Israel’s attack on Qatar: Regional and diplomatic consequences
1. Why did Israel attack Qatar? What was the nature of their relationship before the conflict?
Israel’s attack on Qatar in September 2025 was the culmination of a fraught relationship marked by intermittent cooperation and persistent mistrust. Formal ties began in 1993 after the Oslo Accords and were strengthened in 1996 when Qatar became the first Gulf state to open trade offices with Israel. These relations, however, proved fragile and were repeatedly suspended—most decisively in 2009 following Israel’s Gaza War. Still, Qatar’s unique role as a mediator with Hamas kept indirect channels open. After Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, Doha, at Washington’s request, agreed in 2011 to host the group’s leadership. By 2014, Qatar had emerged as the principal financier of Gaza’s reconstruction, coordinating indirectly with Israel. For years, Israeli leaders tolerated this pragmatic arrangement, viewing Qatar as indispensable to stabilizing Gaza. By 2025, however, Israel judged that Qatar’s support for Hamas had shifted from mediation to active opposition. What was once a necessary partnership had become, in Israel’s eyes, a direct threat—culminating in the strike on Hamas leaders in Doha as part of Israel’s broader campaign to dismantle the movement’s leadership and infrastructure in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks.
2. How did Israel’s attack on Qatar affect the US-sponsored Abraham Accords and their future prospects?
Israel’s attack on Qatar has plunged the Abraham Accords into their deepest crisis since their launch in 2020, carrying major implications for U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. By striking Qatari territory, Israel provoked Gulf states that viewed the move as a violation of sovereignty, undermining the trust and cooperation at the heart of the accords. A total collapse remains unlikely, but normalization efforts are expected to slow or even stall—particularly in the wake of the emergency Arab-Islamic summit, where leaders debated sanctions, arms suspensions, and a reassessment of ties with Israel. For Washington, the fallout complicates President Trump’s efforts to expand the accords, especially to Saudi Arabia, and casts new doubt on America’s ability to balance its close alliance with Israel against the rising concerns of its Arab partners.
3. What are the broader implications of Israel’s attack on U.S. allies in the region?
Israel’s strike on Qatar carries far-reaching consequences for regional alliances, particularly among Gulf states long reliant on Washington’s security umbrella. For decades, U.S. missile defenses have protected both Israel and the Gulf from Iranian threats, yet none were activated during the strike on Qatari soil—casting serious doubt on U.S. credibility and strategic priorities. While dependence on Washington is unlikely to vanish, the attack has accelerated Gulf efforts to diversify their security partnerships. Saudi Arabia’s new defense pact with Pakistan—the Muslim world’s only nuclear power—not only reflects Riyadh’s push for greater autonomy in deterrence but also raises the possibility of leveraging Pakistan’s nuclear program as part of its strategy. At the same time, Egypt is cautiously reopening channels with Turkey and Iran while spearheading calls for a NATO-style Islamic alliance. Across the Gulf, the strike has renewed momentum for stronger GCC defense cooperation and even broader Arab or Islamic security frameworks. Yet, despite these shifts, the crisis may also present an opening for Gulf states to elevate their regional and international standing. By positioning themselves as credible mediators and stable alternatives to an increasingly isolated Israel, they could transform risk into renewed diplomatic influence
4. How does Israel’s attack on Qatar affect ceasefire negotiations with Hamas?
Israel’s strike on Qatar has dealt a serious blow to ceasefire negotiations and the broader war in Gaza. By prompting Doha to temporarily suspend its mediation, the attack deepened Arab doubts about Israel’s sincerity at the negotiating table. Striking Hamas leaders in a neutral state long associated with hosting peace talks further fueled skepticism among Arab governments about Israel’s genuine interest in ending the conflict. For Hamas, the timing—coinciding with deliberations over a U.S.-backed proposal—reinforced suspicions that Israel was negotiating in bad faith. In the short term, Qatar remains central so long as Hamas leaders are based in Doha. However, should it step back, Egypt may reclaim its traditional role as mediator. Cairo has long relied on its geographic proximity to Gaza, established security channels with Israel, and ties to both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to serve as the region’s central broker. A Qatari retreat would thus provide Egypt with an opportunity to reassert its diplomatic influence. Still, this potential shift in mediation underscores a deeper reality: Israel seems more committed to militarily dismantling Hamas than to fostering genuine negotiations. Ultimately, the strike highlights Israel’s determination to eliminate Hamas, even at the expense of ceasefire prospects.
About the author: Ibrahim Gemeah focuses on the history of the modern Middle East. His research examines the intersections of state, religion, society, and politics in the 20th century.