Kazim AlamIn an unprecedented move, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has activated a provision in its Joint Defence Agreement, declaring that an attack on one member state will be considered an attack on all.
Prompted by a recent Israeli strike on Doha ostensibly to kill Palestinian negotiators working to hammer out a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, the decision to activate the mechanism signals a unique show of unity among the six-member bloc, comprising energy-rich nations of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE.
The GCC mechanism is similar to Clause 5 of the NATO charter, which has dominated headlines in recent weeks following the detection of Russian drones in the skies of the bloc’s member states.
Despite the unequivocal expression of defiance against Israel’s unprovoked aggression, experts, however, say activation of the GCC’s defence pact constitutes only a symbolic gesture.
“It’s nothing more than an expression of solidarity when there is an aggression against one of the GCC states,” Noha Aboueldahab, a senior non-resident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affair, tells TRT World.
A long-standing but rarely invoked security framework, the GCC’s Joint Defence Agreement stipulates that member states will coordinate militarily and share resources in the face of external aggression.
Aboueldahab says that any tangible action beyond rhetorical support would require additional steps, as Israel’s actions amount to a direct challenge to Gulf security.
Doha maintains that it is hosting Hamas negotiators in an “official and transparent manner” with international support.
“Any concrete action that goes beyond such statements would need to be pursued as an additional step to this agreement,” she says.
Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, tells TRT World that the GCC’s statement is a “major symbolic demonstration of unity”.
However, the real issue is its enforceability, he says.
“If Israel attacks again, the GCC cannot, and will not, initiate military action against it,” Kamrava says, while pointing to the deep integration of American military advisers and technicians within Gulf militaries.
The presence of US forces, he says, limits the GCC’s ability to act independently, rendering the pact’s activation more symbolic than operational.
According to Hamdullah Baycar, a professor of international relations at Karadeniz Technical University in Türkiye, the joint defence pledge carries symbolic weight that “may serve as a deterrent”.
“Public opposition to Israeli aggression is likely to unite GCC populations. Yet historical divisions among member states and differing political priorities among their leaders suggest that the pledge may be more rhetorical than operational,” he tells TRT World.
He points to the uneven representation from member states at the recent GCC summit in Doha as evidence of limited commitment.
While Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait sent their highest authorities, the UAE, Bahrain, and Oman dispatched lower-level delegates, signalling reluctance to fully embrace collective military action, Baycar says.
Fractured GCC unity post-Abraham Accords
The activation of the joint defence pact comes at a time when GCC members have different stances towards Israel.
The UAE and Bahrain, signatories to the 2020 Abraham Accords that sought to normalise relations with Israel, have shown little indication of reconsidering their ties with Tel Aviv – a fact that complicates the GCC’s ability to present a unified front in the face of Israeli aggression.
“Unless Bahrain and the UAE recall their ambassadors or downgrade their diplomatic relationships with Tel Aviv, I can’t see any changes to the robustness of the Abraham Accords,” says Kamrava.
He argues that normalisation with Saudi Arabia, a potential linchpin for broader Arab-Israeli rapprochement, has been “pushed further back” by the September 9 attack on Doha.
Baycar concurs that political differences among member states may temper expectations of coordinated action against Tel Aviv.
“The continued participation of Bahrain and the UAE in the Abraham Accords, without any indication of reconsidering their cooperation with Israel, highlights the constraints on genuine collective military action,” he says.
The GCC’s reliance on the US for security further complicates the activation of the defence pact.
Aboueldahab says that the defence pact itself is unlikely to alter Qatar’s longstanding relationship with the US, which remains a cornerstone of Gulf security.
As the US remains their primary security guarantor, the Gulf states are likely to call on Washington, including the UAE, to honour its security commitments in case of another Israeli attack, Baycar says.
This dependency, he argues, limits the GCC’s ability to act autonomously. “All GCC members place special importance on their security, and any aggression undermining their survival would compel a response,” he says.
“At the same time, such events may accelerate GCC efforts to diversify their security arrangements and reduce reliance on a single external power,” he adds.
