Israel's September 9th strike in Doha, Qatar, targeting Hamas leadership represents yet another triumph of short-term tactical thinking over long-term strategic wisdom—a recurring pathology in Israeli decision-making that American policymakers continue to enable rather than restrain.
The operation itself was undoubtedly a technical success. Israeli intelligence demonstrated its reach and capability by eliminating key Hamas figures on Qatari soil. But this tactical victory comes at an enormous strategic cost that reveals the bankruptcy of current Israeli and American approaches to the region.
Qatar has served as the indispensable intermediary in Gaza negotiations precisely because all parties—including Israel—recognized its unique position. Doha maintained relationships with Hamas not out of ideological sympathy, but as part of a careful balancing act that made it valuable as a mediator. By attacking on Qatari territory, Israel has effectively destroyed one of the few remaining channels for diplomatic resolution.
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how regional diplomacy functions. In the Middle East, influence often derives not from moral purity but from the ability to talk to all sides. Qatar's willingness to host Hamas leaders wasn't a bug in the system—it was a feature that enabled negotiations. Israel has now eliminated this asset for the dubious benefit of killing a few mid-level operatives who will inevitably be replaced.
The Trump administration's muted response to this violation of Qatari sovereignty reveals the continued bankruptcy of American Middle East policy. Rather than recognizing that unrestrained Israeli actions ultimately undermine American interests, Washington continues to operate under the illusion that unconditional support for Israeli operations enhances regional stability.
This represents exactly the kind of outdated thinking that has characterized American policy for decades. U.S. policymakers still believe they can manage the consequences of actions they refuse to prevent, somehow maintaining relationships with Gulf allies while giving Israel carte blanche to operate against their interests.
From a purely realpolitik perspective, Israel's action makes little sense. The country faces an existential challenge in Gaza that requires some form of negotiated settlement—if only to secure the release of remaining hostages and establish sustainable security arrangements. By attacking in Doha, Israel has weakened one of the few mechanisms that could facilitate such an outcome.
This echoes historical patterns in Israeli strategy. Just as the "periphery doctrine" of building relationships with non-Arab states ultimately proved ephemeral when those regimes fell, the current approach of using military force to solve fundamentally political problems continues to create more problems than it solves.
For Qatar and other Gulf states, this incident clarifies the limits of accommodation with Israeli actions. The GCC countries have been quietly building economic and security relationships with Israel based on shared concerns about Iran. But Israel's willingness to conduct operations on their territory fundamentally alters this calculus.
Gulf leaders now face a stark choice: continue to serve as intermediaries and risk becoming targets, or step back from mediation roles entirely. Most will likely choose the latter, further isolating Israel diplomatically and eliminating channels for future conflict resolution.
The Doha strike exemplifies the strategic blindness that has characterized Israeli policy since October 7th. Rather than recognizing that the crisis requires new approaches and broader regional arrangements, Israeli decision-makers continue to believe that tactical military superiority can substitute for political wisdom.
This mirrors American delusions about the efficacy of military solutions in the region. Both countries seem incapable of learning from decades of experience that shows how short-term tactical gains often generate long-term strategic disasters.
Real strategic thinking would recognize that Israel's long-term security depends not on eliminating every enemy, but on creating sustainable arrangements that make elimination unnecessary. This requires preserving diplomatic channels, not destroying them.
Similarly, genuine American leadership would involve restraining counterproductive Israeli actions rather than reflexively supporting them. The United States has leverage over Israel through military aid and diplomatic support—leverage that remains unused because of domestic political calculations that prioritize short-term positioning over long-term interests.
The Doha strike will be remembered not for the Hamas operatives it eliminated, but for the diplomatic possibilities it destroyed. In pursuing tactical satisfaction, Israel has made strategic resolution of its security challenges significantly more difficult.
For American policymakers, this incident should serve as yet another reminder that unconditional support for Israeli actions often undermines the very outcomes both countries claim to seek. Until Washington is willing to acknowledge these hard truths and act accordingly, both allies will continue to mistake tactical victories for strategic progress—a delusion that serves neither country's long-term interests.
The comfortable myths that have guided policy for decades must give way to uncomfortable realities about what actually works in the real world. The alternative is more of the same strategic drift that has characterized American Middle East policy for far too long.