If Israel’s operation is truly exceptional, then Qatar and its allies, Turkey, the Arab League, and Iran, are either not interested or unable to escalate the situation. If Israel’s goal was to put an end to diplomacy, then it has achieved it. Qatar will no longer provide mediation services, writes Kamran Gasanov.
On the opening day of the 80th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly, in the capital of a country seeking a diplomatic solution to one of the most protracted conflicts in recent history, an event took place that threatens both the essence of the United Nations and attempts at peaceful conflict resolution.
The Israeli Air Force attacked the capital of Qatar with drones and fighter jets as part of an operation cynically named “Summit of Fire.” The targets of 15 fighter jets and 10 bombs were buildings where Hamas leaders lived, including the head of the political bureau, Khaled Mashal, and the leader of the Palestinian group in Gaza, Khalil al-Hayya.
The formal reason for the IDF’s military action was the recent terrorist attack in Jerusalem, carried out by Hamas, which claimed the lives of six people. However, given the developments since at least October 7, 2023, there is no need to look for reasons. Since that day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has set the goal of completely destroying the “Islamic Resistance Movement,” which is already a legitimate target, as it is considered a terrorist organisation in Israel. An additional justification for the fight is the continued captivity in Gaza of about 50 Israeli hostages taken by Hamas during their Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
Without in any way diminishing the factor of revenge for the latest terrorist attack in Jerusalem – for Israel rarely remains in debt after being attacked – it is important to understand the practical and political goals of the strikes on Doha. Why Qatar? After all, it would be possible to carry out another punitive and demonstrative military action, already familiar to the international community, in Gaza or the West Bank, where the terrorist attack took place. Qatar is a sovereign state, not part of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” and has warm relations with leading countries, including the US, Turkey (which has 5,000 troops in Qatar), China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Israel’s risk must outweigh the expected benefits.
The answer to the question of the reasons for the military action should be sought in two areas. First, Qatar, together with Turkey and Iran, is one of the main sponsors of Hamas. Moreover, Doha provides the movement with both money and territory for its political bureau leaders to base themselves. It should be noted that Qatar’s allocation of millions of dollars was not intended to support Hamas in its fight against Israel, but to support the development of the Gaza Strip, including within the framework of UN humanitarian programs (UNRWA). In 2012, when Hamas sided with Bashar al-Assad’s opponents, Mashal moved from Damascus to Doha (until 2012, Hamas’ political leadership was based in Syria). Former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed last year in Tehran, had been living in Qatar since 2016.
However, Qatar’s support for the Palestinian organisation does not fully explain Israel’s choice of target, or even explain it at all. First, Qatar is not the only sponsor of Hamas. Its main support comes from Iran. Secondly, Israel agreed last year to hold truce negotiations in Doha. The Qatari platform suited everyone: the US, Hamas, and Israel itself. Why attack the venue of the negotiations? The answer seems obvious: to disrupt any diplomatic efforts. This raises the question: why would Netanyahu want to break off negotiations? Three events provide the answer to this question.
On July 18, 2024, almost immediately after the resumption of negotiations in Doha, Israel’s Knesset (legislature) voted against the creation of a Palestinian state. Almost exactly a year later, on July 23, it supported the annexation of the West Bank. In mid-August, the IDF launched Operation Gideon’s Chariots II, the third operation since the start of the bloody events in Gaza.
The destruction of diplomacy does not in itself mean victory in a military operation, but it narrows the format of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, directing it into a forceful channel that is advantageous to Netanyahu. The main thing for Israel is that the international reaction is not too painful and that Trump’s support does not diminish.
As for the reaction of the international community, virtually all countries in the world, including world powers and regional forces, have expressed solidarity with Qatar. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, the UAE, Egypt, and Iran consider the Israeli attack “cowardly.” According to Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, Doha is preparing a response together with friendly countries. Judging by the previous experience of the consolidated response of the Arab League and the OIC on Palestine, Israel has nothing to fear. Its main trading partners are Western countries, which, despite their threats, will not impose an embargo on Israel. More serious measures, such as military action, are also unlikely. The Islamic world, which includes Persians, Arabs, and Turks, is not united enough for these groups to fight for each other. In addition, an escalation with Israel would damage the important trade and financial ties between countries in the region and the EU and the US, which would naturally side with the Jewish state in the event of a hypothetical attack. The US, Britain, France, and Germany have large military bases in the UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, and Qatar itself.
Israel itself is unlikely to deliberately escalate the situation. In a telephone conversation with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, US President Donald Trump convinced him that the attack would not be repeated. This statement confirms rumours that Netanyahu’s military cabinet coordinated its operation with the White House and that the IDF carried out a one-off mission.
Trump’s condemnation of Israel for “violating Qatar’s sovereignty” is more declarative in nature and is aimed at softening the reaction of the GCC countries, with which he has concluded deals worth trillions of dollars. In general, the American leader either supports Israel’s actions in Gaza or gives them the green light. By the end of the summer, the White House’s rhetoric against Hamas had hardened. Special Representative Steve Witkoff accused the movement of being unwilling to negotiate, and Trump first declared the need to eliminate Hamas in order to free the hostages, and then, two days before the Qatar incident, issued an ultimatum. After Israel’s strike, he reiterated: “I told them this was their last chance, and they should take the deal, but they didn’t listen.”
Over the long term, three conclusions can be drawn.
First, the international system continues to break down. The taboo on the use of force in the world, and especially in the Middle East has been lifted. Israel is positioning itself as a “pioneer” in the process, launching unprecedented strikes first against Iran and then against Qatar.
Second, even if the Arab/Islamic world does not take decisive measures, the expansion of Israeli aggression from the usual targets of Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon to Iran, Yemen, and Qatar will intensify anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East and could isolate Israel completely, strengthening anti-Americanism.
Third, the implementation of Trump’s plan to expand the Abraham Accords, already complicated by the war in Gaza, now looks even less promising.
