Garcia.

In the same way railway in RU already legitimate target for UKR because in RU soil. If EU sending out sorties from NATO bases to hit RU then they too would be active belligerents. There's no compartmentalizing using territory to shoot someone else.

▲

alephnerd 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The norms of compartmentalization I have mentioned are orthogonal to The Hague conventions and frankly they do not matter in a world which has de facto moved away from being rules based.

Additonally, by that logic it is acceptable for Ukraine to conduct kinetic action against Chinese assets in Russia, which they have held back against despite Chinese support for the Russian MIC.

Also, I told you years ago to not chat with me on this platform. We do not align and I have found it tiresome discussing with you. I have ignored and steered away from commenting with you and I ask you to do the same for me.

	▲	maxglute 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> it is acceptable It's acceptable, as I said, targets in RU soil legitimate. Of course the UKR has their own calculation on what PRC interests in RU they're able to hit that's not counterproductive - PRC support for RU MIC can be much more than what it is. Even if we accept moving from "rule based" doesn't discount realist/rational based which rule based is derived from. It is not hard to understand allowing your house to be used to shoot at someone else = your house is now legitimate target. Expecting immunity under those conditions is strategic fantasy, especially when IR hitting GCC countries is arguably not counter-productive.