Israel’s strike this week against Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, may not have fully achieved its tactical goals, but its strategic message was unmistakable: No terrorist is safe, regardless of location.
The strike has drawn mixed reactions from Washington. Natalie Ecanow, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that the Trump administration is walking a tightrope.
“On the one hand, the administration is signaling its disapproval of the Israeli strike in Qatar. But on the other hand, the administration wants Hamas to free the remaining hostages. That’s something the United States and Israel are aligned on, and something that Hamas’s patrons in Qatar have repeatedly failed to deliver,” Ecanow told JNS.
She also suggested that Israel’s move was unlikely to have blindsided Washington. “Qatar is home to the largest U.S. air base in the region, so it would presumably be difficult for Israel to pull this off without the United States knowing.”
Still, she argued, the incident should force a rethink of America’s relationship with Doha. “Qatar has long sheltered and supported Hamas while parading as a neutral player and trustworthy ally. If President Trump wants Hamas to free the remaining hostages, it would be wise to turn the screws on Qatar. The administration should seize this moment to sideline Qatar from Gaza negotiations and deliver an overdue reset of the U.S.-Qatar relationship.”
In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said the attack “was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was not a decision made by me,” describing Qatar as a “strong ally and friend.”
Trump then wrote: “Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.”
“However,” he continued, “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”
In later remarks, Trump said he was “very unhappy about the way that it went down,” telling reporters: “I’m not thrilled about the whole situation.”
Daniel J. Samet, a Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, suggested Trump’s displeasure may be more tactical than genuine. “If he is truly upset, he should remember that Qatar has been harboring Hamas terrorists responsible for this war and the plight of the remaining hostages,” Samet told JNS.
Sept. 11 to Oct. 7
On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew a sharp parallel between America’s Sept. 11 and Israel’s Oct. 7, framing both as defining moments of national trauma.
“We remember Sept. 11. On that day, Islamist terrorists committed the worst savagery on American soil since the founding of the United States. We also have a Sept. 11. We remember Oct. 7,” he said.
“We went after the terrorist masterminds who committed the Oct. 7 massacre. And we did so in Qatar, which gives [them] safe haven, it harbors terrorists, it finances Hamas, it gives its terrorist chieftains sumptuous villas, it gives them everything. Now, the various countries of the world condemn Israel. They should be ashamed of themselves. ... They should applaud Israel for standing up to the same principles and carrying them out.”
Netanyahu’s warning was direct: “I say to Qatar and all nations who harbor terrorists, you either expel them or you bring them to justice. Because if you don’t, we will.”
Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, suggested that Trump’s response could have been largely performative, criticizing Israel to appease Qatar publicly while backing it behind the scenes, similar to how several Gulf states denounce Jerusalem outwardly yet maintain quiet cooperation.
“It is certainly clear that [Trump] considers Hamas leaders fair game for Israel and would not mourn their deaths if the strike were to prove successful. At the same time, however, he has a strong preference for ‘peace’ and a clear affinity for the Gulf monarchies, so he might begrudge Israel seemingly expanding the war there,” Misztal told JNS.
He added that the fallout depends largely on how Qatar responds. “If it just vents publicly about the strike but does nothing more, or better yet, learns its lesson and expels Hamas, it is likely to get verbal support from Trump, and the relationship continues. If, however, [Doha] pushes, for example, for a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel, it could quickly find the limits of U.S. support,” he said.
The broader danger, Misztal warned, is not just U.S.-Qatar tensions but regional realignment. “The biggest strategic fallout of the strike might come not from any tensions between Washington and either Doha or Jerusalem, but from its effect on other Gulf states,” he said.
“The UAE and Saudi [Arabia] have been clear-eyed and concerned about Qatar’s support for terrorist groups and ties to Iran. But with MBZ [UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan] and MBS [Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman] now both going to Doha, the potential for the three monarchies to band together suddenly and possibly begin hedging against the United States ... would be a loss for both Washington and Jerusalem.”
Whether or not the Doha strike eliminated its intended targets, it has already reshaped the regional conversation. Israel has made clear it will strike Hamas leaders wherever they are found, while the United States is left balancing its military reliance on Qatar with mounting frustration over Doha’s sponsorship of Hamas.
“The easiest way for a strike inside Qatar to not happen again is for Doha to expel Hamas. The United States should push Qatar to do exactly that,” said Misztal.
