Doha Summit 2025: Israeli airstrikes attacked a residential compound in Doha on 9 September 2025. The compound housed Hamas negotiators with whom ceasefire negotiations were taking place with Qatari mediation. At least six people died as a result of the strike, including one Qatari security officer.
The strike was unexpected—not so much for the loss of life, but because Qatar is a close American ally, host to a major American airbase, and accredited broker of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The attack implies that nowhere is safe from Israeli strikes.
Within days, Qatar invited an extraordinary joint summit with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League. The assembly was called on 15 September in Doha and brought leaders and foreign ministers of 57 nations. It was billed as a time for the Muslim world to deliver a strong and united message.
READ I Stubble burning: Delhi’s toxic air crisis needs tough action
Doha Summit: Symbolism without strategy
The speeches weren’t a disappointment. Qatar Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani labeled the strike as a “treacherous violation” aimed at disrupting peace. Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan defined Israel as a “terrorist mindset embodied in a state” and accused it of violating the UN Charter. Iran’s President said Israel’s immunity reached intolerable limits The Indonesian foreign minister seconded the refrain, tying the Doha bombing back to more than seven decades of unchecked abuses in Palestine . The implication was clear: if Israel was capable of attacking Qatar—a mediator and U.S. ally—then there was no Muslim nation out of bounds.
The final statement condemned Israel’s strike as a blatant violation of international law, reaffirmed solidarity with Qatar, called for immediate humanitarian assistance, and restated support for a two-state solution with East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine. It also advocated the Gaza reconstruction plan launched at the Arab Summit in Cairo (March 2025).
Yet the Doha Summit final communique was remarkable for what it did not say. There was no sanction, no oil embargo, no suspension of diplomatic relations, and no collective deterrence plan. Suggestions made in some member state delegations—such as reviewing relations with Israel or an arms boycott—were not pursued .
Most people were disappointed with the outcome. The assembly of so much leadership had sparked expectations of so much more. But the product was typical to the past OIC conferences: strong rhetorical statements, weak enforcement.
That pattern is not an accident—it is ingrained into the DNA of the organization Doha Summit was not the first OIC response after 7 October 2023; it followed earlier Riyadh, Istanbul, Jeddah and UN-side ministerial, and it arrived at similarly worded conclusions The Doha extraordinary summit has been one more link in a long chain of OIC responses to Israeli aggression. Created to unify the Muslim world’s stance, the OIC reliably issues forceful communiqués yet rarely progresses to action.
The Doha Summit echoed Riyadh’s joint Arab-Islam Extraordinary summits in 2023 and 2024, the Istanbul foreign ministers’ regular session (June 2025), Jeddah’s foreign minister extraordinary meetings (August 2025, March 2025, and March 2024), and New York’s UN-side ministerial (Sept 2024). Those meetings had the same strong voice: condemnations, solidarity, calls for ceasefire and a two-state solution. The pattern is consistent: strong words, but no actions.
Why the OIC often stops at rhetoric
The OIC was founded in 1969 following the arson bombing of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque and developed as the “collective voice of the Muslim world.” Today, with four continents and 57 members, it is the second-largest international body after the UN.
But it was hampered from the beginning by structure and politics . First, consensus rules. All OIC decisions require broad consensus. That protects fragile regimes but makes ambitious initiatives drop into lowest-common-denominator statements. Second, sovereignty first. The OIC is not like the European Union. It possesses no supranational sovereignty. It cannot compel members; it can merely persuade and coordinate. Third, divergent interests. Members range from U.S.-aligned monarchies to revolutionary republics. Some maintain open ties with Israel, others refuse any recognition. Aligning such varied interests is extremely difficult.
The outcome: the OIC is brilliant at releasing joint statements of principle—condemning occupation, calling for justice, standing with Muslim minorities—but is struggling to move from symbolism into strategy.
However, this is not an OIC anomaly. The list of international organisations that have failed to take real action on critical issues is long. Even the United Nations Security Council itself has been frozen over Gaza by big-power vetoes. ASEAN was not able to carry out its peace plan in Myanmar because of its own system of consensus. The European Union, much more integrated, is often frozen on foreign policy matters requiring unanimity. Doha’s statement was thus less an exception and more a symptom of a deeper multilateral breakdown in the modern world.
The ‘Islamic NATO’ proposal is back
The frustrations in Doha brought back an old thought. Iran, Egypt, along with some other nations, suggested the proposal of forming an “Islamic NATO” (Newsweek, 15 September 2025)—a military alliance of Muslim-majority nations within the OIC umbrella. There have been similar dreams before, ranging from the 1970s oil embargo to the war against ISIS .
They contend that it would take a united Islamic army to dissuade Israel from future aggression. The notion is still in the realm of fantasy. Who would command the alliance? Could Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Iran, and Pakistan ever coexist with one command? Political competition, divergent alliances, and variations in threat perception have been the ruin of past endeavors.
Far more significantly, the actual deterrent is not lack of military power. Various OIC nations have strong armies, including at least one – Pakistan – with nuclear weapons. The greater issue is Israel’s impunity, reinforced by the backing it receives from a close alliance with the United States . An “Islamic NATO” would not do away with that; it might even turn the conflict into a greater war.
Why the OIC matters even today
So, if the OIC cannot deter Israel, what is its relevance?
First, it is unique. There is no other intergovernmental organisation founded based on religion instead of geography or economics. It lends formal diplomatic voice to the Muslim ummah (a transnational imagined community) in today’s post-caliphate era.
Second, it provides a platform for grievances and aspirations. On Palestine, Kashmir, the Rohingya, and Islamophobia in the West, the OIC provides Muslim-majority nations with a united platform upon which to voice themselves. That collective symbolism makes a difference for domestic constituents and for foreign policy.
Third, the OIC is about something other than politics. It harmonizes development programs, humanitarian assistance, scientific cooperation, and people-to-people exchange. Organisations such as the Islamic Development Bank have sponsored projects throughout Asia and Africa. These “low politics” projects might be void of coverage but yield tangible returns and keep the organisation in the game.
Finally, OIC’s survival is crucial. It has, for more than five decades, upheld an alliance of virtually all Muslim-majority governments—beyond wars, rivalries, and oscillations between non-aligned and aligned policy. It embeds pan-Islamic identity within the state-centric international system, sustaining a sense of Muslim solidarity even as member governments pursue divergent national interests.
The September 2025 Doha summit was an example of the possibilities and the limits of Islamic multilateralism. Leaders stood against Israel and with Qatar with one voice—the best evidence yet that there was still a diplomatic conscience in the ummah. But the inability to agree on hard action was an example of the structural constraints that have long framed the OIC.
Whether the OIC is capable of re-inventing itself—theoretically, through improving work on human development, better decision-making, or other means of achieving greater credence—is open to doubt. Until that time, it still remains a platform of unity, a voice for Muslim causes, and a reflection of the broader challenges of international governance.
Adkhilni Mudkhola Sidqi is a Ph.D. research fellow in International Relations at Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia. This post appeared first on 360.