Publication - OKB5azEUNHSRyl0fzQNcRd0ZsYD2

The article is titled “How Israel’s attack on Qatar erodes peace — and American influence — in the Middle East.” It was originally published on September 10, 2025 and is authored by Spyros A. Sofos, Assistant Professor in Global Humanities, Simon Fraser University.

The bombing of a Hamas office on Qatari soil by Israeli jets was more than a strike against a militant group. It was a bold and deeply consequential act against a state that has long positioned itself as a mediator in Middle Eastern conflicts and hosts 11,000 American troops on its territory.
For decades, Qatar has balanced its role as an American ally with its open lines of communication to groups that include Hamas and the Taliban. It has provided an indispensable channel for negotiations that the United States itself cannot conduct.
By targeting Qatar directly, Israel has crossed into uncharted territory. The strike is not just a military move — it is an unmistakably revisionist act, challenging the norms, alliances and security architecture of the region.
Defining revisionism
In international relations, “revisionism” refers to attempts by states to revise the existing order of rules, institutions or the distribution of power.
Revisionist states seek to undermine the constraints imposed by the international system, reshaping it in ways that benefit them. They often do this not only by rejecting particular norms, but also by bending them to suit their own purposes.
Israel’s strike on Qatar demonstrates this pattern clearly.
By attacking a U.S. ally, Israel is not just pursuing Hamas operatives, it’s asserting that its own security imperatives override the norms of sovereignty, alliance management and the delicate balance that underpins regional diplomacy.
Qatar’s unique position
Qatar, unlike other Gulf states, has built a reputation as a broker of peace processes, hosting talks between Israel and Hamas, the U.S. and the Taliban and even among rival Palestinian factions.
Its role has often been tolerated, and even encouraged, by the U.S., which benefits from having a close ally act as a mediator of last resort.
The strike, therefore, is likely not just about Hamas. It is an apparent attempt to discredit Qatar’s mediating role, portraying it instead as a protector of terrorists and therefore unfit to serve as a diplomatic arbitrator. But more importantly, it seems an attempt to undermine diplomacy in the region as it eliminates a crucial venue for negotiation, leaving military action as the primary currency in Israeli–Palestinian relations.
With the massive U.S. Al Udeid airbase located in Qatar, Israel’s actions place American officials in an uncomfortable position: tolerate Israeli overreach and risk undermining their own ally, or confront Israel and fracture an already tense relationship. Either outcome serves Israel’s interests and loosens U.S. influence in the Middle East.
Hijacking U.S. foreign policy
Successive U.S. administrations have increasingly outsourced mediation to partners like Qatar. This reflects a recognition of American limits: its deep alliance with Israel makes it an unconvincing neutral broker, while states such as Qatar can talk to countries and organizations the U.S. designates as adversaries.
Yet Israel has repeatedly undercut such efforts. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement on the Iranian nuclear program was relentlessly opposed by Israel, whose intelligence leaks and lobbying helped derail American efforts at forging a new deal in 2018.
In June 2025, just days before an Iranian delegation was scheduled to meet the American envoy for renewed discussions on the nuclear program, Israel initiated its 12-day war with Iran, collapsing the conditions for diplomacy before talks could even begin.
More recently, Gaza ceasefire talks in Doha were repeatedly disrupted by Israeli escalations on the ground or by making new demands, ensuring that negotiations never moved beyond crisis management.
The strike on Qatari soil takes this interference to a new level. It is not only a rejection of particular negotiations, but an attack on the infrastructure of American-led diplomacy.
Israel is seemingly aiming to hijack American foreign policy, narrowing U.S. options and entrenching Israel’s role as the sole gatekeeper of “acceptable” peace processes in the region.
Weaponizing peace processes?
Revisionist Israeli governments have tended to use negotiations not as pathways to a permanent peace, but as tools for managing conflict on their own terms.
By selectively engaging in negotiations while simultaneously engaging in settlement expansion in the West Bank, Israeli actions mean talks rarely translate into substantive concessions. The peace process becomes a means of buying time, dividing opponents and presenting Israel as a willing but frustrated partner.
Targeting Qatar continues this pattern. By undermining the one Gulf state that consistently invests in dialogue, Israel shrinks the diplomatic horizon. If no credible mediator is left standing, peace negotiations become a hollow exercise — something Israel could invoke to deflect criticism while pursuing its own security goals via military action.
This seems like peace as spectacle, weaponized to perpetuate the very state of war it claims to want to overcome.
A state of permanent war
One of the striking features of Israel’s regional stance is its reliance on a “permanent war” condition. Periodic escalations with Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or Iran are not anomalies, but seem to be part of a strategy to normalize insecurity.
This strategy enables Israel to consolidate domestic political support, sustain high levels of military aid and investment and maintain control over the Palestinian Territories under the guise of an omnipresent existential threat.
That threat isn’t unfounded — and was underscored by the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023 — but Israel has used it to entrench a permanent-war posture that extends well beyond immediate security needs instead of pursuing peace.
The strike on Qatar extends this logic outward as Israel signals that there is no neutral space left and that even mediators can be attacked. The result is not the resolution of conflict but its apparent institutionalization: an endless cycle of violence where war is the baseline, not the exception.
What does Israeli revisionism achieve?
Israel’s strategy achieves several goals. By striking a U.S.-allied state, Israel challenges the principle that allied territory is off-limits.
At the same time, undercutting Qatar’s mediating role undermines the American ability to engage in diplomacy in the region, and leaves fewer avenues for talks, which means military action sets the agenda. Finally, expanding the geography of conflict turns instability into the Middle East’s default condition.
Such strategies may achieve short-term gains, but they come at enormous cost. The strike risks fracturing Israel’s quiet alignment with Gulf monarchies, alienating the U.S.
If the U.S. cannot or will not restrain strikes against its key allies, what meaning do American security guarantees truly carry? U.S. allies in the Middle East will point to the Qatar strikes as evidence that American protection is conditional, eroding confidence in the very alliance system that underpins U.S. power.
For the U.S., the attack underscores a deeper dilemma: the more it outsources its regional diplomacy to Israel, the more vulnerable it becomes. Israel’s repeated strikes in the midst of sensitive negotiations — from the Iran nuclear talks to Gaza ceasefires — show how effectively it can hijack American policy and systematically undermine the prospect of peace in the Middle East.

https://theconversation.com/how-israels-attack-on-qatar-erodes-peace-and-american-influence-in-the-middle-east-265017

September 10, 2025 • My Project Name

Read Article

About My Project Name

https://www.mygroup.com