Source: Carnegie/AFP
Meher Iftikhar and Muhammad Rizwan
On September 9, 2025, the Israeli Air Force carried out airstrikes in Doha, Qatar, targeting top Hamas officials who had convened in a residential building in the Leqtaifiya district close to the diplomatic compounds. At least five people were killed during the attack, including the son of the senior negotiator Khalil al-Hayya, and a Qatari security agent. To the Israelis, this operation was a continuation of the war against Hamas. To Qatar and the rest, it was not only an infringement of sovereignty but also a major blow to international mediation and diplomacy over Middle East’s most intractable conflict.
Qatar has long carved out an independent role in international affairs. While bigger actors in the region have adopted foreign policies that are influenced by rivalries, Doha has emerged as a credible go-between. It has sheltered Hamas exiles, mediated between the Taliban and the United States, and played a key role in negotiating ceasefires and humanitarian understandings in Gaza. Its power is based not on military might but on relative neutrality, economic clout, and diplomatic heft. Therefore, Israel’s decision to attack Doha, now deemed as an important capital for dialogue and negotiations, will likely make mediatory efforts all the more difficult.
The symbolism is critical here. Mediation requires that all sides believe that the uninvolved ground is inviolable. Diplomats, negotiators, and even insurgent leaders meet in capitals such as Doha, Muscat, or Geneva because they believe that these spaces are immune from the savagery of war. By launching a military operation in the capital of Qatar, Israel has erased that line. It indicates that even mediators who open their borders for negotiations are not safe from attack if they host actors who are considered hostile. Leaders in Qatar condemned the strike quickly as “state terrorism” and a “criminal attack,” but they also promised that the country will not abandon its mediatory role. Qatar’s commitment is noteworthy, but the price of mediation for it and other states has now increased precipitously.
The undermining of norms extends beyond Qatar. International law has always protected the principles of sovereignty and impartiality. Even in the most brutal wars, there has been a presumption that third-party states that are used for negotiation are not to be attacked. Critics have branded Israel’s move as a flagrant assault on the United Nations Charter, and most legal experts contend that such strikes endanger the integrity of diplomacy as a policy instrument. But Western reaction has been restrained and diplomatically hedged. While Washington, London, and Brussels labeled the strike as “counterproductive,” the language was not quite condemnatory. The double standard is evident. If Russia were to attack a Ukrainian target in Geneva, the outrage in Western capitals would be instant and forceful. By contrast, the subdued reaction to an attack on Doha reinforces perceptions in the Global South that the rules-based order is not a universal principle but is applied selectively.
This inconsistency has drastic consequences. For the smaller states, the threat associated with being neutral always loomed, but neutrality did give some protection. However, if mediators like Oman or Qatar now conclude that their borders can be easily breached, their willingness to remain so will reduce. That the Israeli attack coincided with the day that Hamas’ representatives were considering a ceasefire offer already suggests that it was intended to undermine or at least influence ongoing negotiations. The danger is that subsequent mediations will be in short supply, riskier, and less credible, depriving the international system of one of its very rare reliable conduits to manage and resolve conflicts.
The attack also has strategic consequences for the United States and its allies. Washington has long used Qatar as a port of call, not only in terms of security in the region but also regarding major diplomatic proposals. The American military base in Al Udeid speaks to the strategic value of Doha. However, when Israel acted out of its own volition, it not only endangered the independence of Qatar but also humiliated Washington, forcing American officials to take a defensive stance. By stating that the strike did not advance the objectives of Israel or America, they recognized that it was counterproductive. For the Gulf countries that are watching with keen interest, this is reason enough to worry about the credibility of American security guarantees. Therefore, unless Washington takes meaningful steps to protect allies like Qatar, they will remain vulnerable to attacks like this.
Such attacks also risk fueling more instability in the Middle East. Qatar sent threats of legal and diplomatic retaliation, and a tidal wave of anger had engulfed the region. The perceived potential of Israel to shift its battlefield from Gaza to the Gulf is stimulating other actors to do the same, and the use of force against the states that have been perceived to be in a neutral position might become a norm. This is a dangerous path in a place where conflicts are already highly interdependent and the spillover effects are difficult to contain. Israel’s belated apology will do little to alleviate these concerns.
These long-term disappointments with the international system are worrisome. The strike itself reveals a lack of connection between the discourse of normative universality and realpolitik. States must respect sovereignty and neutrality while welcoming mediatory efforts. However, if violations like this are ignored, a dangerous precedent will be set. The Middle East cannot afford precedents like the invasion of neutral territory, blackmailing go-betweens, and renouncing international law. This is primarily because such developments can erode confidence in mediatory initiatives, depriving the region of a major source of conflict management.
All in all, Israel’s military action should serve as a wake-up call for those who believe in the importance of crisis management and conflict resolution. If mediators are attacked and cannot be protected by their allies, the future of mediation and diplomacy will become bleaker. This will further attenuate the role of diplomacy, strengthening the hands of those who prefer using coercion as an instrument of policy.
Meher Iftikhar is an independent researcher based in Islamabad. Muhammad Rizwan is a PhD scholar at Deakin University.
The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own, and they do not necessarily reflect those of Pakistan Politico.
About The Author
