Qatar’s role as a mediator in the War on Gaza has been dealt a direct blow – literally. Israel’s unprecedented attack in Qatar has thrown peace efforts into disarray, forcing Gulf states to choose between condemnation, caution, and confrontation.
The world woke up to shock on September 9th, as the Israel Defence Forces conducted an airstrike on Qatar. An airstrike targeting several Hamas leaders, none of whom were killed, shook the Gulf’s assumption that they were off-limits to direct conflict.
In a Truth Social post following the attack, President Donald Trump stated that he was notified by the U.S. military that Israel was attacking Hamas in Doha, and that it was “unfortunately too late to stop the attack”. “This was a decision made by [Israel’s] Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was not a decision made by me,” he said, before praising Qatar as a “strong ally and friend”. Trump’s post, however, also stated that “eliminating Hamas […] was a worthy goal” and reiterated that he wanted “ALL of the Hostages, and bodies of the dead, released, and this War to END, NOW!”
For decades, Qatar has positioned itself as both a bridge and a buffer – hosting U.S. troops at Al Udeid Air Base, facilitating dialogue between adversaries from Afghanistan to Gaza, and promoting itself as a neutral party where conflict can be negotiated rather than waged. The strike has raised urgent questions about the future of Gulf security, the safety of diplomatic mediators, the Israel-Hamas war itself, and the credibility of regional defence arrangements.
What is at Stake – Sovereignty, Norms and Security Guarantees
At its core, Israel’s attack on Qatari soil was more than a tactical airstrike— it challenged the norms of sovereignty and non-intervention that underpin modern society. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state, except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation.
Israel argued that its strike was a legitimate act of self-defence against Hamas, and defending its sovereignty following not only the original Hamas-led October 2023 attack, but also the Ramot Junction shooting the night before. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended the attack, warning Qatar for providing Hamas with a safe haven, stating “Israel takes full responsibility” for the attack. Critics, however, contend that carrying out such an attack on the territory of a third state— particularly one hosting mediation efforts— risks setting a dangerous precedent.
Qatar’s leadership has framed the strike as not only an attack on its sovereignty, but on diplomacy itself. Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani described the attack as “state terrorism” and called for Netanyahu to be “brought to justice.” Such language is significant— it suggests that Doha views the strike not merely as a security breach, but as an attempt to intimidate or discredit its mediator role.
For the Gulf Region, the implications are sobering. If Qatar— a state with strong U.S. ties, hosting one of the largest overseas American military bases— can be attacked without prior warning, what does that say about the credibility of U.S. security guarantees? Will other Gulf States begin to question whether Washington can still act as the region’s ultimate deterrent?
These questions strike at the heart of Gulf security thinking. Since its May 1981 inception, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have relied on a combination of Western defence partnerships, massive arms procurements, and quiet diplomacy to prevent regional spillover. Israel’s strike risks eroding that confidence—and may push some Gulf actors to seek new security arrangements, diversify alliances, or accelerate indigenous defence programmes.
Impact on Mediation and Ceasefire Prospects
Qatar has spent many years cultivating a reputation as the Gulf’s most reliable go-to. From hosting senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban during the Afghan Peace Process since the early 2010s, to mediating prisoner exchanges between Hamas and Israel, Doha has centred its foreign policy on its niche as a trusted, neutral venue. Israel’s strike threatens to undermine that credibility— or at least, make ceasefire conversations more difficult.
Immediately following the attacks, Qatar announced it would not withdraw from ceasefire efforts but warned that continued escalation will make current and future ceasefire dialogue impossible. This is a critical signal: Doha is reasserting its role and putting Israel (and its Western allies) on notice that further strikes could collapse negotiations entirely. For Hamas, the attack may harden its stance, seeing the attempted killings of senior leaders as evidence that talking during conflict only invites assassination attempts. For Israel, however, the strike may be framed as necessary leverage – attempting to eliminate figures seen as obstacles to a ceasefire or to Israel’s broader war aims.
This dynamic mirrors patterns seen in other conflicts. During the peace process between the Government of Colombia under Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP) between 2012 and 2016, targeted killings of rebel commanders periodically derailed talks, forcing mediators to work harder to bring parties back to the table. Qatar’s situation is arguably even more sensitive: it is not a distant mediator but a regional state, now directly targeted.
The impact on international diplomacy is also significant. Former U.S. Secretary of State Anthony J. Blinken has called Qatar’s mediator role “indispensable” and has urged Israel to coordinate more closely to deter further aggression and avoid undermining peace efforts. The UN Human Rights Council held an urgent debate on September 16th, with several member states arguing that attacks on mediators violate customary international law protecting peace negotiations.
If Qatar feels its role as a mediator is untenable, mediation could shift to another venue— potentially Riyadh or Abu Dhabi. The problem is, neither of these venues offers the same combination of Gulf legitimacy and global trust. A failure to reach mediation not only prolongs the war in Gaza, but risks dragging more regional actors into confrontation, increasing the chance of further attacks or proxy escalations.
How will this strike affect Israeli military strategy?
The Israeli strike on Qatari soil is not just a one-off tactical decision—it could be a signal of a much more assertive Israeli military posture across the region. While this is not the first attack Israel has carried out in the Middle East since October 7, 2023, this attack will halt existing peace efforts rather than accelerate them. While the ultimate Israeli goal of eliminating top Hamas leaders were unsuccessful, Israel has made talks appear futile, pushing militant factions toward hardline positions and undermining Qatar’s willingness to continue facilitating dialogue.
Moreover, the strike may embolden Israel to pursue a broader strategy of escalation, including deeper operations in Gaza and potentially in the occupied West Bank. Recent Israeli government rhetoric has already hinted at plans to formalise control over key parts of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley. If annexation efforts resume, they would directly contradict the spirit of the Abraham Accords—signed in 2020, which normalised relations between Israel and several Gulf states (Bahrain, Israel, the UAE, Morocco, and Sudan)—under the assumption that progress toward Palestinian self-determination remained possible.
Gulf states, particularly the UAE and Bahrain, now face a difficult choice. Publicly, they have condemned the strike on Qatar and called for restraint, but privately, they may fear being drawn into a regional confrontation that could destabilise their own security. Should Israeli aggression expand to include annexation measures in the West Bank, Gulf governments may be forced to reconsider their deals to preserve domestic legitimacy. This is particularly true in states where public sympathy for Palestinians remains high and where the perception of being complicit with Israeli policy could provoke backlash.
The Arab-Islamic emergency summit that convened in Doha underscored the urgency of the moment. Israel’s actions were described as a serious violation of international law, highlighting the Gaza War had turned into a genocide, and pledged collective steps to protect Gulf sovereignty. While such language is often more symbolic than operational, it reflects a growing sense that the regional order is under stress—and that continued Israeli escalation risks unravelling the very diplomatic architecture that has underpinned relative stability since 2020.
If peace efforts collapse, the risk is not only renewed fighting in Gaza but also a widening of the conflict into a multi-front confrontation involving Lebanon, Syria, and potentially the Gulf. This would transform what has been a contained war into a regional crisis—one that could test U.S. military commitments and global energy markets alike.
Photo: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand (CC BY 3.0 NZ)
