Borderless warfare: Israel’s strike on Doha has changed the rules of the game in the Middle East

Доступно на русском языке

Precedent over outcome

On Sept. 9, Israel struck a Hamas leadership meeting in Doha, Qatar, changing the rules of the game in the region. Qatari territory had been considered untouchable, given the country’s recognized role as mediator between Israel and Hamas, as well as Qatar’s close ties with Washington. Moreover, the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East is located a short drive southwest of Doha.

Following the attack, Hamas announced six deaths (five Hamas members and one Qatari internal security officer). Among them were the son of Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas’s leadership council responsible for Gaza, and the director of his office. Al-Hayya himself, identified as one of the main targets of the strike, is said by the movement to be alive. However, this has not yet been confirmed: he has not appeared in public since, nor have other Hamas leaders who were reportedly attending the meeting at the group’s headquarters that day in a residential compound allocated to Hamas by the Qatari government.

The first exception, five days later, was Taher al-Nunu, an adviser to the head of Hamas’s political bureau. Last Sunday, he gave an interview to the Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera. Palestinian sources claim al-Nunu was in the building at the time of the attack, though this was not mentioned in the interview. Another Hamas political bureau member who had been in Doha during the Israeli strike, Ghazi Hamad, later surfaced, declaring a loss of trust in U.S. mediators in the negotiations.

The attack took place during a Hamas leadership meeting that was discussing U.S. President Donald Trump’s ceasefire proposal. According to Israeli and foreign reports, the strike was carried out in such a way as to avoid entering Arab countries’ airspace.

In addition, Israeli security sources say a reduced warhead was deliberately used, which ultimately prevented the elimination of the “main target.” They claim this was done for political reasons, in order to minimize collateral damage.

Whether this was actually the case or merely an attempt to justify the failure after the fact is unclear — and not particularly significant. The very fact of the operation set a precedent, and the interpretations various parties take from it matter more than the kinetic result.

Trump’s “last warning”

The timing of Israel’s military operation is key to assessing the situation. Some sources say that plans to strike Hamas leaders in Doha had been under discussion for at least a year. There had been plenty of opportunities, but no decision to attack was made. What changed this time?

According to Israeli experts, Jerusalem received a “green light” from Trump — even if leaders in both capitals deny it. Official statements from the key players said Israel informed the U.S. right before the attack, and Washington promptly notified Qatar. Doha, for its part, said the American message arrived ten minutes after the strike had already taken place.

Israel also stresses that this was an “independent decision,” meaning the U.S. was not involved. In his first reaction, President Donald Trump expressed displeasure over the incident but called the elimination of Hamas a worthy goal.

Several days before the strike on Doha, Trump wrote on his Truth Social media platform that the Israelis had accepted his ceasefire terms and that now Hamas must do the same. “I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning, there will not be another one!” Trump stressed.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas abducted 251 people during its attack on Israel, and there are still 48 Israeli hostages in the Gaza Strip. According to the latest data, only 20 of them are alive, and over the past two years of war, Israeli authorities have faced the challenge of how to dismantle Hamas’s military potential in Gaza while also bringing the hostages home.

Most of the hostages were freed in two ceasefire deals. However, the sides never reached a final agreement. Israel demands that Hamas lay down its arms, while the Palestinian side insists on an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and guarantees against renewed hostilities. Other disagreements remain as well.

Hence, it is not clear which specific proposal Trump was referring to in his post. Israeli media published unofficial versions citing an Arab source involved in the talks. As that figure told The Times of Israel: “The proposal envisions Hamas releasing all remaining hostages within the first 48 hours after the deal is concluded in exchange for a U.S. guarantee that Israel will not resume the war, as well as the release of several thousand Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, including about 250 people serving life sentences for participating in attacks that killed Israelis.”

Hamas, in turn, stated that it was prepared to consider Trump’s proposal, though no final agreement was announced. At the same time, Israel began preparing to launch an operation to occupy Gaza City while still leaving themselves room to maneuver. They stressed that if Hamas released the hostages and agreed to other conditions, the operation would be halted. Yet a week after the strike on Qatar, Israel nevertheless began a ground operation to take control of Gaza, sparking debate within Israeli society. The campaign has been advancing slowly, meaning it can be stopped at any time if negotiations are revived.

Breakdown of talks and rift with the Arabs?

Critics of the strike — Mossad chief David Barnea among them — argue that Israel should at least have waited for Hamas’s response to Trump’s proposal. According to Barnea, Hamas’s reaction would likely not have been entirely positive, but it could have allowed for progress to be made in the negotiations.

A large share of the hostages’ families and their supporters believe the Israeli operation ruined the chance for a deal at a time when every delay puts their loved ones’ lives at risk. Other arguments voiced by opponents of the strike have noted the threat of Israel’s international isolation and damaged relations with the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf. The 2020 Abraham Accords, under which Israel established diplomatic relations with the UAE and Bahrain, are now under threat. The agreement has survived two years of war in the Gaza Strip, but the Arab signatories’ dissatisfaction with Israeli actions has been growing, especially from the UAE. As a result, the level and intensity of contacts have been declining.

At a mid-September conference marking the fifth anniversary of the accords, Amir Hayek, Israel’s first ambassador to the UAE, said: “The Emiratis immediately condemned Hamas after the October 7 attack and made clear that they were committed to the Abraham Accords. But over the past two years they have seen documents from Gaza, heard statements about annexing [part of the West Bank], and then came last week’s strike in Qatar. The Emiratis are a people who say what they think, and that is why their statements should be taken very seriously. They could be a powerful driver of Israel’s economic growth. Ever since they said the Abraham Accords are at risk, I haven’t been able to sleep at night.”

Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed Al Thani called the Israeli strike “state terrorism” and “a dangerous precedent.” Other Arab and Islamic countries immediately voiced support for Doha. A week later, an emergency Arab-Islamic summit condemning Israel was held in the Qatari capital.

The final statement urged the international community to take urgent measures to “end the aggression” and establish a Palestinian state. Among them were calls for all countries to pursue accountability for Israel, impose sanctions, halt the supply, transfer, or transit of weapons, ammunition, and military materials to it, including dual-use goods, review diplomatic and economic relations, and initiate legal proceedings against the Jewish state. Arab and Islamic countries also pledged to coordinate efforts to suspend Israel’s membership in the UN. The text also contained a hint at the possibility of revisiting the Abraham Accords.

It stated that “Israel’s brutal and flagrant aggression against the brotherly State of Qatar and its continued aggressive actions, including crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation and blockade, as well as settlement activity and expansionist policies, undermine the prospects for peace and coexistence in the region.” The original draft went further, stating that Jerusalem’s actions “threaten everything that has been achieved on the path to normalization of relations with Israel, including existing and future agreements.” This last point alluded to plans to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries, including Indonesia.

Other reactions were also of note. Egypt, which commands the largest army in the Arab world, once again pressed for the creation of an “Arab NATO” to be headquartered in Cairo. And Pakistan, the world’s only Muslim majority state with nuclear weapons, called for forming a joint task force to “monitor Israel’s plans in the region and adopt effective deterrent and offensive measures in a synchronized manner to counter Israel’s expansionist designs.”

However, talk of an “Arab NATO” has been around for so many years that few believe such plans are realistic. Most regional players are bound by security and military cooperation agreements with the U.S. — particularly Cairo, which is heavily dependent on American aid.

In the end, the summit participants’ statement made clear that they would act through diplomatic and economic pressure, not military means. For instance, the UAE has already barred Israel from participating in a defense exhibition in Dubai. And Qatar, with its financial clout and lobbying capabilities in Europe and the U.S. may be able to shape the positions of several countries, influencing Western politicians and public opinion alike.

Israel was already in a difficult diplomatic position. Its leaders face lawsuits in the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and European countries are embarking en masse on the recognition of a Palestinian state. Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to demonstrate support for Israel and is trying to act as mediator on its behalf, even if the Netanyahu government’s trust in Washington has been seriously undermined. In Arab capitals, meanwhile, the belief prevails that the U.S. is unable to restrain Israel.

But Washington still has a key role to play. On Sept. 15 in Jerusalem, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio may have conveyed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump’s approval for the launch of the ground operation in Gaza, which immediately moved into its active phase. Prior to that, the Qatari prime minister had visited the White House. From Jerusalem, Rubio proceeded to Doha. The U.S. is interested in preserving regional stability but also shares Israel’s stance on Hamas. “The people of Gaza deserve a better future, but that better future cannot begin until Hamas is eliminated,” Rubio said in Jerusalem, adding that the U.S. is now focused on Qatar’s role in brokering a Gaza agreement.

A new regional equation

Doha initially announced it was suspending its role as a mediator in talks between Israel and Hamas, but later, after the Qatari prime minister’s talks in Washington, he said that mediation would continue. At the same time, officials in Doha voiced doubts that negotiations were possible against the backdrop of events in Gaza.

Some Israeli experts even believe that, since Israel has shown the militants have no immunity, Hamas will now become more flexible. The strikes on Doha made clear that “time cannot be dragged out indefinitely,” said Liraz Margalit, a researcher at Israel’s Reichman University. In his view, Israel sent a message to Hamas leaders that they should not be too stubborn in the negotiations — the price could be very high. Still, reports have already emerged that Hamas may in fact harden its position.

Moreover, the strikes on Doha served as a message to all regional players that supporting militants puts their patrons at risk. “I would like to draw your attention to a very important UN Security Council resolution adopted after the September 11 attacks. All states are obliged to deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, commit terrorist acts or provide them shelter,” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said during an online briefing for Israeli ambassadors.

From the Israeli side, the events are a logical continuation of the doctrinal shift that began with the killing of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. That was followed by the killing of Hezbollah’s secretary general in Beirut, as well as the rapid seizure of part of Syrian territory after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

“For decades, Israel sought a local political settlement to end the conflict. Out of political blindness and war fatigue, we tried to achieve these goals using Western negotiation tools. But the idea that any problem can be resolved through the elementary fairness of ‘mutual concessions’ is incompatible with the worldview of those driven by religious fundamentalist ideas,” said reserve brigadier general Danny van Buuren. “History proves that periods of stability and peace were achieved precisely where clear centers of power existed. Israel’s ability to stabilize the region is directly tied to its military strength,” he emphasized.

Former National Security Council head Meir Ben Shabbat has also noted that Hamas’s headquarters in Doha is a natural target. He points out that the Hamas leadership abroad mobilizes and coordinates resources for use on the ground in Gaza, and it also works to maintain ties with its Iranian backers and other Islamic organizations spread across the world. In his view, Israel cannot allow Hamas and other terrorist groups to feel a sense of security, wherever they may be hiding.

Much remains undecided, but experts note that the rules of the game in the Middle East have changed — or, more precisely, that there are no longer any rules. It is no longer as important who knew about Israel’s plans in advance. As a result of the strike, more pressing questions have emerged: will Hamas survive? What future awaits Gaza? Will Israel be able to return the hostages? How?

Arab states may still have their say, especially given that, at the moment, Israel has almost no one on its side apart from the United States (or, more precisely, the Trump administration). Not long ago, people in the Middle East were speaking of a new, prosperous future for the region — one in which Israel and Arab states would build bridges together and participate in economic projects aimed at development. But that vision was shattered by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Only now are we seeing a new Middle Eastern architecture taking shape, with new rules of deterrence and new centers of influence.