I wish that I could live in the same world as Douglas Murray. Writing in the wake of Donald Trump’s remarkable victory in the US Presidential election, Murray gave the President-elect some sage advice; “isolate and sanction” Qatar, force Turkey to “pick a side” between NATO and Hamas, and “destroy” the Iranian mullahs once and for all.

Remove the bad guys, protect the good guys, and all will be right with the world. Finally, harmony in the Middle East — who knew that it was so simple? Why didn’t we try this earlier?

If only the real world were so straightforward. Like it or not, operating in the Middle East will sometimes mean working with states with which we disagree deeply. Not every relationship can be as productive as Jordan or Oman — and our regional interests are usually served by pragmatism rather than idealism.

Take Qatar. Qatar is a major energy exporter, and is one of the world’s largest sources of liquefied natural gas (LNG); it is the second biggest source of LNG imports to the UK, and the third largest exporter globally. Whichever way you look at it, the continued supply of energy globally must be a key policy priority for Western governments.

This is particularly true for Britain; unlike the Americans, successive governments on this side of the pond have chosen to pursue a disastrous, ideological energy policy which has driven up prices across the board. In the medium term, we should be reforming our domestic energy policy to promote more local production, thus guarding ourselves against the ebb and flow of international markets. In the meantime, we must be realistic about the impact that removing Qatari gas from global markets would have on energy prices here in Britain. With Russian and Iranian energy already subject to sanctions, alienating Qatar would mean higher energy prices for millions of ordinary Britons; constrain supply, and costs will rise. Are we really willing to pay that price? 

What’s more, Doha has been an increasingly important mediator in discussions between Western governments and regional actors who might otherwise have been impossible to speak to. In November 2023, Qatar helped to broker a temporary cease-fire and the release of more than 100 hostages taken from Israel. In August, it was reported that the country had facilitated negotiations between Germany and the Taliban, to allow German authorities to return illegal Afghan migrants to Afghanistan. It is difficult to imagine either of these deals being reached without the presence of a trusted middle-man, a role that Qatar is well-suited to playing.

None of  this is to say that Britain or the United States shouldn’t challenge Qatar on its behaviour. The issue is that the cure proposed by Murray et al is almost certainly more harmful than the disease itself. It is possible to identify points of serious disagreement with the Qataris without also advocating for a reckless policy which would destabilise the Middle East and impoverish millions of ordinary Britons.

Doha is far from a perfect partner, but the Qataris can certainly be bargained with. The country’s deal-making instinct has made it possible for Western governments to pressure Qatar to tighten its laws against terrorism and money-laundering. In 2018, Qatar started participation in a 3-year US State Department Anti-Terrorism Assistance program; in 2019, the country passed new counter-terror financing laws.

So why the fervour? The truth is that Murray’s advice was not driven by a desire to advance Western interests in the Middle East — he is an ideological neoconservative, who believes that advocating for Israel’s strategic aims is a moral imperative. 

I can’t see how the destabilisation of a large, oil-producing country of 90 million people could go wrong

Naturally, that means uncritical Western support for Israel — but it also means alienating players in the region who aren’t willing to adopt the same single-minded position. At its most strident, the neoconservative cause means waging a lengthy, bloody, and expensive war against Iran, risking the displacement of millions of people, many of whom would try to come to Europe.

And when Iran has finally been vanquished? Ah, we can work out the details later. There’s no need to worry about it. I can’t see how the destabilisation of a large, oil-producing country of 90 million people could go wrong.

Fortunately, Trump is unlikely to heed Murray’s advice. The President-elect is a dealmaker, who will be keen to repair Washington’s relationships in the Gulf after four years of Biden; what’s more, Vice-President Vance has been clear that American and Israeli interests in the region will not always align. If Vance and his fellow intervention-sceptics can catch Trump’s ear, the new administration is likely to strike a balance between its relationships in the Gulf and its partnership in Tel Aviv.

If only British foreign policy could be conducted with such a sober and realistic attitude. Unfortunately, we seem hopelessly divided between dewy-eyed internationalists and ideological crusaders; in the brutal 21st century, it’s strength, power, and money that rules the roost. It’s time to get real about protecting our interests.