The September 9 Israeli airstrikes on Doha have already turned into a profound challenge to the long-standing strategic ties between the United States and its allies in the Gulf.
The strike, which hit a residential building in Doha, killed five Hamas members and a Qatari security official. It has generated a deep sense of shock and betrayal in Qatar and raised unsettling questions across the GCC region about the reliability of American security guarantees and the supposed benefits of alignment with Washington.
The attack has critically undermined trust between the US and its Gulf partners by casting doubt on America’s ability to protect its allies, even from one of its closest partners, Israel.
Qatar, a vital American ally and host to the largest US military facility in the region, the Al Udeid air base, might have felt that it would never have to face such strikes. The notion that a presidential jet and a massive US base could not deter Israel has not gone unnoticed.
Doha’s inability to protect its own citizens while US Central Command operates on its soil could prompt Qataris to question the value of the American partnership.
Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani condemned the strike as “state terror” and a “barbaric action,” expressing outrage and a deep sense of betrayal. He openly wondered whether his country was “dealing with civilised people.”
Such stark language reflects the depth of the rupture. For many in the Gulf, the incident has highlighted American ineptitude or even recklessness. Even if the Trump administration truly lacked prior knowledge, or was informed only after the strike began, the perception of American ineffectiveness has shaken confidence in Washington’s role as protector.
The reverberations of this strike go beyond Qatar. Across the Gulf, states that have long invested politically and financially in a close relationship with the US are questioning the assumed benefits of that choice.
Security guarantees, once treated as implicit in the American partnership, now appear uncertain. Gulf governments will certainly be asking what measures they can take to deter future attacks and what kind of security arrangements they must now build rather than relying on a partner unable to shield them even from its own ally.
The damage to trust is done, and the extent of the fallout depends heavily on President Trump’s public response to Israel. His statement that he was “very unhappy” and “concerned,” without issuing a direct condemnation, has been seen in Qatar as wholly inadequate.
The Israeli strike has also jeopardised critical mediation efforts. Qatar has for years played the role of go-between in negotiations between Israel and Hamas, often at the request of both Washington and Tel Aviv.
The attack came just hours before Hamas was expected to respond to a new US-backed ceasefire and hostage deal. Prime Minister Al Thani accused Benjamin Netanyahu of having “killed any hope” for hostages and undermined any chance of stability or peace. He suggested recent talks were meaningless and confirmed that Doha was reassessing its involvement in future ceasefire efforts. Qatar is now in detailed conversations with Washington about how to proceed.
Hosting Hamas leaders had always been a calculated risk for Qatar, intended to make itself indispensable for regional diplomacy and, by extension, for its own security. This was a gamble that few countries in the region would be willing to take. If Qatar withdraws from mediation, Hamas leaders could relocate to Turkey or Iran, which would make eventual negotiations far more complicated. For many in the region, the attack reinforced suspicions that Israel deliberately sabotages peace efforts.
The strike is also seen as part of a troubling pattern of expanded Israeli military action. Israel has repeatedly targeted sites in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen. The open-ended nature of these operations has alarmed Gulf officials, who have worked to keep the region stable. In Saudi media, Israel is increasingly described as a spoiler and a violator of international norms, language previously reserved for Iran.
The Doha strike is viewed as a crossing of a critical line, as Israel has until now been assumed to act against American adversaries rather than allies. This has sparked fears about what might happen next, including to Houthi delegates currently hosted in Oman for talks.
History shows that Gulf outreach to Israel is vulnerable to such incidents. Israeli actions in Palestinian territories led to the closure of Gulf trade missions in the 2000s, and the 2010 assassination of a Hamas operative in Dubai by Israeli agents poisoned relations for years.
The Doha strike is now widely considered the gravest crisis in Israel’s developing ties with the Gulf. It places the Abraham Accords under severe strain, with speculation about whether the UAE or Bahrain might suspend or sever diplomatic ties.
The Gulf states are unlikely to respond militarily to Israel, given their dependence on American defence and their domestic priorities. Yet, it should not be forgotten that they possess significant diplomatic and economic leverage. Qatar’s Prime Minister has announced plans for a collective response through an Arab-Islamic summit in Doha, intended to produce measures that deter further Israeli actions.
Recent history shows that Gulf states can close ranks when confronted by a shared external threat, as they did after Iran’s missile strike on Al Udeid earlier this year.
The Israeli strike on Qatar is therefore far more than an isolated incident. It is a litmus test for the credibility of American alliances in the Gulf.
By striking a US ally that hosts America’s largest regional base and serves as a mediator at Washington’s request, Israel has shaken the foundations of Gulf trust in the US.
The long-term consequences will depend on how Washington responds and how Gulf states recalibrate their security arrangements in the face of what they increasingly perceive as American ineptitude and a dangerously unpredictable regional order.
