The article considers the U.S. engagement in the Gulf crisis between Qatar and Saudi coalition from the point of view of the neorealist school of international relations. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are destined to be adversaries as Qatari ambitions and influence grow. Two structural theory approaches of this school known as defensive realism (Kenneth Waltz) and offensive realism (John Mearsheimer) are used to analyze and work out more efficient strategy with regard to the «security dilemma» in the international system. The parties of the conflict demonstrate both approaches. While Washington is interested in resolving the conflict based on bilateral concessions, none of the other parties is willing to consider concessions for a compromise agreement. Instead of that, both Qatar and Saudi «four-state coalition» chose the ways to maximize their power over «buck-passing» by involving the U.S. Aggressive behavior of Saudi coalition may be described as offensive realism strategy while Qatar is prone to defensive realism. Saudi Blockade of Qatar triggered balancing counter moves, and Qatar balances the power more efficiently involving other countries. The outcomes of analysis are as follows: • The Saudi overbalancing strategies in their ultimate aim to dominate in the Gulf did not succeed. • In response to upset the balance of power the Qatari strategy of resolving their own security dilemma by «buck-passing» leads to Saudi coalition accepts the raised burden of deterring counterpart and after deeper involving new adversaries rivals of Qatar in Gulf will spent more substantial resources to achieving their goals. • The balance-of-power approach in analyzing the development of Qatari – Saudi cri-sis shows that both parties’ attempts to «buck-pass» the responsibility to one superpower are inefficient, since both Qatar and Saudi coalition act as the U.S. clients.