Read about the Israeli targeting of the Hamas delegation in Doha
On September 9, 2025, the Qatari capital, Doha, witnessed an unprecedented qualitative event when Israel carried out a precision airstrike targeting a meeting of Hamas leaders. The operation, officially announced by Tel Aviv and dubbed the "Summit of Fire" by Hebrew and Western media, did not go unnoticed regionally or internationally. While Hamas announced that its senior leaders had survived the assassination attempt, it lost a number of prominent companions, including the son of a leader and close officials. Qatar was quick to condemn the operation, describing it as a blatant violation of sovereignty, while Washington publicly expressed concern about the strike's repercussions on the ongoing mediation efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. Thus, the operation moved beyond its narrow military scope to a broader political and strategic sphere, marking a watershed in the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its intersections with regional and international mediators.
First: Implications, Timing, and Strategic Messages
The Israeli operation carried deeper strategic dimensions, given its timing, location, and the party that announced its implementation. The targeting inside Doha, at a sensitive moment when discussions were underway regarding a US ceasefire proposal, reflects a conscious Israeli decision to bypass what were known as traditional diplomatic protection lines. Tel Aviv preferred to send a message stating that deterrence and security were the absolute priority, even if this meant striking targets within the territory of a mediating state.
The operation was not merely a limited tactical event; from its outset, it assumed complex strategic dimensions. The choice of location—the heart of the Qatari capital, which hosts and manages the mediation channels—and timing—given the discussion of a US ceasefire proposal—gave the operation a very clear symbolic and message-oriented dimension. Israel wanted to convey that its national security and its right to target Hamas leaders take precedence over any traditional diplomatic considerations, even if these considerations were linked to strategic allies or influential mediators in the international arena.
Israel's messages were dual. Domestically, the government sought to assure the Israeli public that it was capable of exercising a policy of "deterrence without limits," with no red lines for targeting leaders, whether in Gaza or in Arab capitals. Statements by Netanyahu and senior officials that "no one is immune" reflected this public approach aimed at reassuring the public at home and protecting the government from mounting criticism regarding the war's protracted nature and the breadth of threats. Externally, the operation carried a double warning to mediators and Hamas: to Doha and Washington that Israel would act unilaterally if it perceived a strategic security threat, and to Hamas that its leaders were not protected even during negotiations or in locations supposedly diplomatically safe.
The timing, in turn, revealed political deliberateness. While Washington was pushing for a ceasefire proposal, the strike came as a clear message to the White House that Israel did not see itself bound by a timeline or negotiating vision if it conflicted with its security priorities. Reports indicated that the White House attempted to warn Doha in advance through diplomatic channels, while Qatar denied any knowledge of the matter. This conflicting narratives revealed a dangerous trust gap between the mediating parties and raised doubts in Doha and other Gulf partners about the effectiveness of the American guarantees and the extent to which Israel respected prior coordination.
Second: Direct Implications for the Situation:
A. Negotiations and Ceasefire Efforts
The assassination attempt dealt a severe blow to the parties' confidence in the mediation process. In practice, a meeting intended to discuss the American proposal was targeted, making any party reluctant to move forward or make concessions in a dangerous atmosphere. Therefore, it became logical for the negotiation process to experience a temporary paralysis, as reflected in Qatari statements about suspending the talks until the situation was restored. This suspension not only represents a time delay, but also adds a new layer of complexity, requiring the mediators to rebuild trust between the parties and convince the delegations that negotiations in Doha are safe and feasible.
B. Hamas's Position and Strategic Options
Hamas appeared to be facing a complex dilemma. On the one hand, its senior leadership was able to survive the assassination attempt, allowing it to present the incident as evidence of "Israeli failure." At the same time, however, it suffered symbolic casualties among its escorts. This reality may force the movement to choose one of two options: either raise the ceiling of its negotiating demands and maintain a more hardline stance, capitalizing on regional and international sympathy, or resort to a measured military response to demonstrate its deterrence capabilities. The second possibility seems likely in light of the internal and symbolic pressures on the movement, as its continued silence could be interpreted as incompetence. Therefore, the possibility of escalation via proxies or through qualitative operations against Israeli targets remains, albeit linked to complex calculations regarding timing and the extent of available resources.
C. The Qatari Position and Options Available to Doha
Qatar appears to be the most vulnerable in this situation. On the one hand, it seeks to protect its sovereignty and reputation as a neutral mediator, while on the other hand, it does not want to lose its central position as a key negotiating channel. Its swift and strongly worded condemnations, along with its declaration that it "reserves the right to respond," reflected an attempt to combine these two considerations. However, at the level of actions, Doha has limited options, ranging from diplomatic steps (such as temporarily suspending mediation or escalating the UN and legal process against Israel), to symbolic measures (closing missions or expelling diplomats), to regional policies in coordination with Gulf and Arab partners to pressure Israel. However, the tension with Washington over the issue of prior notification may place Doha in a more difficult negotiating position, especially since any loss of confidence in the mediator could undermine its regional role.
D. Gaza and the Humanitarian and Regional Scene
The operation did not come in a vacuum. Rather, it coincided with a critical humanitarian moment in Gaza, with UN reports warning of an imminent famine amid widespread evacuation orders and a shortage of supplies. Any disruption to the negotiations translates directly into a further deterioration of the humanitarian situation. Regionally, Arab countries may find themselves forced to take more forceful positions against Israel in support of Qatar, which could be reflected in international forums or through economic and political pressure. Thus, it can be argued that the operation has increased the likelihood of the crisis deteriorating from a Palestinian-Israeli conflict to a multi-dimensional regional crisis.
Third: Possible Scenarios:
Scenario 1: Freezing Mediation and Damaging Qatari Role (Most Likely)
The strike is likely to lead to a temporary freeze in Qatari mediation. Doha will demand clear guarantees that attacks will not be repeated, while Western mediators will pressure Israel politically and diplomatically to contain the situation. The likely outcome is that any ceasefire agreement will be postponed, leaving the military arena open for weeks, with the humanitarian situation in Gaza further deteriorating.
Scenario Two: A Strong Symbolic and Diplomatic Qatari Response with Military Restraint
Doha may choose a measured path based on garnering UN and international support, and perhaps taking limited political measures against Israel, such as expelling a diplomat or suspending security cooperation. However, it is unlikely to resort to a direct military response for fear of triggering a wider regional confrontation. This scenario maintains its position as a mediator but temporarily undermines the parties' confidence in the security of the negotiating process.
Scenario Three: Limited Regional Escalation
It is possible that factions linked to the Axis of Resistance, such as the Houthis, or groups loyal to Iran, will engage in limited escalation, whether through missile attacks or targeting ships. Such moves could push the region to the brink of a wider confrontation, especially given the sensitivity of the situation in the Red Sea and the Gulf. This scenario remains less likely, but it would have significant strategic impact if it occurred.
Scenario Four: Hamas Adopts Calm as a Political Tactic
Instead of being drawn into open escalation, Hamas may exploit regional and international anger to strengthen its negotiating position and then return to the table with higher terms. Such an option aligns with the movement's calculations, which is facing growing internal pressure and a lack of military resources.
Scenario Five: Internal Israeli Repercussions and Reshaping Priorities
Internally, the operation may strengthen the government's standing in the eyes of the Israeli public as a decisive blow. However, it may increase international pressure on Tel Aviv and widen the gap with strategic partners such as Washington and the European Union. This contradiction may force Israel to reassess its foreign policy priorities and its handling of Arab and regional issues.
In sum, the targeting of the Hamas delegation in Doha demonstrates that the conflict is no longer confined to the traditional geography of Gaza or southern Lebanon, but has extended to the heart of capitals that are supposed to be spaces for diplomatic mediation. Thus, Israel has inaugurated a new approach, "There is no immunity, even in the heart of mediation," which opens the door to broader transformations in the nature of the conflict. The repercussions of the operation touch on three intertwined levels: the first is the paralyzed path of direct negotiations; the second is Hamas's position between the need for deterrence and the need to maintain negotiating channels; and the third is Qatar's role, which faces an existential test. Possible scenarios range from a temporary freeze to regional escalation, but what is certain is that the operation represents a turning point that will have profound implications for regional balances and the image of the United States as a guarantor of mediation. Ultimately, the event signals a new phase in the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where military operations transcend their immediate boundaries to become tools of strategic pressure at the negotiating table itself.