¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

THE principle of state sovereignty has long been the bedrock of international relations, guaranteeing nations the right to exercise authority free from external interference. Yet, history has repeatedly shown that this principle is fragile when confronted by sheer military might. The latest example came on September 9, 2025, when Israel conducted a coordinated air attack targeting Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar — a state that had positioned itself at the very centre of diplomatic efforts to end the war in Gaza. The incident has shaken the Middle East and beyond, raising urgent questions about sovereignty, international law and the dangerous precedent of ‘might is right.’

Ìý

Qatar’s mediating role and its betrayal

FOR months, Qatar had played the role of mediator at the request of the United States, attempting to broker a deal between Hamas and Israel to halt the devastating conflict in Gaza. Known for its neutral diplomatic posture and respected for hosting delicate negotiations, Doha had gained international recognition as a credible peace facilitator. Qatar’s mediation was particularly important since it combined regional legitimacy with direct communication channels to Hamas. The Israeli strike, however, gravely undermined this role. Qatar reacted with fury, condemning the attack as a ‘flagrant and blatant violation’ of its sovereignty and a breach of international law. One Qatari security officer was killed, though no Hamas leaders perished. The attack not only endangered the very lives of Israeli captives whose release was under negotiation but also risked scuttling the fragile ceasefire talks altogether. For a state that prides itself on promoting stability, this was more than an insult — it was a betrayal of trust by allies who had pushed it into the negotiating seat in the first place.

Ìý

A pattern of extraterritorial strikes

THIS was not the first time Israel has sought to eliminate Hamas or other adversarial figures on foreign soil. Past attempts in Amman, Dubai and Iran reveal a consistent pattern of extraterritorial operations justified under the pretext of national security. Yet, each of these incursions chips away at the international order that forbids states from using force within the sovereign territory of others. By striking in Doha — a close ally of both Washington and Western capitals — Israel sent a bold message: Hamas leaders will be pursued ‘wherever they are.’ For right-wing Israelis, this defiance is applauded as necessary resolve. For critics, however, it marks a diplomatic failure that endangers Israel’s own strategic interests by alienating partners and undermining ceasefire opportunities.

Ìý

Undermining the ceasefire momentum

THE timing of the strike was especially significant. On the table was a new US-backed ceasefire plan — championed by President Donald Trump — which had been met with cautious optimism in ongoing negotiations. The proposed plan envisioned not only a cessation of hostilities but also a framework for humanitarian relief and political dialogue. By striking during these talks, Israel jeopardised months of quiet diplomacy. International media outlets shifted their focus from the ceasefire to the violation of Qatar’s sovereignty. The optics were disastrous: instead of progress towards peace, the world saw reckless violence. Most troublingly, the attack put the lives of Israeli captives held in Gaza in serious jeopardy, potentially hardening Hamas’s stance and pushing negotiations further from success.

Ìý

The US dilemma: mixed messages and damaged trust

THE United States finds itself in an awkward position. On one hand, Washington had encouraged Qatar to mediate, recognising its unique leverage over Hamas. On the other, the Trump administration appeared either unable or unwilling to restrain Israel, its closest ally. To complicate matters further, US officials reportedly notified Qatari authorities of the impending attack while simultaneously assuring Doha that such incidents would not recur. The contradictory signals not only exposed fissures in US policy but also damaged Washington’s credibility as a guarantor of peace. This episode has significant implications for US-Qatar relations, which have historically been robust. Qatar hosts the largest US airbase in the Middle East — a cornerstone of American strategic presence in the region. Furthermore, Qatari investments in the US exceed $1.7 trillion, making the Gulf state a vital economic partner. An attack on Qatari soil, therefore, does not advance US strategic goals. Rather, it risks alienating a partner that Washington can ill afford to lose. Democratic lawmakers in Congress have already condemned the strike, warning that it undermines both diplomacy and America’s moral standing. The Trump administration’s failure to prevent or control Israel’s unilateral action underscores a deeper problem: the US risks being seen as enabling actions that destabilise rather than stabilise the region.

Ìý

Europe’s reactions: divided but cautious

WESTERN reactions were telling. While most European Union states aligned themselves carefully with Washington, avoiding open criticism, French President Emmanuel Macron broke ranks. Macron also condemned the Israeli strike as a ‘blatant breach of international law’ and is likely to push for recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state during his platform as co-chair in the United Nations General Assembly later on. His stance highlights the growing unease in parts of Europe over unconditional support for Israeli actions. The United Kingdom, while not as vocal as France, has also signalled unease, reflecting the delicate balancing act European powers must maintain between solidarity with Washington and their own public opinion, which increasingly favours Palestinian statehood.

Ìý

Expansionist tendencies and regional escalation

BEYOND the immediate diplomatic fallout, the attack signals Israel’s broader strategic posture. By vowing to target Hamas leaders anywhere, Israel projects a policy of unrestrained extraterritorial action. This approach aligns with its longstanding desire to weaken not only Hamas but also Iran and Hezbollah, its primary regional adversaries. However, such actions risk igniting a wider conflict. Striking within allied nations destabilises fragile regional balances and risks dragging other actors into confrontation. The possibility of escalation beyond Gaza — to Lebanon, Iran, or even Gulf states — is a scenario with dire consequences for regional and global stability. Critics argue this represents Israel’s expansionist policy, where military dominance is leveraged to reshape the political geography of the Middle East. While this may offer short-term tactical gains, it threatens to erode the very legitimacy of the international system that Israel, like all states, depends upon.

Ìý

Sovereignty at stake: a dangerous precedent

AT ITS core, the Doha strike represents more than just another episode in the Israel-Hamas conflict. It is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of states. If powerful nations can unilaterally conduct military operations on the soil of sovereign allies under the justification of fighting ‘terrorism,’ the principle of sovereignty itself is at stake. The danger lies not only in the immediate consequences for Qatar but also in the precedent it sets. Other states may feel emboldened to act similarly, claiming security imperatives as justification. The result would be an international order where rules are dictated not by law or diplomacy but by raw power — a return to the dangerous doctrine of ‘might is right.’

Ìý

A moment of reckoning

THE Israeli strike in Doha is more than a tactical miscalculation; it is a strategic blunder with global ramifications. It undermines peace negotiations, endangers hostages, damages US credibility, and risks destabilising an already volatile region. More importantly, it violates the sovereignty of a state that had committed itself to peacebuilding and mediation. As France and a handful of other nations warn, this incident sets a dangerous precedent — one where sovereignty is expendable and international law is ignored. If left unchecked, such actions may normalise a world where might dictates right, and diplomacy becomes irrelevant. For the international community, this is a moment of reckoning. Upholding the sovereignty of states is not merely a matter of principle; it is essential to maintaining peace, stability and order in a world already teetering on the brink of deeper conflict.

Ìý

Mustafa Kamal Rusho, a retired brigadier general, works with the Osmani Centre for Peace and Security Studies.