🧵🧵The Middle East Forum (MEF) just came out with a new report detailing Qatari influence in America since 2012.
A country of 300,000 people have spent $40 Billion dollars in America. $33.4 billion dollars in real estate and business ventures, $6.25 to American universities and $72 million dollars for lobbyists.
This thread is a summary of the findings of Middle East Forum. The article/research paper is linked at the end of the thread.
US Businesses, Real Estate, and Investment Firms
Qatar has made strategic investments in American businesses totaling at least $33.4 billion. QIA opened New York City offices in 2015 to help facilitate its U.S. investments, and in 2015 the Gulf emirate committed to investing $45 billion in American businesses. Doha likely reached or surpassed this goal in recent years based on QIA’s growth trajectory and total assets.
But the true value of Qatar's real estate empire is hard to ascertain. In addition to direct ownership of properties, QIA holds shares of real estate companies and often does business through spinoffs and affiliates. One estimate suggests the Qataris have spent tens of billions on properties that amount to ten million square feet of prime real estate in Manhattan.
The Qatari flag actually flies above the entrance of the Plaza Hotel in New York City.
They entered the real estate market in Washington DC in 2010 and California in 2016 with a 1.34-billion-dollar joint venture in 4 class office buildings in Los Angeles.
In the past three years, QIA has injected billions of dollars into American investment firms. This includes deals with wealth management titans like AlTi Global ($485 million) and KKR ($180 million). Qatar has secured investment deals with companies owned by powerful political figures, such as former Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin’s Liberty Strategic Capital, which received $500 million in capital from QIA and its partners in 2022, and Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners, which received $1.5 billion in joint ventures between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors.
After 10/7, The Middle East Forum sent 30,000 emails to American CEOs detailing all the way in which Qatar poses a threat to American national security due to their support for international terrorism.
Qatar has also been making inroads and investments in AI and cutting-edge technologies through its Digital Agenda 2030.
Reflecting growing concerns over foreign control of critical infrastructure in the United States, 22 states have passed bills in the past two years restricting foreign ownership of property and essential systems like energy, transportation, communications, and public health assets.
In 2019, Qatar Energy invested over $4 billion in the Golden Triangle Polymers plant in Orange, Texas, which is expected to produce 2.08 million metric tons annually of ethylene, a key component in plastics and other industrial materials.
A joint venture with ExxonMobil and Qatar Energy illustrates the potential dangers of sharing advanced industrial knowledge with Qatar. The two companies invested at least $8 billion in the Golden Pass Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) export plant. Built on the site of a gas-import terminal in Sabine Pass, Texas, the repurposed export plant is expected to produce 18 million metric tons of LNG annually, significantly boosting America’s position as a leading global exporter of LNG amid growing demands.
Doha is America’s chief competitor when it comes to the global export of LNG. The U.S. only recently surpassed Qatar as the world’s top exporter of natural gas, and as the Gulf state continues to expand production capacity, the rivalry is expected to continue into the 2030s and beyond.
This is just a small sampling of the infrastructure investments Qatar has made in America.
Lobbying, Public Relations, and Legal Activities
Qatar has made significant financial investments in direct lobbying, public relations, and legal services, spending $71,576,688 since 2015.
They lobby politicians from both parties from former congressional members to their staffs, ex administration officials and campaign officials. They empower the highest-powered attorneys in DC employed to whitewash Qatar’s record of terror sponsorship, corruption, and labor abuses.
Doha's lobbying activities intensified during periods of intense public scrutiny such as during the anti-Qatar embargo of 2017 and the lead up to the 2022 World Cup.
"During the Biden administration, Qatar sought to “convince Washington to allow Doha to play the role of mediator and project wider influence in the Middle East,” according to an analysis in the Arab Weekly. Qatar hoped to insert itself into U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, while representing Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist factions throughout the region."
During the Biden era, they started to position themselves as the primary mediator in negotiations between Hamas and Israel through the US. While at the same time being accused of shilling for terrorists and allowing them to keep their 11 billion dollars of wealth in their banks and live in Doha.
Starting in 2018, Qatar retained the services of Ballard Partners, a firm headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida, and led by Brian Ballard. Ballard Partners earned $115,000 a month in a contract with Qatar that required “providing advice, counsel, and other assistance with respect to efforts to combat human trafficking.” At the time, Qatar was accused of gross human rights abuses regarding its migrant workers.
But Qatar's most powerful alliance actually stems from their strategic lobbying plan put together by Moran Global Strategies, headed by former twelve-term Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D).
Qatar signed contracts with his strategic lobbying firm for 1.725 million dollars. Moran subcontracted part of this work to a law firm that retained former Congressmen Tom Davis (R-VA) and Tom Reynolds (R-NY), who focused on targeting Republican members of the U.S. House and Senate.
An agent from Moran Global Strategies spent 6 days meeting with Republican Senator Roger Marshall while the pair were in Qatar discussing domestic and foreign policy positions.
In March of 2025, at a hearing about foreign money in our higher education Marshall went off on a witness who questioned 6.2-billion-dollar investment in American institutions.
Marshall was once among Qatar’s fiercest critics, speaking at a 2019 Middle East Forum conference that characterized the Gulf state as a “global menace.
It is on video, a video I posted after I heard the hearing.
Moran has represented Qatar since 2017 back when he was with McDermott Will & Emery.
"Following the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Nelson Mullins distributed a document highlighting praise for Qatar’s role in “facilitating the airlift of 60,000 men, women, and children” from Afghanistan. Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who was later convicted for accepting gold bars as a payment in a bribery scheme involving Qatar, called the Gulf country “moral exemplars” for temporarily hosting Afghans bound for the U.S. “They saved our butts,” said former Rep. Scott Taylor (R-VA) in a statement distributed by Nelson Mullins."
Interesting.
Qatar has leveraged former U.S. political insiders—including ex-congressional staffers like Andrew King and elite lobbyist Imaad Zuberi—to build influence in Washington.
King, once Sen. Lindsey Graham’s deputy chief of staff, facilitated Qatari outreach and investments, including in South Carolina's Barzan Aeronautical and Boeing-linked projects.
Graham became a strong Qatar advocate, while Zuberi who secretly lobbied for Qatar and funneled campaign donations through GOP fundraiser Caroline Wren was later jailed for foreign lobbying violations.
Imaad Zuberi, an elite lobbyist for QIA was paid $10 million for “secretly” lobbying the White House and Congress on behalf of Qatar.
He donated to Graham and South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s campaigns and was later sentenced to 12 years in prison for failing to register as a foreign agent and unregistered lobbying.
Influence in Think Tanks
- Qatar spent over $48 million on U.S. think tanks, nonprofits, and K-12 schools to shape policy and public narratives.
- The Brookings Institution received $30 million and hosted numerous pro-Qatar events and Islamist speakers while allegedly avoiding criticism of Doha.
- Investigations revealed that some Brookings staff (e.g., Gen. John Allen) may have engaged in unregistered lobbying for Qatar.
- Other funded think tanks include:
Stimson Center ($2.3M): Accused of lobbying against a U.S. cybersecurity bill.
RAND Corporation and Middle East Institute: Produced research generally favorable to Qatari interests.
- Such funding compromises the independence of institutions that shape U.S. policy.
K–12 Education Influence
- Through Qatar Foundation International (QFI), Doha has invested millions into American K–12 schools to promote Arabic language and "cultural understanding."
- Some classroom materials misrepresent Israel as Palestine, raising concerns about ideological bias.
- Programs in Texas and New York were especially scrutinized.
- Though Brown University closed its Qatar-linked curriculum, legislation like the TRACE Act to monitor foreign K–12 funding has seen limited traction.
Higher Education Domination
- Qatar is the largest foreign donor to U.S. universities, officially giving $6.25 billion (likely underreported).
- Top recipients include Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Georgetown, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, often via the Qatar Foundation to bypass disclosure laws.
- Qatar-funded campuses in Education City (Doha) embed Qatari influence in U.S. institutions.
- Reports link Qatari money to:
Suppression of anti-Qatar criticism
Pro-Hamas and anti-Israel narratives
Spikes in campus antisemitism
Control over sensitive U.S. research, raising national security concerns
- Universities like Texas A&M are now exiting Qatar, citing academic and IP control issues.
- Northwestern University ended its partnership with Al Jazeera (Qatar-owned) amid growing scrutiny.
America for Sale: Qatar’s $40 Billion Spending Spree Buys Influence and Control of Elite Institutions - Middle East Forum
⚖️ Major Supreme Court Decisions Expected in June 2025
1. U.S. v. Skrmetti – Gender Affirming Care for Minors
•Issue: Constitutionality of state bans on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors.
•Background: Challenges to Tennessee and Kentucky laws that prohibit puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and related treatments for minors.
•Potential Impact: A ruling could set a national precedent affecting transgender healthcare rights.
2. Trump v. CASA – Nationwide Injunctions & Birthright Citizenship
•Issue: Whether individual federal judges can issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders.
•Background: Stemming from challenges to an executive order redefining birthright citizenship, the case examines the scope of judicial authority.
•Potential Impact: Could redefine the power of federal courts in checking executive actions.
3. Mahmoud v. Taylor – Parental Rights & LGBTQ+ Curriculum
•Issue: Whether public schools infringe upon parents’ religious rights by mandating participation in LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula without opt-out provisions.
•Background: Parents argue that mandatory exposure to certain materials violates their First Amendment rights.
•Potential Impact: May influence how schools balance inclusive education with religious freedoms.
🧵🧵 Global Color Revolutions at a 50,000 foot view (“Nonviolent Resistance Movement”)
1/. The Strategists
Gene Sharp:
•Role: Founder of the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI)
•Contributions: Sharp authored From Dictatorship to Democracy and compiled the “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” providing a comprehensive guide for nonviolent resistance.
•Impact: His work has influenced numerous movements worldwide, including those in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia.
Robert Helvey:
•Role: Retired U.S. Army Colonel and strategist
•Contributions: Helvey collaborated with Gene Sharp to train activists in nonviolent strategies, notably assisting the Serbian group Otpor! in their efforts against Slobodan Milošević.
Erica Chenoweth:
•Role: Political scientist and researcher
•Contributions: Chenoweth’s research introduced the “3.5% rule,” suggesting that nonviolent movements engaging at least 3.5% of the population have a high success rate.
Peter Ackerman:
•Role: Founding Chair of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC)
•Contributions: Ackerman co-authored A Force More Powerful and supported global nonviolent movements through education and strategy development.
2/ Training Hubs and Institutions
Albert Einstein Institution (AEI)
•Founded: 1983 by Gene Sharp
•Mission: To advance the study and use of strategic nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide.
CANVAS (Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies)
•Founded: 2004 by Srđa Popović and Slobodan Đinović
•Activities: Provides training and resources to activists in over 50 countries, promoting nonviolent resistance strategies.
International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC)
•Founded: 2002 by Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall
•Focus: Supports the study and practice of nonviolent conflict to advance rights and freedoms globally.
3/ NGO Support Networks
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
•Established: 1983 by the U.S. Congress
•Purpose: Promotes democracy abroad by funding political groups, NGOs, and civil society organizations.
USAID
•Role: U.S. government agency providing foreign aid
•Involvement: Funds democracy promotion programs, including support for civil society and governance initiatives.
Freedom House
•Function: Advocates for democracy and human rights, often collaborating with NED and other organizations to support democratic movements.
Open Society Foundations (OSF)
•Founder: George Soros
•Activities: Provides grants to civil society groups, promoting justice, education, public health, and independent media.
🧵THREAD: Ehud Barak, Erica Chenoweth & the Engineered Chaos of Color Revolutions
1/ What do an ex-Israeli Prime Minister, a Harvard political scientist, and waves of “people-powered” uprisings have in common?
👇 It all ties back to modern regime change—engineered, refined, and often anything but organic. In fact the similarities between the protests in Israel over judicial reform just made their way to college campuses.
Why? Because the thing is never about the thing. It’s always about the globalist revolution.
2/ Ehud Barak—Israel’s former PM, ex-IDF Chief, and elite commando. But he’s more than a military man. Barak is deeply tied into globalist circles, tech elites, and has maintained disturbing links to Jeffrey Epstein—visiting his homes even post-conviction.
He has spoken in the US praising mass uprisings to “protect democracy.”
3/ Barak also has a pattern: using civil unrest, legal warfare, and media alliances to try to depose Israeli leadership (Netanyahu most notably).
He’s praised “people’s protests” and has warned that Netanyahu’s rule could end “democratically—or otherwise.”
🧵🧵 Debunking the myth that Israel has committed war crimes with facts.
The Geneva Convention:
The Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977) set international humanitarian law (IHL) standards for armed conflicts, including non-international conflicts like Israel’s fight with Hamas in Gaza. Key rules include:
• Distinction (Article 48, Additional Protocol I): Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, targeting only military objectives.
• Proportionality (Article 51(5)(b), Additional Protocol I): Attacks must not cause excessive civilian harm relative to the military advantage gained.
• Precautions in Attack (Article 57, Additional Protocol I): Attackers must take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm, including warnings unless circumstances preclude them.
• Protection of Civilians (Article 3, Common to All Conventions): Civilians and hors de combat (e.g., surrendered fighters) must not be targeted, tortured, or subjected to inhumane treatment.
• Prohibition of Human Shields (Article 51(7), Additional Protocol I): Using civilians to shield military objectives is forbidden.
• Respect for Protected Objects (Article 53, Additional Protocol I): Hospitals, schools, and cultural sites must not be targeted unless used for military purposes.
Israel, as a signatory, is bound by these rules. Hamas, as a non-state actor, is also obligated under customary IHL and Common Article 3, applicable to non-international conflicts.
Proof of Israel’s Compliance with the Geneva Conventions
Distinction:
Israel’s military operations in Gaza, particularly post-October 7, 2023 (when Hamas killed 1,200 and took 251 hostages), demonstrate adherence to Geneva Convention principles, despite the challenges of urban warfare against a terrorist group embedding among civilians.
• Target Selection: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) target Hamas’s military infrastructure (e.g., rocket launchers, tunnels, command centers). IDF rules of engagement require legal review to ensure targets are military objectives, per Article 48 (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2023).
• Example: In 2023–2024 operations, the IDF struck over 30,000 targets, primarily Hamas rocket sites and tunnels, with 70% confirmed as military per IDF data. Strikes on civilian areas (e.g., Jabalia) were justified by Hamas’s presence, verified by drone footage showing fighters in schools (IDF, October 2023).
Proportionality:
• Legal Oversight: IDF operations are vetted by military lawyers to ensure civilian harm is not excessive relative to military gain, aligning with Article 51(5)(b). The IDF’s International Law Department reviews strikes in real time (Haaretz, 2023).
• Example: The November 2023 strike on Al-Shifa Hospital targeted Hamas’s underground command center, confirmed by U.S. intelligence and IDF tunnel discoveries (Reuters, November 2023). Civilian casualties were minimized through prior evacuation orders, balancing military necessity with proportionality.
Precautions in Attack:
• Warnings: The IDF uses leaflets, phone calls, text messages, and “roof-knocking” (non-lethal warning strikes) to alert civilians before attacks, per Article 57. Over 7 million leaflets and 100,000 calls were made in 2023–2024 (IDF, 2024).
• Example: Before striking Gaza City’s Rimal neighborhood (October 2023), the IDF issued 48-hour evacuation notices via radio and social media, reducing civilian presence in Hamas strongholds (BBC, October 2023).
• Technology: The IDF employs precision-guided munitions (90% of 2023 strikes) to minimize collateral damage, unlike less discriminate weapons used in past conflicts (e.g., WWII carpet bombing).
Protection of Civilians:
• Aid Facilitation: Despite Hamas’s attacks, Israel allows humanitarian aid into Gaza (1.5 million tons, 2010–2023; 500,000 tons in 2023–2024 via Kerem Shalom), complying with Article 3 obligations to protect civilian welfare (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2024).
• Example: During 2023–2024 operations, the IDF paused fighting for “humanitarian corridors,” enabling 1.2 million Gazans to evacuate south, reducing civilian exposure (UN OCHA, 2024).
Avoiding Protected Objects:
• Hospitals and Schools: The IDF avoids targeting protected sites unless used militarily by Hamas. Strikes on Al-Shifa and Al-Aqsa Hospitals were justified by evidence of Hamas’s command centers and weapons caches, corroborated by U.S. and EU reports (Washington Post, November 2023).
• Example: A 2023 strike near a UNRWA school was aborted when real-time intelligence detected civilian presence, per IDF after-action reports (Jerusalem Post, 2023).
Investigations:
• Israel investigates alleged IHL violations, as required by the Conventions. The IDF’s Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism reviewed 200+ incidents in 2023–2024, leading to 15 prosecutions for misconduct (e.g., looting, excessive force) (IDF, 2024).
Challenges and Criticisms:
• High civilian casualties (over 40,000 reported deaths, Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, May 2025) raise proportionality concerns. However, these figures are unverified, include Hamas fighters, and reflect Hamas’s human shield tactics, not deliberate IDF targeting. They are the estimates of the terrorists. Coupled with propaganda from their media arm.
• The International Criminal Court (ICC) sought arrest warrants for Israeli leaders (May 2024) for alleged war crimes, but Israel disputes jurisdiction, arguing its domestic investigations suffice (Israeli Ministry of Justice, 2024). The U.S. and UK criticized the ICC move as politically motivated (Reuters, May 2024).
Conclusion: Israel’s adherence to distinction, proportionality, precautions, and civilian protection, supported by legal oversight and technology, aligns with Geneva Convention standards, despite operating in a complex urban environment.
I have had multiple people in the last couple of days tell me they are confused about this topic and worried that it will irrevocably divide Maga. So here is my best attempt to lay it all out. For whatever that is worth.
Historical Context: The Jewish Connection to Israel and the Conflict’s Origins
The Jewish people’s connection to the land of Israel spans over 3,000 years, rooted in biblical history, archaeological evidence, and a continuous presence despite centuries of exile. The Torah and historical records document Jewish kingdoms in the region, with Jerusalem as their spiritual and political center. Even after Roman expulsion in 70 CE, Jewish communities persisted in the land, enduring Byzantine, Ottoman, and British rule.
The modern conflict began in the late 19th century with the Zionist movement, a response to centuries of anti-Semitic persecution, including pogroms in Eastern Europe and expulsions from Arab lands. Zionism sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in the ancestral land of Israel, then under Ottoman and later British control. The Balfour Declaration (1917) and the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine (1920) recognized Jewish rights to a national home, affirming international legal support.
In 1947, the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) proposed two states: one Jewish, one Arab. Israel accepted, but Arab leaders rejected it, refusing any Jewish state. On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence, and five Arab nations invaded, launching the first Arab-Israeli War.
Israel’s victory secured its survival but displaced approximately 700,000 Palestinians, many fleeing due to Arab leaders’ calls to evacuate. Meanwhile, 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, absorbed by Israel.
Subsequent wars: 1967’s Six-Day War and 1973’s Yom Kippur War were defensive responses to Arab aggression. Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem in 1967, offering land for peace, as seen in treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). These conflicts underscore Israel’s consistent pursuit of security amid existential threats.
Key Conflicts and Israel's attempts at peace:
1967 Six-Day War: Facing annihilation threats from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israel preemptively struck, capturing the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. UN Resolution 242 called for land-for-peace, which Israel pursued.
1973 Yom Kippur War: Egypt and Syria’s surprise attack on Israel’s holiest day was repelled, reinforcing Israel’s defensive posture.
•Peace Treaties: Israel signed treaties with Egypt (1979, returning Sinai) and Jordan (1994), and normalized ties with UAE, Bahrain, and others via the Abraham Accords (2020).
Oslo Accords (1993): Israel and the PLO agreed to mutual recognition and Palestinian self-governance, but Palestinian rejections of peace offers (e.g., Camp David 2000, Olmert’s 2008 proposal) stalled progress.
Palestinian Nationalism: Emerging in the 20th century, Palestinian identity coalesced under the PLO (founded 1964), initially a terrorist group that later embraced diplomacy. However, factions like Hamas rejected coexistence, perpetuating violence.
Israel’s Democracy: Israel is a vibrant democracy where 20% of citizens are Arabs with equal voting rights, representation in the Knesset, and access to education and healthcare. This contrasts with authoritarian regimes in neighboring states and Hamas’s theocracy in Gaza.
🧵🧵Why it is so important to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
The Muslim Brotherhood is not merely a religious movement, instead it is a global political operation that has inspired terrorist organizations, infiltrated national institutions, and weaponized soft power to achieve its goal: replacing democratic institutions with Islamist governance.
While many U.S. allies have designated the MB as a terrorist organization, the United States has not. This policy gap has enabled MB affiliated entities to operate domestically under the guise of civil rights and religious outreach often receiving taxpayer funding through nonprofit exemptions.
In 2013, Egypt designated the MB a terrorist organization for inciting violence after they ousted President Morsi.
In 2014, Sudi Arabia designated the MB as a terrorist organization linking them to terrorism, destabilization and ideological extremism.
In 2014, the UAE also designated the MB and its 80 affiliates as terror groups.
In 2014, Bahrain also designed them a terrorist organization because they were viewed as a political threat and a subversive actor.
In 2003, Russia designated the MB citing national security concerns.
In 1980 Israel designated them a terrorist organization.
In 2021, Austria also designated them the MB as a terrorist organization as part of a crackdown on foreign influence.
Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy and Security:
These designations reflect a global consensus among both authoritarian and Western aligned governments that the Brotherhood functions as a gateway to radicalization and uses civil society as a mask for extremism.
The U.S.’s failure to match this designation undermines intelligence coordination, allows funding to continue flowing to MB fronts, and provides legal shelter for ideological adversaries operating under nonprofit protections.