and CNSS

On 18 November 2025, while presenting the 2026 budget in Ankara’s parliament, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan once again raised the Kashmir issue, urging international intervention and dialogue under global oversight. The statement sparked little surprise not because it was benign, but because it fits a familiar pattern.

Over the past decade, Turkey has consistently used major global platforms, from the UN General Assembly to the OIC to national parliamentary debates, to position itself as a defender of Muslim causes worldwide, with Kashmir serving as a recurring rhetorical centerpiece.

Fidan’s remark was not an impulsive comment on a routine parliamentary day. It was another installment in Ankara’s long game of narrative diplomacy; a strategic campaign to shape how conflicts are perceived worldwide through emotional, identity-based framing rather than balanced geopolitical reasoning.

Soft Power and Narrative Warfare: A defining feature of Turkey’s foreign policy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been the deployment of soft power instruments: universities, think-tanks, diaspora groups, cultural bodies, and civil-society platforms, to construct and amplify narratives sympathetic to Ankara’s ideological and geopolitical positions.

These platforms allow Turkey to frame complex conflicts such as through simplified moral binaries: oppressed versus oppressor, victim versus aggressor, without any reference to state-sponsored terrorism.

Indeed, reports by independent fact-checkers such as DFRAC identified media organisations based in Turkey (and in Gulf-region media-ecosystems including Qatar) as active participants in anti-India disinformation efforts: suggesting that this campaign extends well beyond South Asia and aims to shape perceptions among Muslim audiences globally.

Turkey is now being described as ‘the new Dubai’ for anti-India influence operations, indicating that as Gulf states tightened their cooperation with India, Ankara repositioned itself as a hub for media, NGO-sponsored, and diaspora-led narrative outreach targeting Indian Muslims and the broader Muslim world.

This narrative strategy has been particularly visible in Turkey’s activism on Kashmir. Conferences, public lectures, solidarity campaigns, and academic delegations in events hosted by Istanbul university, Institute for Strategic Thinking (SDE) and Ankara-based thinktank ESAM have frequently depicted Kashmir not as a multifaceted political and security challenge but as a humanitarian catastrophe demanding global intervention.

Such narratives often mirror Pakistan’s long-standing line, while omitting crucial realities: cross-border terrorism, Pakistan-sponsored insurgency, and decades of targeted violence against civilians and security forces.

A Narrative Vacuum Waiting to Be Filled: A core factor enabling the spread of these narratives is the limited global understanding of India’s internal security landscape including Kashmir and left-wing extremism. In the absence of nuanced knowledge, simplified and emotive accounts travel faster and take deeper root.

Soft-power messaging thrives on precisely this gap; as American political scientist (late) Joseph Nye observed, “power is the ability to get others to want what you want.” In today’s world, what others believe is often more consequential than what is objectively verifiable.

By mobilizing academic and civil-society voices as independent moral arbiters, Turkey gains plausible deniability, allowing state-aligned narratives to be projected through apparently neutral channels. When repeated across respected international platforms, these positions accumulate what political scientists call normative legitimacy; the power to define what is seen as “just,” “acceptable,” or “morally right.”

Once embedded, such perceptions can influence diplomatic decisions, resolutions in multilateral bodies, and broader public opinion.

Why does It Matter for India and India’s Options?

India cannot afford complacency. External narratives have domestic consequences when they shape expectations, policy environments, and diplomatic costs. Allowing another state to repeatedly frame Kashmir as an international dispute rather than an internal constitutional question risks legitimizing external interference in India’s sovereign domain.

Moreover, narrative asymmetry creates a structural disadvantage when one side dominates the language of morality and human rights, the other risks being cast defensively, forced to justify rather than articulate. Emotional rhetoric consistently outpaces empirical analysis, and global politics increasingly rewards speed, sentiment, and symbolism.

This is not about silencing criticism; democracies must welcome scrutiny. But critique must be grounded in full context, not curated fragments that erase terrorism, glorify violence, or recast insurgents as liberators. A debate divorced from reality becomes political theatre rather than principled engagement.

The answer is not reactionary counter-propaganda. It is strategic narrative engagement: building credible visibility in global academic and diplomatic spaces, fostering research partnerships, investing in international outreach, and supporting evidence-based scholarship. India must tell its story with clarity, not defensively, but assertively, through transparent, well-structured public diplomacy.

India must also insist on transparency regarding funding and affiliations in international think tanks and civil-society organizations participating in discourse on South Asian conflicts. Legitimacy cannot be built upon undisclosed interests.

Conclusion

In an age where perception competes with reality, narrative power has become a strategic asset. Words can move resolutions, shift alliances, and determine how conflicts are judged before facts are even examined. When a budget-session remark in Ankara becomes global talking-point ammunition, it signals that narrative warfare is no longer peripheral: it is geopolitical statecraft.

India cannot allow others to define its story. If we do not articulate our truth with coherence, evidence, and confidence, we risk being defined by those whose agendas are anything but impartial. The choice before India is clear: shape the narrative or be shaped by it.

Centre for National Security Studies (CNSS) is a well-known thinktank in the area of National Security Studies, under Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore (India).

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

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.