As the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas limps into its second week, Washington’s foreign policy establishment is engaged in its favorite parlor game: declaring victory. President Trump has proclaimed himself peacemaker-in-chief, Netanyahu has welcomed returning hostages with tears and embraces, and Hamas leaders insist from their Doha offices that the resistance prevails. Everyone, it seems, has won.
The problem with this triumphalist narrative is that it ignores the most fundamental question of Middle East politics: who actually gained strategic leverage? Strip away the emotional reunions, the presidential photo-ops, and the propaganda from all sides, and a different picture emerges. The big winner of this round in the endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t in Jerusalem, Gaza, or even Washington. It’s in Doha.
Qatar has pulled off a remarkable feat. The tiny emirate has spent years hosting Hamas leadership, funding the organization through various channels, and broadcasting its narrative through Al Jazeera across the Arab world. By any reasonable standard, Qatar has been a key enabler of Hamas’s political and military strategy. Yet somehow, Qatar has emerged from this latest war not as a pariah but as the indispensable power broker of the Middle East.
Consider the absurdity of the situation. When Trump needed to broker a ceasefire, he didn’t turn primarily to Egypt, America’s long-standing ally that actually shares a border with Gaza and has brokered previous agreements. He didn’t elevate Saudi Arabia, the regional heavyweight that Washington has courted for decades. He turned to Qatar, the state that gave Hamas leaders a comfortable home while they planned and celebrated the October 7 attacks. The Qatari prime minister became the essential intermediary, the man both sides needed to reach a deal.
The payoff for Qatar has been extraordinary. Where are the regional summits being held? Doha. Who is setting the terms of reconstruction aid and humanitarian assistance? Qatar. Which Arab leader faced no pressure from Trump to accept displaced Palestinians? The Emir of Qatar, while Egypt’s President el-Sisi was publicly humiliated over the “Gaza Riviera” proposal. When Israel attempted a strike on Hamas offices in Doha last September and then apologized for the “mishap,” Qatar’s untouchable status was confirmed. Arab leaders who boycotted Qatar during the 2017 Gulf crisis now line up in Doha, recognizing where real influence resides.
This is realpolitik at its finest, and Qatar has played the game brilliantly. By maintaining relationships with everyone—Hamas and the U.S., Iran and Israel’s Gulf neighbors, the Muslim Brotherhood and pragmatic autocrats—Qatar has made itself indispensable. The emirate’s strategy reveals an uncomfortable truth about Middle East politics: being the mediator between antagonists is more valuable than being a reliable ally of one side. Qatar bet on keeping channels open to everyone, and that bet has paid off handsomely.
Meanwhile, what has Israel actually achieved? Netanyahu can point to degraded Hamas capabilities and returned hostages, but the stated objective of destroying Hamas has manifestly failed. Multiple reports confirm that Hamas retains control over Gaza. The organization has weathered the Israeli offensive and emerged with its narrative of resistance intact. In asymmetric warfare, survival equals victory, and Hamas has survived.
The costs for Israel are staggering. Hundreds of soldiers lost in a grinding campaign that produced no decisive outcome. International isolation that threatens to become permanent. Even traditional allies were threatening sanctions when Netanyahu announced plans to seize all of Gaza. The ceasefire is inherently unstable, with violations mounting and the fundamental security challenge unchanged. Israel can resume operations, but at what cost? Each escalation further isolates the country while failing to address the core problem.
Hamas, for its part, has paid an almost incomprehensible price for its survival. Gaza lies in ruins, tens of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, population displaced. But from Hamas’s perspective, this is the cost of resistance. The organization remains armed, refuses to disarm as Trump’s plan demands, and maintains its authority over whatever remains of Gaza. It has lost battles but not the war, at least not by its own calculus.
For the Trump administration, the ceasefire offers political theater but strategic ambiguity. Yes, hostages are coming home and Trump can claim credit. But what’s actually been solved? The fundamental issues remain unaddressed. Hamas is undefeated. Gaza’s future governance is undefined. The administration’s peace plan is aspirational at best, with critical details vague and enforcement mechanisms nonexistent. This is crisis management, not conflict resolution—another ceasefire that will hold until it doesn’t.
The real tragedy belongs to the Palestinian people. Tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, vast destruction, and no path toward the self-determination and dignity that remains the core of their national aspirations. The Palestinian Authority remains irrelevant, Hamas’s strategy has brought destruction rather than liberation, and the international community’s attention will inevitably drift elsewhere. The “day after” question—who governs Gaza and how is it rebuilt—remains unanswered because it is unanswerable under current conditions.
We have seen this pattern before, and history offers no comfort. Oslo was hailed as a breakthrough. The 2005 Gaza disengagement was supposed to enhance Israeli security. The Abraham Accords were meant to create a new regional architecture. Each time, the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict reasserted itself, disrupting grand plans and exposing the illusion that the problem could be managed, contained, or wished away.
The current ceasefire will follow the same trajectory. There will be reconstruction promises that fade, gradual deterioration of the agreement, renewed tensions, and eventual violence. The hostages will return home until new ones are taken. The cycle continues because the underlying drivers remain unchanged: irreconcilable visions of security and sovereignty, the role of external sponsors who benefit from continued conflict, and the absence of political will to address root causes.
But while everyone else cycles through violence and temporary peace, Qatar accumulates influence. The emirate has discovered that in the Middle East’s endless conflicts, the real winners are not those who fight but those who broker the peace between fighters. Every ceasefire negotiation enhances Doha’s position. Every reconstruction effort channels resources through Qatari hands. Every crisis brings Arab and Western leaders to Qatar’s door.
This should trouble Washington’s policymakers, though it apparently doesn’t. By elevating Qatar as the key mediator, the United States has empowered a state that fundamentally undermines American interests and allies. Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, its Al Jazeera network’s influence, and its balancing act between Iran and the Gulf all work against American objectives. Yet Qatar has successfully convinced Washington that it is indispensable, and in foreign policy as in business, perception often becomes reality.
The tragedy is that this outcome was entirely predictable. Wars with unrealistic objectives produce unsatisfying conclusions. Conflicts driven by irreconcilable claims cannot be managed away. And in the absence of genuine resolution, opportunistic actors will exploit the void for their own advantage. Qatar has done exactly that, parlaying its willingness to talk to everyone into a position of regional dominance that its size, wealth, and military power alone could never achieve.
So who won the Gaza ceasefire? Look to Doha, where Hamas leaders remain comfortably ensconced, where regional summits convene, and where the Emir and his prime minister smile knowingly as the world beats a path to their door. Everyone else is playing checkers, moving pieces back and forth across the same contested squares. Qatar is playing chess, and it’s several moves ahead.