From Gaza to Damascus: Qatar’s toxic trail of cash

Qatar’s pledge to provide Syria with $29 million monthly for three months to cover salaries, as announced by the Syrian finance minister on Wednesday, has been framed by some as a humanitarian gesture.

However, a closer examination reveals this move as yet another calculated step in Doha’s long-standing strategy to wield influence through financial leverage, cloaked in the guise of generosity.

Far from altruistic, Qatar’s actions in Syria echo its troubling history of funding politically charged initiatives, such as its years-long support for Hamas officials’ salaries in Gaza, raising serious questions about its motives and the broader implications for regional stability.

A Pattern of Political Investment

Qatar’s financial aid to Syria is not an isolated act of charity but part of a broader pattern of using its vast wealth to secure political influence.

The $87 million commitment, with the possibility of extension, comes at a time when Syria is navigating a fragile transitional phase. 

By stepping in to fund salaries, Qatar positions itself as a key player in Syria’s economic recovery, gaining leverage over the country’s interim government and its future policy decisions. This is not aid—it is a transaction, with Doha expecting returns in the form of political alignment or strategic concessions.

The precedent for such behavior is stark. For years, Qatar funneled millions to cover the salaries of Hamas officials in Gaza, a move that ostensibly aimed to stabilize the region but effectively bolstered a militant group with a track record of violence. 

Between 2018 and 2022, Qatar reportedly transferred over $1.5 billion to Gaza, much of it channeled through Hamas under the pretext of humanitarian aid. 

While these funds kept Gaza’s economy afloat, they also entrenched Hamas’s grip on power, enabling its governance structures and, critics argue, indirectly supporting its military capabilities. The international community’s muted response at the time only emboldened Qatar to continue its strategy of financing politically sensitive actors to advance its agenda.

Qatar’s Regional Ambitions

Qatar’s actions in Syria must be viewed through the lens of its broader geopolitical ambitions. Doha has long sought to punch above its weight in the Middle East, leveraging its wealth and media empire, Al Jazeera, to shape narratives and influence governments. 

Its support for various factions during the Arab Spring, including Islamist movements in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, earned it both allies and enemies. 

In Syria, Qatar was a major backer of opposition groups during the civil war, funneling funds and arms to rebels fighting the Assad regime. The current aid package, while less overtly militaristic, serves a similar purpose: to maintain Qatar’s foothold in a country at a pivotal moment in its history.

This financial intervention also positions Qatar as a counterweight to other regional powers vying for influence in Syria, such as Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. 

By presenting itself as a benefactor, Qatar seeks to curry favor with Syria’s new leadership and its populace, potentially sidelining competitors. Yet this comes at a cost. Qatar’s history of backing controversial actors, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas, raises concerns about which factions within Syria might benefit from its largesse and whether this aid will exacerbate internal divisions rather than foster unity.

The Cost of “Generosity”

Qatar’s defenders might argue that its aid fills a critical gap in crisis-stricken regions, where international donors are often slow to act. 

But this argument ignores the strings attached to Doha’s money. In Gaza, Qatar’s funding of Hamas salaries did little to address systemic issues like unemployment or infrastructure decay; instead, it propped up a regime that prioritized its own survival over genuine development. 

In Syria, there is a risk that Qatar’s aid will similarly serve as a bandage, providing short-term relief while entrenching Doha’s influence over the country’s fragile institutions.

Moreover, Qatar’s selective generosity invites scrutiny. Why Syria, and why now? The timing of the aid package coincides with a period of heightened international focus on Syria’s reconstruction, suggesting that Qatar is positioning itself to shape the narrative around its role in the region. 

Meanwhile, Doha remains conspicuously silent on other humanitarian crises where its wealth could make a difference but where political gains are less assured. This selective philanthropy undermines claims of disinterested goodwill.

A Call for Accountability

The international community must approach Qatar’s financial interventions with skepticism. While Syria’s interim government may welcome the immediate influx of cash, it should be wary of the long-term costs of aligning with a state that has repeatedly used its wealth to manipulate regional dynamics. 

Qatar’s track record—from Gaza to the battlefields of the Arab Spring—demonstrates that its aid is rarely free. The $29 million monthly pledge is not a gift but a down payment on influence, one that could bind Syria to Doha’s agenda at a time when the country needs impartial support to rebuild.

For the global community, Qatar’s actions should prompt a broader reckoning. States that wield financial power to shape political outcomes must be held accountable, particularly when their interventions risk destabilizing already volatile regions. 

Qatar’s money may keep Syria’s public sector afloat for now, but at what price? If history is any guide, Doha’s “generosity” will come with a steep bill, one that Syria—and the region—may be paying for years to come.