By Barkat Ullah
The Middle East has long been a theatre of competing interests, fragile alliances, and sudden shocks that reshape its security landscape. The recent Israeli bombardment of Doha, Qatar, is one such moment, an event that has sent ripples across the region and beyond. For decades, Qatar has played a strategic role in regional stability, balancing its foreign policy through diplomacy, mediation, and deep ties with the United States. But Israel’s direct attack has unsettled that balance, raising questions about sovereignty, alliances, and the trajectory of peace efforts in the Middle East.
Qatar’s significance in the Middle East cannot be overstated. The tiny Gulf nation is home to Al-Udeid Air Base, the largest American military installation in the region. This base has served as the central hub for US operations across the Middle East, from counterterrorism campaigns to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States, for its part, has always portrayed Qatar as an indispensable partner in ensuring regional security, while Doha has relied on Washington to guarantee its survival in an unpredictable environment.
For Qatar, the partnership with the United States is not just strategic but it is existential. Surrounded by larger powers with competing agendas, Qatar has historically used its alliance with Washington as both a shield and a bargaining chip in regional disputes. Until recently, this partnership seemed unshakable. But Israel’s strike on Doha, and Washington’s silence in its aftermath, has raised troubling doubts in Doha about whether the United States remains a reliable protector.
The most unsettling aspect of this episode is not only the attack itself but the United States’ response or lack thereof. Despite its significant military presence in Qatar, Washington refrained from condemning Israel’s bombardment. This silence has been interpreted as tacit approval or, at best, calculated ambiguity. For Qatar, this presents a troubling dilemma: if the United States cannot be relied upon to defend its closest regional partner when attacked, then what does the strategic partnership truly mean?
This ambiguity risks eroding American credibility, not only in Qatar but across the wider Middle East. Arab states that have long seen the US as a stabilizing force now question whether Washington’s priorities have shifted entirely toward ensuring Israel’s dominance, even at the expense of its other allies. Beyond bilateral relations, the Israeli attack on Qatar carries grave implications for international law. The bombardment of Doha represents a blatant violation of state sovereignty, a cornerstone principle of the international system. If left unaddressed, it sets a dangerous precedent: powerful states can target smaller states, even those engaged in mediation and diplomacy, without fear of consequences.
Qatar has often positioned itself as a peace broker, hosting negotiations for conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to Sudan. By targeting Doha, Israel has sent a chilling message: even peace negotiators are not immune from military aggression. This not only undermines the prospects of future diplomacy but also threatens to normalize a dangerous pattern in the region. The attack on Qatar suggests a new, unsettling reality: Israel feels empowered to strike wherever it sees fit, regardless of international boundaries or the diplomatic status of its targets. In practice, this transforms Israel’s military posture into a regional policing tool, one unchecked by international norms or alliances. The danger of this normalization is profound. If states begin to accept that peace mediators or neutral actors are fair game, the already fragile architecture of diplomacy in the Middle East may collapse entirely.
Arab states now face a sobering truth: their sovereignty is increasingly fragile in the face of unchecked Israeli military power. The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, were built on the assumption that partnership with Israel would enhance regional security. Yet Israel’s attack on Qatar; a state that has historically balanced diplomacy with cautious engagement undermines this very assumption. If Israel can target Doha, what prevents it from targeting other Arab capitals tomorrow? This realization is forcing Arab states to rethink their strategies, especially those who entered agreements with Israel expecting long-term guarantees of peace and security. The Israeli strike on Qatar is a significant blow to the Abraham Accords. These agreements were premised on the belief that Arab–Israeli cooperation could pave the way for mutual survival and prosperity. But with Israel showing a willingness to act unilaterally, even against states that are not openly hostile, the foundation of trust underpinning the accords is beginning to crack.
For Arab states, this raises an urgent question: if Israel does not hesitate to strike its neighbors and partners, then who can truly guarantee their security? Some states may now look to diversify their alliances, exploring partnerships with powers like China, Russia, or even Turkey, in search of alternatives to the US–Israel security umbrella. The aftermath of Israel’s attack on Qatar has accelerated the emergence of a classic security dilemma in the Middle East. As states perceive Israel as a growing threat, they will seek new security guarantees, strengthen military capabilities, and deepen alliances with external powers. This, in turn, may fuel further Israeli aggression, creating a vicious cycle of mistrust and militarization.
The question now is whether the United States, Israel, and Arab states will recognize the dangerous precedent being set, or whether the region will drift further into a cycle of mistrust, militarization, and instability.
The author is a researcher, columnist, and the founder of Political Frontline. He holds a master degree in International Relations and has a wide experience of writing in various news forums on issues related to diplomacy, Militancy, conflict and political economy. He tweets on @BarkatViews2.