US officials, relying on artificial intelligence and media maneuvering, continue to try to maintain the mask of victory and present unilateralism as the only option for the international order. But realities on the ground, Iran’s resilience and decisive role in the equations of war, and, more importantly, the changing behavior of Washington’s allies have revealed new dimensions of the hollowness of these claims. Perhaps the most important sign of this transformation can be found in the remarks by Majed Al Ansari, spokesperson for Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who stated explicitly: “Having a strategic alliance with the US is good, but it is not enough. Self-reliance in the field of security is the only way forward.”

When the US Security Umbrella Is No Longer a Safe Haven

Qatar, despite all its geopolitical constraints and security dependencies, may not be capable of fully implementing such a strategy in the short term. But the significance of the Qatari official’s remarks lies in the fact that they were made by a country that for years has been one of the US military’s key allies and hosts in the region. This position is a sign of a fundamental shift in thinking in the region—a shift that could move away from dependence on US security toward practical independence and the formation of indigenous security arrangements.

The Ramadan War and the developments following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood exposed the reality behind US security guarantees more than any other event. For years, Washington had kept Arab countries dependent on it by promising a security umbrella in return for billions of dollars in expenditures. But at the critical moment of crisis, it became clear that the US priority was not the security of its allies, but preserving the superiority of the Zionist regime. Even as Trump staged criticism of some of the regime’s actions, reports in Israeli media about the US State Department’s approval of the sale of more than 10,000 smart bombs to Israel presented a different picture of the reality of Washington’s policy.

Ramadan War: A Failed Test for the US Security Umbrella

The US has remained silent in the face of the Zionist regime’s occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and Syria, while in Lebanon it has pursued, under the banner of peace, a strategy aimed at weakening the resistance and rendering the country defenseless. On the other hand, the Ramadan War showed that even US bases and forces in the region do not enjoy the security Washington claims to provide. Statements by figures such as David Petraeus about some US bases becoming unusable and reductions in strategic weapons stockpiles have further highlighted this reality.

In recent years, Qatar, Oman and Pakistan have sought to play a role between Iran and the US through diplomacy and mediation. But the experience of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding made the dividing line between the two approaches clearer: Iran stood by the principle of commitment and adherence to the agreement, while the US, just one day after the agreement, held a meeting involving the US, the UAE and the Zionist regime and then took military action, embarking on a course that violated the understanding. From this perspective, Qatar’s shift toward emphasizing indigenous power is not merely a political position; rather, it is an acknowledgment of the fragility of a security structure built on US diplomacy.

US: From Promises of Security to the Reality of Distrust

For years, the US portrayed itself, through human rights and humanitarian rhetoric, as the “big brother” and supporter of nations, and from the Korean and Vietnam wars to Afghanistan and Iraq, it used the same rhetoric to justify its military interventions. But Washington’s actions in practice, particularly during the Trump administration, have removed this mask—to the point that the US president even takes pride in the plunder and seizure of other countries’ interests.

In this context, the remarks by Kim Min-seok, chairman of South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party, are noteworthy. He said that the era of Seoul’s complete dependence on the US has come to an end and that Washington has become less of a “generous big brother” and more of a “tough negotiating partner.” This statement amounts to an acknowledgment from within one of the US’s most important allies of the interest-driven and hegemonic nature of this relationship.

Indigenous Security: From a Regional Necessity to a New Model

Signs of this shift in approach can now be seen in different parts of the world—from Qatar’s emphasis on security self-reliance and the security agreement between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey in Mecca to Europe’s efforts to develop defense capabilities independent of NATO. However, indigenous security has meaning only when countries have genuine independence in their strategic decision-making and do not continue to define national security under the umbrella of a foreign power.

Iran has emphasized this principle for years and, relying on indigenous capabilities and introducing new initiatives, including in the security management of the Strait of Hormuz, has sought to outline a different model of regional security—a model based not on dependence, but on domestic capabilities and cooperation among countries in the region.

The reception of Iran’s initiatives at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization leaders’ summit in Kyrgyzstan, as well as Lavrov’s remarks about laying the groundwork for Egypt, Algeria and Iran to join regional indigenous security pacts, could also be a sign of the gradual movement of the global order toward arrangements in which security is defined not from outside the region, but from within it.

The region’s problem today is not simply insecurity; it is security dependence. And the solution lies not in foreign umbrellas, but in localizing security, achieving independence in decision-making, and establishing regional mechanisms.