Qatar overhauled its defence system in six hours after the war with Iran exposed weaknesses in its preparations for a rapidly changing security threat, the country’s intelligence chief revealed at the Global Security Forum in Doha.
Brigadier General Khalid Mohammed Al-Nuaimi, head of Qatar’s Intelligence and Security Authority, said the emergency redeployment was unprecedented and followed eight months of adjustments to the country’s military capabilities, force structure and defence doctrine. Those preparations had been designed for a different security environment, leaving Qatar facing the need to adapt quickly as threats evolved.
“We adapted. We redeployed and we did it within six hours,” Al-Nuaimi said on Tuesday, describing how Qatar changed both its approach to defence and the allocation of its military assets. He acknowledged that the country had been caught off guard but said necessity drove the rapid response.
His remarks offered a rare public account of how Qatar adjusted its defensive posture during the conflict with Iran, particularly in response to the threat posed by drones. The six-hour redeployment highlighted the pressure on Gulf states to reassess military plans when existing systems and strategies are challenged by the speed and nature of an emerging threat.
The forum also provided an update on diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Dr Majed al-Ansari, said negotiations between the United States and Iran, mediated by Qatar, were continuing, with both sides still engaged.
“The fact that we are not hearing about it is a good sign that we are doing our job properly,” al-Ansari said, suggesting that the relative lack of public detail reflected the nature of the diplomatic process. His comments came amid concerns that the conflict could resume and that regional tensions could intensify.
US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Presidential Envoy for Syria and Iraq Tom Barrack also addressed the forum, outlining Washington’s approach to the conflict and its longer-term role in the Middle East. He said the United States wanted a peace agreement built around a ceasefire in the straits and measures to ease the suffering of the Iranian people.
“Prosperity is the only answer,” Barrack said, arguing that negotiations should focus on finding a way forward rather than restarting an earlier US-Iran peace memorandum. He identified a deep lack of trust between Washington and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a central obstacle to progress.
“What has happened from the beginning of these discussions and negotiations is a lack of trust,” he said, adding that the IRGC did not trust the United States and Washington did not trust the IRGC.
Barrack also acknowledged that the war had produced unintended consequences, although he said he could not determine whether the decision to go to war had been a mistake. He described US President Donald Trump as a president opposed to prolonged wars, signalling that Washington’s approach should not be interpreted as a commitment to an open-ended military campaign.
On the question of America’s future in the region, Barrack insisted that Washington was not preparing to abandon the Middle East, even as countries in the region reconsidered how much they could rely on the United States to resolve their security problems.
“The bargain is not to control, but to not leave. We are not leaving,” he said.
Barrack described the shift in US policy as a realignment rather than a withdrawal, arguing that Washington’s traditional role as a security guarantor was changing. He said the United States had served as a global guarantor for roughly 80 years, but the current administration was sending a message that regional relationships and responsibilities needed to be reconsidered.
The envoy’s remarks also raised questions about the place of regime change in US foreign policy. He referred to 23 attempts at regime change across the Middle East and argued that intervening to remove leaders or governments had repeatedly produced poor outcomes.
“Every time we try and intervene, change the person or the regime, it seems to have been a mistake,” Barrack said.
Rather than pursuing political change through military intervention, he advocated bringing opposing sides together for dialogue. He described an approach built around patience, continued diplomatic engagement and negotiations, even when the parties involved have deep disagreements.
His comments appeared to differ from the stated regime-change objective associated with the US campaign against Iran, underscoring the tension between military pressure and the search for a negotiated settlement.
Barrack also addressed growing friction between Israel and Turkey, two countries whose regional interests have increasingly diverged. He said he did not believe Israel wanted a direct confrontation with Turkey and added that, in his view, Ankara did not want one either.
The forum’s discussions extended beyond Iran and the future of US involvement in the Middle East to the conflict in Yemen, where the Houthi movement remains a major security concern. Al-Ansari reiterated Qatar’s support for Saudi Arabia, saying Doha stood alongside other Gulf states in backing Riyadh’s efforts to defend its sovereignty against attacks.
Opening Day 2 of GSF 2026, Amb. Thomas J. Barrack delivers high-level remarks on “A Region Reshuffled: The Middle East’s Evolving Strategic Landscape,” exploring the shifting dynamics shaping the region.
#GSF2026 #GSECForum https://t.co/S50ctatPyV
— Global Security Forum (@GSECForum) October 20, 2026
Former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers offered a more pessimistic assessment of the prospects for defeating the Houthis, who control a large part of Yemen. He told the forum that the movement was likely to remain a significant force for the foreseeable future.
“The Houthis are here to stay,” Sawers said. “They are not going to be defeated, and they are going to remain in control of a large part of Yemen for the foreseeable future.”
Sawers argued that the group had its own national agenda in Yemen and that the experience of the past decade had demonstrated the limits of Saudi Arabia’s options for containing it. Attempts to sustain an alternative government in Yemen, he said, had not succeeded over that period.
Taken together, the discussions in Doha highlighted the overlapping challenges facing Gulf states and their international partners: adapting military systems to immediate threats, maintaining diplomatic channels with adversaries and reconsidering strategies that have failed to deliver lasting political settlements. Qatar’s six-hour defence redeployment provided a concrete example of the urgency driving those decisions, while the debate over Iran, US policy and Yemen showed how difficult it remains to turn military pressure into a durable regional settlement.
