Arab unity falters on NATO-like defence force

The idea of an Arab NATO-like force has resurfaced yet again, this time in the aftermath of Israel’s airstrike on Doha that killed Hamas leaders and several civilians. Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi had pressed for a defensive alliance to shield the Arab world from external threats. But the Doha summit ended as so many before it: with statements of condemnation and no decisive action. The failure reveals not only intra-Arab rivalries but also the larger geopolitical game played by external powers to ensure the Arab world never develops independent security architecture.

Why the Arab NATO never materialises

Egypt has been the most consistent proponent of a united Arab military force. As far back as 1950, the Arab League’s Joint Defence and Economic Cooperation Treaty envisaged collective security. The ambition was that an attack on one Arab nation would be treated as an attack on all. In practice, however, the treaty never translated into operational military cooperation.

The Sharm El Sheikh summit in 2015 briefly revived the dream. Cairo proposed a rapid-response force, headquartered in Egypt, with contributions from across the Arab League. On paper, it would combine naval, air, and ground units, supported by elite counterterrorism commandos. Yet disputes over command, funding, and political objectives soon paralysed the plan.

The latest Doha proposal faced the same hurdles. Saudi Arabia wanted leadership, while Egypt insisted its military experience made it best placed. Qatar and the UAE blocked the initiative altogether, wary of Egypt dominating Arab security structures. The exclusion of Iran and Turkey was another sticking point. Gulf monarchies, locked in ideological and geopolitical confrontation with Tehran, refuse to entertain the idea of any cooperative framework that includes Iran. For Egypt, however, a purely Gulf-led alliance risks becoming little more than an extension of Saudi and Emirati priorities rather than a genuine pan-Arab shield.

 

ALSO READ: https://www.benefitnews24.com/opinion/middle-east-power-play-week-of-strategic-moves/9787

The Iranian dilemma

One reason unity is elusive is Iran itself. To Gulf states, Tehran represents the greatest threat, backing militias in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. For others, including Qatar, Iran is both a rival and a pragmatic partner, necessary to balance Saudi dominance. Bringing Iran into a defence league would mean redefining the very security priorities of the bloc — from countering Israel to negotiating coexistence with Tehran. That contradiction ensures paralysis.

The American hand

The deeper truth is that Arab states are unlikely to form a NATO-style force so long as the United States remains the ultimate security guarantor. Washington’s strategy for decades has been to fragment the Arab world, cultivating bilateral defence agreements rather than encouraging collective institutions. This ensures that no independent Arab bloc emerges capable of resisting American or Israeli strategic designs.

At the Doha summit, Egyptian diplomats hinted that US pressure shaped the outcome. Qatar reportedly carried messages from Washington urging Arab capitals not to adopt resolutions against Israel. The result was a final statement heavy on rhetoric but devoid of action. Once again, Arab security was outsourced — this time to American promises that Washington would restrain Israel from further strikes.

The pattern is familiar: whenever Arab leaders move toward independent defence arrangements, Washington intervenes to divide, delay, or redirect the conversation. The underlying fear is that an Arab force could gradually tilt toward alternative patrons such as Russia or China. Both powers are actively deepening ties in the region, from arms sales to infrastructure investment. An independent Arab security alliance would reduce US leverage and open the door to multipolarity in the Middle East — a scenario Washington is determined to avoid.

Egypt’s isolation

For Cairo, the repeated rejection of its proposals reflects its declining influence within the Arab order. Once the undisputed leader of Arab nationalism, Egypt now finds itself constrained economically and diplomatically, reliant on Gulf financing and Western aid. Sisi’s proposal was not only about regional security but also about reasserting Egypt’s leadership role. The lukewarm response from Gulf capitals underscored how much the Arab centre of gravity has shifted eastward to Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha.

Even so, Egypt’s anxieties are real. With Israel openly discussing the displacement of Palestinians into Sinai, Cairo sees an existential threat. Sisi’s rare public description of Israel as “an enemy” signals both frustration and alarm. Yet without regional buy-in, Egypt faces its challenges largely alone.

The cycle of failure

The Arab world’s inability to unite militarily is not merely the product of disagreements over leadership. It is the structural result of conflicting national interests, sectarian rivalries, and external manipulation. Each state prioritises its own survival and regime security, often seeking protection from the very foreign powers that Arabs rhetorically denounce.

In effect, the dream of an Arab NATO collapses every time it is raised because it demands what the region lacks: trust, shared priorities, and political independence. Instead, the Arab order continues to oscillate between reliance on American security guarantees and ad hoc coalitions such as the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen — efforts that serve narrow agendas rather than collective defence.

View Point

The calls for a NATO-like Arab force will continue to surface whenever Israel escalates or regional crises intensify. But unless Arab states resolve their internal rivalries, address the Iran question, and reduce dependence on Washington, such a force will remain a mirage. For now, the Middle East remains a chessboard on which outside powers play freely — precisely because Arab states cannot agree to play together.