In February, Indian and Pakistani participants met in Doha for a round of Track 2 talks, according to people familiar with the matter, even as formal relations between the two countries remain tense.

The meeting comes against the backdrop of India’s concerns over cross-border terrorism following the Pahalgam attack, which has kept official engagement limited.

Track 2 dialogues between India and Pakistan have continued for decades, at times involving nearly 20 parallel channels. These discussions, conducted away from official scrutiny, involve former officials, academics, journalists and civil society representatives. No formal statements are issued and participants typically do not confirm their involvement, preserving deniability while allowing candid exchanges.

One of the longest-running such initiatives has been the Neemrana Dialogue, which has historically brought together stakeholders from both sides to discuss contentious issues outside formal diplomatic frameworks.

The concept of Track 2 diplomacy was coined in 1981 by American diplomat Joseph Montville to describe unofficial, non-structured interactions aimed at building trust and testing ideas. Unlike formal government negotiations, these engagements provide flexibility and confidentiality.

A related format, Track 1.5, combines serving officials acting in an unofficial capacity with non-government participants. Such mechanisms have gained relevance globally in periods of diplomatic deadlock.

Informal engagements played a role in early contacts leading to the 1993 Oslo Accords, where preliminary discussions between Israeli and Palestinian representatives were held outside formal channels. India has employed similar approaches in multiple geopolitical contexts.

After the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, which led to a freeze in official engagement between India and China, Track 2 exchanges helped maintain communication.

Subsequent high-level interactions, including a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin in 2025, signalled a tentative thaw.

Direct flights resumed in October 2025 after a five-year suspension, and cross-border trade and people-to-people contacts have begun to recover. Chinese leadership is expected to participate in the BRICS summit in India later this year.

During the 2022 outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, India engaged in Track 2 and Track 1.5 discussions involving European, Russian and Ukrainian interlocutors. These interactions focused on humanitarian issues and de-escalation options, complementing New Delhi’s publicly stated policy of strategic autonomy.

A similar pattern was observed in India’s engagement with Canada following tensions over allegations related to the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

Informal diplomatic channels preceded high-level meetings between Prime Minister Modi and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the G7 summit in June 2025 and the G20 summit in November.

These interactions contributed to the return of high commissioners and renewed bilateral engagement. Carney’s visit to India in early 2026 advanced discussions on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement aimed at boosting bilateral trade to $50 billion by 2030, alongside cooperation in energy, critical minerals, defence and nuclear sectors.

Officials and analysts view Track 2 diplomacy as a supplementary tool rather than a substitute for formal negotiations.

It allows stakeholders to exchange perspectives, explore policy options and maintain contact in politically sensitive environments where official dialogue may be constrained.

Officials on both sides have emphasized the importance of dialogue and steady engagement during a sensitive period for regional relations.

Washington has indicated that it is carefully reviewing the situation while remaining open to diplomatic interaction.

Statements from US leadership suggest that communication is viewed as a key tool for managing complex international challenges.

Iranian representatives have confirmed that contact with the United States remains active through established diplomatic channels.

They have highlighted that maintaining dialogue allows for the exchange of views and helps prevent misunderstandings.

International observers note that ongoing communication reflects a broader effort to manage tensions through discussion rather than abrupt action.

Such engagement is often seen as essential in navigating periods of uncertainty in global affairs.

Recent events inside Iran have drawn widespread global attention, prompting discussions among policymakers and analysts worldwide.

Governments and international organizations are closely monitoring developments while urging calm and restraint.

Despite differing perspectives, both Washington and Tehran have signaled that communication remains a practical and necessary option.

This approach underscores the role of diplomacy in addressing complex political and regional dynamics.

Analysts suggest that open channels enable both sides to clarify intentions and convey concerns in a structured manner.

They point out that consistent dialogue can reduce the risk of misinterpretation during tense moments.

The situation has also highlighted the importance of intermediary channels traditionally used in international diplomacy.

Such mechanisms have historically played a role in sustaining communication when direct engagement is limited.

Regional experts emphasize that sustained dialogue contributes to stability by allowing gradual confidence-building measures.

They add that diplomatic engagement often unfolds over time rather than producing immediate outcomes.

The United States has reiterated that it is assessing developments carefully while consulting with partners and allies.

This consultative approach reflects the interconnected nature of global political and security considerations.

Iranian officials have also stressed that dialogue remains part of their diplomatic outlook.

They note that communication enables countries to manage differences while safeguarding national interests.

The broader international community continues to call for peaceful engagement and measured responses.

Many nations view dialogue as essential to maintaining predictability and reducing uncertainty in the region.

Observers note that while challenges persist, the continuation of communication channels is a stabilizing factor.

It demonstrates recognition on both sides that diplomacy remains a valuable instrument.

As discussions continue, attention remains focused on how dialogue may shape future interactions.

Diplomatic engagement is widely seen as a foundation for addressing longer-term regional issues.

The evolving situation highlights the complexity of international relations in today’s interconnected world.

It also reinforces the enduring relevance of communication in navigating periods of political change.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Moscow prefers to wait for an official and detailed statement from Washington before drawing conclusions. “We understand that we need to wait for clearer statements, if any come,” Peskov told reporters, underlining that open communication remains key to maintaining balance during complex global developments.

The remarks came after U.S. President Donald Trump indicated he would seek a clear understanding of Ukraine’s intentions before making a final decision on the possible transfer of Tomahawk missiles. The U.S. president also emphasized his commitment to preventing escalation and pursuing a thoughtful approach to defense cooperation.

Analysts say the exchange reflects a cautious yet constructive phase in U.S.-Russia communication, as both nations navigate evolving security concerns while expressing their intent to avoid unnecessary confrontation.

Under previous administrations, the U.S. had generally announced new arms supplies to Ukraine only after deliveries were completed. Peskov’s comments suggest that Moscow is monitoring the current dialogue closely while maintaining diplomatic channels open for discussion and clarification.

Russian officials have consistently reiterated their stance on ensuring that any international arms movement does not contribute to heightened tensions. President Vladimir Putin, in a recent statement, emphasized that global security should remain the shared responsibility of all nations, highlighting that open dialogue and trust-building remain crucial pillars of peace.

Tomahawk missiles, known for their long range and precision, are typically used for strategic defense purposes. Russia’s call for clarity highlights the importance of transparency and information-sharing between major powers, which experts believe could help reduce uncertainty and strengthen confidence across the region.

While some observers describe the situation as delicate, diplomatic voices on both sides are calling for patience and mutual understanding. By choosing dialogue over speculation, Russia and the United States appear to be signaling a preference for diplomacy and structured communication, rather than confrontation.

The Kremlin’s message comes amid broader international conversations about maintaining balance and preventing the escalation of military tensions in Eastern Europe. Both Moscow and Washington have long acknowledged that constructive communication remains essential for ensuring regional and global peace.

Russia’s approach, focused on waiting for official clarification, underscores its commitment to responsible statecraft and measured response. This approach aligns with the global call for transparency, prudence, and continued cooperation in addressing international security challenges.

Observers believe that ongoing discussions about defense policies should serve as a foundation for deeper dialogue, mutual respect, and understanding between the two powers. As the situation develops, the emphasis remains on diplomacy, communication, and collective stability — values that continue to guide responsible nations in navigating a complex global landscape.

Qatar is conducting a multi-pronged, global influence campaign to expand its regional and international clout.

Recently, it was reported that Israeli security officials are investigating the possibility that Qatari elements are behind a wave of online posts in recent weeks designed to cast doubt on the stability of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. These posts, widely circulated in Israeli media, focused on Egypt’s military buildup and increased troop deployment in Sinai — a move that could be seen as violating the peace treaty.

However, a civil society group called “Fake Reporter,” which tracks malicious online activity, found a sharp rise in content on social media portraying Egypt as an increasing threat to Israel. Some of the videos and images used to support these claims were actually from an Egyptian military drill held in 2018.

While it’s true that Egypt has been enhancing its military capabilities, it seems there’s a deliberate attempt to frame this as a threat to Israel. The suspicion is that this disinformation campaign may be aimed at weakening Egypt’s role as a mediator, particularly with the U.S., in Middle Eastern affairs — and especially in Gaza-related matters.

If Qatar is indeed behind this disinformation, it would be yet another link in its vast influence network — one that’s drawn increasing attention lately, both due to the potential collapse of the Assad regime in Syria and Qatar’s involvement in mediation efforts around hostage negotiations. In the Israeli context, reports have surfaced about Qatar hiring Israeli PR experts — including advisors to Netanyahu — to improve its image in global public opinion and in the Jewish world.

This isn’t a new tactic for the small Gulf emirate. While research on influence campaigns over the past decade has focused mostly on Russia, China, and Iran, Qatar has largely flown under the radar — unjustly so. A series of investigations by Reuters since 2019 exposed “Project Raven,” a secret UAE-led operation that hired former NSA agents to spy on targets in Turkey, France, Yemen, Iran, Qatar, and Israel.

Leaked information from that project revealed the extent of Qatar’s global influence operations — supporting both terrorist groups and friendly regimes in the West, while also working to destabilize governments across the Arab world.

For example, Qatar played a role in toppling Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and was the first to recognize the rebel government. It also supported Tunisia’s post-revolution regime after the fall of Ben Ali, and has actively backed Syrian rebels with weapons and funding. Traditionally, Qatar has pursued a proactive agenda in the Arab world and has recently intensified efforts to position itself as a leader of the Sunni world. To that end, it engages in various influence channels:

Influence Among Decision Makers

Qatar commonly uses financial incentives to sway influencers and policymakers. Beyond the bribery scandals uncovered in Project Raven, French authorities recently indicted Nasser Al-Khelaifi — a senior official in Qatar’s Investment Authority and president of Paris Saint-Germain football club — for allegedly using bribes to manipulate business decisions.

Similarly, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez was accused of accepting bribes from both Qatar and Egypt to advance their interests. Qatar also funds trips for politicians and journalists to Doha — a form of soft power. In 2018, federal investigations began in the U.S. into whether lobbyists and former government officials working for Qatar had violated lobbying laws. That year, 250 people close to President Trump were flown to Doha at Qatar’s expense. Likewise, Rep. Ilhan Omar was flown to Qatar during the 2022 World Cup, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted to a similar Qatar-sponsored trip when he was still a member of Parliament.

Just last week, the European Network of Aviation Associations (ENAA) warned the EU’s transport department about a possible aviation deal with Qatar, raising corruption concerns.

Financial Influence

Qatar’s wealth oils the wheels of influence in the U.S. Congress — with reports in 2018 showing that 59 members received donations from Qatar. Think tanks in Washington also benefit, making Qatar a major funder of those who whisper in the ears of decision-makers. In 2022, it was revealed that Gen. John Allen, then-president of the Brookings Institution, was under investigation for secretly lobbying for Qatar after retiring from the military — earning over $1 million in fees. He worked alongside Richard Olson, former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan and the UAE, who admitted to participating in the lobbying campaign.

“Qatargate” Scandal in Europe

The Qatargate scandal in the European Parliament revealed that, starting in 2019, Qatar paid Italian MEP Antonio Panzeri and Greek EU Vice President Eva Kaili in exchange for favorable votes. This led to greater scrutiny in Europe over parliamentarians’ trips to Qatar and prompted ethics committees to enhance oversight and limit Qatari influence.

Western Assets and Public Opinion

Qatar also secures influence through investments. It holds major stakes in European corporations like Porsche. Its massive investment in building the U.S. air base at Al-Udeid made it the largest American military base in the Middle East. Qatar also targets American public opinion — in spring 2020, it donated millions in COVID-19 aid to families in Los Angeles, Charleston (South Carolina), and other U.S. cities.

Influence Through Sports

Qatar places immense importance on sports as a tool for influence. Hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup was the result of a massive lobbying effort — including hiring Israeli PR experts. The campaign continues, with recent reports of Qatari investors aiming to buy the English football club Tottenham and launching their bid to host the 2027 Basketball World Cup. During the 2024 Paris Olympics, Qatari leaders, including the Emir, were prominent guests at the opening ceremony, and Al-Khelaifi even carried the Olympic torch.

Diplomatic Influence

Qatar invests heavily in its image as a regional mediator. Both the Biden and Trump administrations praised its efforts in negotiating the release of American hostages from the Taliban. Doha values this role so highly that its diplomats frequently emphasize Qatar’s neutrality. For instance, the Qatari ambassador to the U.S. wrote op-eds in The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek framing Qatar as an honest broker. Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesperson has echoed this narrative in numerous interviews, including with Israeli outlets like Haaretz and Channel 12. Journalists from The Jerusalem Post and Kan 11 have even been invited to Doha.

Influence in Education

A 2022 study by the U.S. National Association of Scholars revealed that between 2001 and 2021, Qatar donated $4.7 billion to American universities — including Cornell, Georgetown, and Carnegie Mellon — in return for opening Doha branches. Sometimes, this came with conditions, like removing certain course content or cooperating with Qatari media like Al Jazeera. Texas A&M alone received $404 million between 2015 and 2023. (The university has announced plans to shut its Doha campus by 2027 — a move publicly criticized by the U.S. ambassador to Qatar.)

Qatar has become the largest foreign donor to U.S. universities, often without proper disclosure, and a 2020 ISGAP study found a correlation between Qatari funding and pro-Palestinian activism on American campuses.

Supporting Terror-Linked Groups Under a Humanitarian Disguise

Qatar often masks its support for terror-linked entities as humanitarian aid. To retain influence in Gaza, Qatar insisted on delivering aid during the early 2025 ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, including fuel and bulldozers. It pledged $100 million to UNRWA, with $4.5 million earmarked for operations in the West Bank. Qatar also funneled money to Hezbollah through “charities” that provide food, medicine, and education — and used similar “humanitarian” ventures to build ties with the Houthis in Yemen and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Media Influence

Qatar’s media arm, Al Jazeera, plays a major role in shaping public opinion. It’s the most popular English-language news network in the world after CNN and BBC — and has been accused of acting as a mouthpiece for Hamas and other Islamist groups. Since its founding in 1996, Al Jazeera has provided a platform for Muslim Brotherhood leaders and broadcast divisive content about the Arab world.

Its various branches, including AJ+ in the U.S., continue to influence global narratives. In Gaza, several Al Jazeera journalists were recently found to be affiliated with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the channel actively promoted staged events involving Israeli hostages.

Conclusion

Qatar is conducting a multi-pronged, global influence campaign to expand its regional and international clout. Through its vast network of soft power — in diplomacy, media, education, finance, and humanitarian aid — Qatar has become a key player in global affairs. Israel’s current dependence on Qatari mediation regarding hostages forces it to tolerate, and even flatter, one of Hamas’s primary funders — without whom the October 7th attack may not have happened. Qatar is now also helping Hamas recover.

This case illustrates the sophistication of Qatar’s influence strategy — and the urgent need to monitor and defend against it.

Translated in English from Jerusalem Institute of Strategic Studies.