The Israeli airstrike on Hamas leaders in Doha in September 2025 was more than a military operation. It was a symbolic rupture in the very architecture of Middle Eastern diplomacy. For decades, Qatar had cultivated the image of a “neutral mediator,” hosting negotiations between the Taliban and Washington, or acting as a platform for indirect talks between Iran and the United States. The Israeli strike shattered that perception: the era of “safe havens” for diplomacy in West Asia is over.
Qatar’s capital, Doha, has long been portrayed as a paradoxical hub. On one hand, it houses the Al-Udeid airbase, the largest U.S. military installation in the region. On the other, it has hosted the offices of Hamas and served as a platform for negotiations involving actors considered hostile by Washington and Tel Aviv. Doha thrived in this contradictory space, carving out a role for itself as a global mediator. The Israeli decision to launch an airstrike in Doha pierced that paradox. It signaled that even a U.S. ally, a supposed “protected” mediator, is not immune from the logic of expanding battlefields. By striking Hamas leaders while they were reportedly engaged in talks with Qatari officials, Israel not only undermined Qatar’s sovereignty but also sent a chilling message to other Global South actors: neutrality is an illusion in today’s conflicts.
One of the less discussed aspects of the Doha strike is its broader implication for the Global South. For years, states like Qatar, Oman, and Turkey have attempted to assert their independence by positioning themselves as mediators. Such roles were not only about diplomacy; they were about identifying effort by smaller states to shape multipolarity in their own way. Israel’s attack can be interpreted as part of a wider strategy to dismantle these spaces of independent mediation. In effect, it is a declaration that the West, through its regional proxy, will not tolerate non-Western actors attempting to craft alternative diplomatic frameworks. Doha is not just a capital under attack; it is a symbol of the fragile sovereignty of Global South mediators.
The strike also reveals a deeper truth about the shifting geography of resistance. By targeting Hamas leaders on Qatari soil, Israel expanded the battlefield beyond Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria. The message is clear: there is no longer a “rear area” where resistance leaders can operate with relative safety. Paradoxically, this may have the opposite effect of what Israel intends. Rather than isolating Hamas, the strike may encourage tighter coordination between Iran, Qatar, and even Turkey, all of whom now share a common interest in resisting Israeli encroachments. In this sense, the attack could accelerate the consolidation of what some analysts call a “multipolar resistance axis.”
From the perspective of international relations, the Doha strike is another sign of the erosion of the liberal order. The United States has long claimed that its alliances in the Middle East are built on rules and predictability. Yet when Israel launches an airstrike on the territory of one of America’s closest partners, those rules collapse into contradiction. If Washington condoned the attack, it reveals complicity and hypocrisy: proclaiming respect for sovereignty while violating it through its ally. If Washington was not consulted, then it exposes a deeper crisis U.S. hegemony has eroded to the point where its closest ally disregards its interests. Either way, the credibility of the liberal order takes another blow.
The significance of the Doha strike extends beyond the Middle East. It illustrates a key dynamic of the emerging multipolar world: the breakdown of the distinction between “core” and “periphery.” In a unipolar order, small states could find protection by aligning with the hegemon. Qatar’s strategy for decades was precisely that hosting U.S. troops while mediating on the margins. In a multipolar context, however, such protection is no longer guaranteed. This development forces Global South states to confront a stark choice: either continue depending on Western security guarantees that are increasingly unreliable, or invest in alternative alliances within a multipolar framework. The BRICS+ summit earlier this year already signaled growing interest in the latter path. The Doha strike may further accelerate this strategic reorientation.
From a civilizational standpoint, the strike underscores the limits of Western universalism. Israel, as the forward post of the West in the Middle East, has made clear that the survival of its hegemony outweighs respect for sovereignty, diplomacy, or the norms of international law. The Global South, however, views sovereignty as the last line of defense against domination. This clash of priorities is not simply geopolitical it is civilizational. The silence of many Western capitals following the Doha attack contrasts sharply with the outrage in Arab and Muslim societies. For Western elites, the calculus of power trumps the principles they claim to uphold. For Global South publics, the violation of Qatar’s sovereignty is another reminder that the liberal order is not universal but selectively applied.
The Israeli strike in Doha should be understood as a watershed moment. It is not only about Hamas or Qatar; it is about the crumbling foundations of an international system where diplomacy once had sanctuaries. In the new multipolar reality, even “neutral” states are potential battlegrounds. For Israel, this may seem like a tactical success. For the region, it is a strategic rupture that could bring unintended consequences: the loss of trust in Western-led mediation, the consolidation of multipolar resistance, and the acceleration of the Global South’s search for alternative frameworks of security and diplomacy. In short, the war has entered Doha not because of rockets or troops, but because the very architecture of diplomacy has been bombed. The safe haven is gone, and with it, another illusion of the unipolar world.
Comments