The reverberations of Israel’s strike on the Hamas negotiating team in Doha yesterday are still rippling across the globe and will continue to for the foreseeable future. What we know as of September 10 is that Washington was made aware of the attack beforehand. We also know that the Hamas leaders who were targeted had ostensibly gathered under the auspices of deliberating on a proposal issued by US President Donald Trump only days ago. Thus, in an unprecedented step, the United States effectively sanctioned a targeted attack by one of its allies on the territory of one of its key economic and defense partners. Regardless of what comes to light in the coming weeks and months, the ramifications are profound and will alter the geopolitical landscape not just in the Middle East but likely on a global scale.
High (tactical) risk, low (strategic) reward
First, this strike validates regional skepticism that Israel is genuinely interested in a cease-fire in Gaza and prefers instead to pursue its objectives through force. Deliberate or not, Tuesday’s airstrike effectively further expands what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come to refer to as Israel’s “seven-front” war against Iran and its network of regional non-state proxies. Despite Israel’s claims of a surgical hit, it has now been reported that at least one Qatari security official was killed. Additionally, the optics of plumes of dark gray smoke wafting over Doha will serve as a lasting signal throughout the Arab world and abroad. Demonstrating respect for a sanctuary — as Qatar had long positioned itself — that allows combatants to negotiate is vital for conflict resolution. Yesterday’s attack sends a clear signal that Israel now feels justified in refusing such accommodations.
The United States has much more to lose in the aftermath of this strike. Less than four months ago, Trump completed what was widely deemed a successful initial overseas trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The hosts made an array of commitments aimed at bolstering investment in the US, expanding coordination on artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies, and signed significant defense partnership and sales agreements. There was also increased optimism that additional Arab states would normalize relations with Israel via the Abraham Accords, a signature diplomatic accomplishment of Trump’s first term. In the wake of yesterday’s attack, any goodwill Trump’s Gulf tour generated in the Arab world is depleted, and any hope of the White House seeking regional stability through a balanced strategy is all but extinguished.
Recent events had already called into question the US’s credibility in the Middle East, which is now further damaged by yesterday’s attack. The Gulf states in particular have ample reason to reassess Washington’s seriousness about engaging in diplomatic negotiations. In June, on the eve of what would have been a sixth round of talks with Iran, the US participated with Israel in a 12-day war to target the Iranian nuclear program — and it abruptly changed course without notifying Omani officials, who had long served as host and interlocutor to the US-Iranian engagements. Now, only a few months later, the United States further escalated tensions by allegedly sanctioning an assassination strike in the actual host country. This will justifiably be perceived as a severe breach of trust by many if not all of Qatar’s neighbors and raises a number of questions pertaining to broader US interests going forward.
Undermining the strategic balance and key regional partnerships
From a security standpoint, in the Gulf states there are about a half dozen US military installations that support operations throughout the Middle East and beyond. Of particular relevance, Qatar’s al-Udeid Air Base is home to US Central Command (CENTCOM) Forward, the largest concentration of US forces in the region at roughly 10,000. Gulf state partners also play an active role in directly supporting regional security initiatives. In the aftermath of the 12-day Israel-Iran war, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dan Caine extoled the efforts of a joint US-Qatari effort to interdict Iranian missiles targeting the base as part of Tehran’s reprisal attacks. Moreover, Qatar has in recent years invested billions of dollars to update the base’s infrastructure. The US military also maintains a significant presence in the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Yesterday’s attack in Doha is unlikely to jeopardize this access in the immediate term, but it could very well prompt these states to reconsider the implied security guarantees American boots on their territory grant them.
Besides valuable access, basing, and overflight privileges, a number of Arab state partners invest significantly in the US defense industry and actively contribute to regional security. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members are among the top customers of US defense products in what is becoming an increasingly competitive market. Moreover, CENTCOM has devoted considerable effort over recent decades to promote greater interoperability and coordination across the region on matters of mutual concern stemming from Iran. And while formal programs such as the establishment of the Middle East Air Defense (MEAD) alliance remain in development, a number of unofficial accommodations have been made among US partners to enhance warning and interdiction of Iranian air and missile threats. Yesterday’s strike in Doha may cause some Arab partners to think twice about their participation in such efforts going forward. Should Israel decide to conduct follow-on strikes against Iran in the near future, with or without US involvement, this could prove especially costly.
Considering the broader region, the September 9 attack sends a clear message not only to Hamas but any other adversary that Israel, and by extension the United States, cannot be trusted to engage in good faith negotiations for a peaceful cessation of hostilities. At a time when Iran’s connection to and influence over its network of proxies is arguably at its nadir, this could prove a harmful mistake. The most likely and immediate outcome will be an escalation of violence against Israel in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond. In the longer term, this will make US and Israeli diplomats and other officials less safe across the region. It will also hinder if not nullify key ongoing efforts to diminish Iranian proxies. For instance, the Lebanese government has been pursuing a tenuous plan to disarm Hizballah forces, and that is now imperiled. Be it these groups, the Houthis in Yemen, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, or others, the message is now clear that political negotiations are not to be trusted.
The US needs a comprehensive strategic vision for the region
Perhaps the most damaging impression from yesterday’s strike is that it strengthens recent accusations that Washington has effectively outsourced its Middle East strategy to Israel. Though nearly inconceivable only months ago, since Trump’s frustrated but ultimately effective insistence that both Israel and Iran conclude the 12-day war, the US has yet to oppose a series of escalatory measures taken by Israel in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere. While such a laissez faire approach would be ill-advised in any context, it is particularly unwise in this case. First, while the United States has remained devoted to its policy of maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region, it has also worked hard to create a balance with Arab partners and serve as a trusted and influential interlocutor in times of tension. This status is now very much in jeopardy.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Israel has yet to articulate any comprehensive strategy for a stable and secure region. Rather, it has adopted a series of assertive and escalatory policies against all adversaries in the faulty hope that persistent tactical victories will add up to vague and indeterminable ends. Thus far, this has resulted in a cratering of Israel’s international stature and now a further blow to its credibility. Crucially, Israel’s brashest acts have failed to yield the desired results. The regime in Iran still stands, and its nuclear program, while diminished, has not been destroyed. Likewise, the Hamas leaders specifically targeted in the Doha strike survived, even if five more-junior members of the delegation were killed. In both cases, however, any near-term prospects for further talks are now negligible, and US partners and adversaries alike are left wondering when and where Israel might strike next.
The pursuit of stability in the Middle East is an enduring US national security objective. Though ambitious, achieving this in a region where trust among rivals is minimal requires that avenues for dialogue are established and respected by all sides. Violating the sanctity of negotiations held in neutral sites only invites perpetual conflict. To maintain its status as a trusted interlocutor, Washington must make clear that further incursions against negotiators will not be tolerated. Beyond that, the US must establish and articulate its own strategic vision that incorporates the collective equities of its regional partners as well as demonstrate a willingness to expend political capital to pursue it.
Jason H. Campbell is senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, where he focuses on international security, geopolitics, and foreign policy.
Photo by JACQUELINE PENNEY/AFPTV/AFP via Getty Images
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.