The implications of Israel’s strike on Qatar
Mohamed Nabil El-Gharib Al-Bandari
September 18, 2025
The Israeli airstrike that targeted senior Hamas figures in Doha on September 9 represents a qualitative shift in the trajectory of the protracted conflict in Gaza and the wider region. The attack was not merely a passing military operation—it carried deeper strategic implications. While it sparked broad international condemnation and opened debates over the violation of Qatari sovereignty and the undermining of mediation efforts, the Israeli attack simultaneously revealed the contours of a “new reality,” in which security calculations intersect with diplomatic wagers, heightening the likelihood of the region sliding into a more complex phase of instability.
Strategic shift in the conflict
Israeli security agencies aimed to eliminate Hamas’s political leadership in Qatar—a Major Non-NATO ally of the United States whose leaders have spearheaded ceasefire negotiations for nearly two years. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisers concluded that negotiations were yielding no results, and that eliminating Hamas would advance Israel’s war objectives. These include destroying the movement, securing the return of Israeli hostages from Gaza, and ensuring Hamas could never govern again. The attack drew widespread condemnation from states and international organizations – including Saudi Arabia, Germany, Turkey, the United Nations, and the European Union. Similarly, the outcomes of the Arab-Islamic Summit held in Doha on September 15, included a clear condemnation of this attack on Doha, along with full Arab support for all measures taken by Qatar to defend its sovereignty, security, and the safety of its citizens.
Practically speaking, Israel’s targeting of Hamas leaders abroad was not unexpected. Rather, it culminated in a declared policy, following the statement by IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir on August 31. The Israeli defense minister vowed to continue striking enemies “everywhere” a day after attempting to assassinate Hamas leaders in Doha, though the operation appeared not to have killed senior figures.
This Israeli strike can be read as a form of political pressure on the movement to accept the latest U.S. initiative for hostage release. It reflects an effort to leverage military escalation as a negotiating tool—particularly as the operation coincided with what U.S. President Donald Trump described as a “final warning.” This signaled that Hamas’s options were narrowing, and that the U.S. administration’s preferred course was to impose a swift settlement ensuring a ceasefire and facilitating Israeli withdrawal, thereby preserving Israel’s military gains while granting Washington a diplomatic achievement in the region.
Mediation under fire: Qatar’s diplomatic crossroads
While Israel sought to present the assassination attempt on Hamas leaders abroad as a deterrent message of symbolic weight, its announcement of a ground incursion into Gaza on September 16, reflects a shift from the language of threats to the pursuit of maximum direct pressure. The Israeli strategy thus aims to suffocate the movement along two parallel tracks: striking its political and leadership structure abroad to dismantle its support networks, while simultaneously pushing it toward seriously considering acceptance of the U.S. initiative.
Yet this approach is not without structural contradictions: the combination of external targeting and ground operations reveals confusion over Israel’s ultimate objective—whether to politically break Hamas into compliance with the American plan, or to militarily exhaust it in ways that could unleash even more explosive dynamics. In either case, this strategy underscores an escalating offensive posture that carries significant risks for the stability of the wider region.
The broader implications of such Israeli attacks
The United States stated that Israel had notified it prior to the attack. Yet U.S. officials sought to distance Washington from the strike. The White House said President Trump considered the attack an “unfortunate incident” that did not contribute to advancing peace in the region. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt noted that Trump spoke with Netanyahu and “expressed his views and concerns very clearly.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Edward Djerejian asserted: “The attacks come at a very sensitive moment in ceasefire negotiations, as the Trump administration, the president, and his envoy Witkoff have made clear that the president seeks a comprehensive ceasefire, the release of all hostages, prisoner exchanges, and moving forward to end the war in Gaza.”
When asked in a press conference after the strike whether ceasefire talks would continue, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman said: “I don’t think there is any point” in the current talks. However, he refrained from stating that Qatar would end its mediation, adding: “We will do our utmost to stop this war.”
Repeated strikes may prompt Doha to reconsider its role as a mediator, particularly if such attacks jeopardize its security and sovereignty, or if its hosting of mediators no longer enjoys sufficient guarantees. Such a suspension could undermine the ongoing negotiation tracks for a ceasefire and hostage release, pushing the files into less effective alternative channels, rival regional mediators (Egypt, Turkey), or direct U.S. involvement—thus prolonging talks and reducing the prospects of a swift settlement. Moreover, the loss of confidence by key actors (Hamas, Washington, Cairo) in Qatar’s ability to provide protection and a safe negotiation space would make any future meetings contingent on hard-to-secure security guarantees.
In the same context, if Israel perceives the repeated presence of Hamas leaders in other countries such as Turkey as a continued threat, it may consider exerting intelligence pressure or conducting operations there. However, any move to strike on the sovereign territory of a state like Turkey carries doubled strategic risk—provoking a severe diplomatic, and possibly military, reaction from Ankara, complicating relations with NATO allies, and potentially prompting Turkey to reconsider its rules of engagement with Israel while bolstering its political or logistical support for Palestinian groups or other regional actors. Thus, while such targeting may yield short-term tactical gains, it risks triggering incremental retaliation and eroding Israel’s international legitimacy in the medium term.
U.S. dilemmas: Policy, credibility, and restraint
The White House stated that the U.S. military in Qatar had informed Trump and that envoy Witkoff had been tasked with notifying the Qataris. But Doha said it received no notification until after the attack, which caused panic in the capital. The White House’s damage-control efforts reinforced Trump’s claim that he was unable to prevent the strike. Leavitt stated: “The unilateral bombing of Qatar—a sovereign state and a close U.S. ally, working diligently with us to mediate peace—does not serve Israel’s or America’s objectives.”
Washington is responsible for restraining Israel’s push toward further unilateral escalatory operations. The continuation of such strikes undermines the negotiation track in which the U.S. administration has invested significant diplomatic capital in recent months. Hence, the White House must exert clear political pressure on Israel to return to the negotiating table with Hamas, as progress in this path remains the only safeguard against broader conflict and the only way to end the war in Gaza. Specifically, adopting Witkoff’s latest proposal, which links a ceasefire to prisoner exchanges and hostage release constitutes an opportunity that should not be squandered by military adventures that risk derailing even the minimum understandings achieved thus far.
The United States must also firmly urge Israel not to repeat its targeting of Hamas leaders abroad, as this posture carries serious risks to regional stability. Strikes on U.S.-allied states such as Qatar or NATO member Turkey threaten not only mediation channels but also the stability of the regional security architecture. Any such escalation risks undermining trust in U.S. security commitments. Thus, restraining Israeli behavior at this juncture goes beyond managing bilateral balances. It constitutes a cornerstone for safeguarding the wider network of Washington’s interests in the Middle East.
