Airstrike on Doha Exposes Contradictions
On the night before, at least ten explosions thundered in the Qatari capital, Doha. Reports say Israeli aircraft carried out twelve strikes on a building housing Hamas headquarters. The attack coincided with the organization’s delegation negotiating a ceasefire proposal initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump. As a result of the raid, the son of Palestinian leader Khalil al-Hayya and the head of his office were killed. Al-Hayya himself and the high-ranking Hamas delegation survived.
Hamas representatives stated that the strike was targeted and aimed at disrupting the negotiation process. According to one senior Hamas member in an interview with Al Jazeera, the attack took place during the discussion of ceasefire conditions. He noted that Israel’s actions demonstrate a rejection of diplomatic settlement and put any prospects for political dialogue at risk.
Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official statement calling the airstrike a gross violation of the country’s sovereignty and an encroachment on its security. The authorities stressed they would not allow such actions against their territory and reserved the right to retaliate. However, Doha’s statements drew mixed reactions, as information soon emerged raising doubts about the firmness of Qatar’s position.
Firstly, despite the scale of the attack, the country’s air defense systems were not activated. This raised questions among experts and outrage in the Arab public, since Qatar possesses modern air defense systems capable of intercepting such strikes. Secondly, Israeli media reported that the U.S. and Qatar were informed in advance about the operation. These reports cast doubt on Doha’s claims of surprise and determination to defend its sovereignty.
Additional details point to U.S. and British involvement in coordinating the raid. Aviation monitoring data showed a British reconnaissance and refueling aircraft remained for hours in Qatari airspace, taking off and returning to the Al Udeid base, where U.S. forces are stationed. Observers believe it could have provided technical and intelligence support during the operation. All this indicates coordinated actions between Israel, London, and Washington.
Against this backdrop, Iran expressed its position. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei called the attack an “extremely dangerous and criminal act” that violates all international norms and laws and grossly infringes on Qatar’s sovereignty and the safety of Palestinian negotiators. Baghaei stressed that this was a clear violation of the UN Charter and international law, urging the international community and regional countries to stop their inaction in the face of Israel’s growing aggression.
Iran’s reaction added to the chorus of condemnation. At the same time, Qatar found itself at the center of criticism: on the one hand, it made a harsh statement against Israel, but on the other hand, its failure to defend its territory and reports of prior notification raise questions about its real position. In Arab society, assessments are emerging that such duplicity undermines trust in Doha’s claims of protecting national sovereignty.
The situation around the airstrikes in Doha has become a vivid example of the intertwining of military actions, diplomacy, and domestic politics. For Hamas, the attack meant losses and an attempt to disrupt negotiations. For Qatar — a test of the strength of its independence and security claims. For Iran — an opportunity to once again act as a defender of Palestinian interests and critic of Israel.
The consequences of the attack will depend on whether Qatar takes real steps or limits itself to diplomatic statements. It is expected that events in Doha will increase tensions in the region and become a subject of international discussion. Given the involvement of the U.S. and Britain, the incident may go beyond a local conflict and affect the geopolitical balance in the Middle East.