To read this report at Middle East Forum Online, click here.
The explosions that shattered the morning calm in Doha’s Katara District on September 9, 2025, marked a restoration of moral clarity in warfare. For nearly two years since the October 7 massacres, Hamas’s leadership had orchestrated genocide from the comfort of Qatari luxury hotels, protected by the fiction of diplomatic immunity and the shield of a supposed American ally. Israel’s precision strike against these architects of terror represents the enforcement of a principle as old as justice itself: those who plan mass murder cannot claim sanctuary anywhere on earth.
The operation was clean. Professional. Necessary. And it should have happened years ago.
Wars end when one side loses the will or ability to continue fighting. For Hamas, that calculus has been distorted by Qatar’s provision of an extraterritorial sanctuary where its leadership could direct operations, manage finances, and plan attacks while remaining physically removed from consequences. This arrangement—in which Khalil al-Hayya, Khaled Mashal, and their lieutenants could watch October 7 unfold on television from Doha penthouses while Israeli families burned alive in their homes—represents a perversion of both warfare and diplomacy that no civilized nation should tolerate.
The principle at stake transcends Israel’s immediate security concerns. When Qatar transformed itself into a five-star command center for terrorism, it challenged the fundamental architecture of international order. The post-Westphalian system assumes that states will not provide operational headquarters for groups dedicated to the genocidal destruction of other states. Qatar’s hosting of Hamas since 2012 shattered this assumption, creating a precedent whereby wealthy nations could sponsor terrorism while maintaining diplomatic respectability through strategic ambiguity and energy leverage.
Consider the grotesque asymmetry: while Hamas fighters used Gazan civilians as human shields in tunnels beneath hospitals, their political leadership enjoyed the protection of Qatari state security. While Israeli reservists left their families for months of urban warfare, Hamas’s decision-makers conducted press conferences from air-conditioned hotel ballrooms. While Palestinian civilians in Gaza suffered under Hamas’s brutal rule and Israel’s military response, those most responsible for precipitating this suffering remained untouchable in their Doha safe houses.
This bifurcation of accountability—where those who order atrocities remain immune from their consequences—corrupts the very concept of warfare. It incentivizes maximum violence with minimum personal risk, creating moral hazards on a civilizational scale. Israel’s strike restored the principle that leadership entails vulnerability, that those who choose war must share its dangers.
From a purely military perspective, Hamas’s Doha headquarters represented what Carl von Clausewitz would term a “center of gravity”—a source of strength whose elimination fundamentally alters the conflict’s dynamics. The office served multiple critical functions that sustained Hamas’s war-making capacity long after its military infrastructure in Gaza had been decimated.
First, it provided command and control capabilities that would be impossible to maintain under the conditions of siege warfare in Gaza. Secure communications, encrypted financial transfers, diplomatic coordination with Iranian proxies—all of these required the technological infrastructure and political protection that only a state sponsor could provide. Every rocket launched from Gaza, every tunnel dug beneath the Philadelphi Corridor, every hostage video released to torment Israeli families traced back to decisions made and resources allocated from Doha.
Second, the Doha office enabled Hamas to maintain the fiction of political legitimacy while pursuing genocidal objectives. By treating Hamas officials as diplomatic representatives rather than terrorist commanders, Qatar enabled them to engage with useful idiots in Western capitals, sympathetic media outlets, and international organizations that would otherwise shun them. This legitimacy translated directly into operational advantages: weapons procurement under diplomatic cover, recruitment through “humanitarian” networks, and propaganda dissemination through respectable channels.
Third, and perhaps most critically, Qatar’s protection allowed Hamas to preserve its leadership cadre from the attrition that typically degrades terrorist organizations over time. While Israel systematically eliminated Hamas commanders in Gaza—from Mohammed Deif to Marwan Issa—the organization’s strategic brain trust remained intact in Doha, ensuring continuity of planning and institutional memory. This arrangement made it functionally impossible to defeat Hamas through military means alone, as the organization could simply regenerate its tactical losses while its strategic leadership remained untouchable.
The September 9 strike shattered this sanctuary principle. By demonstrating that Hamas leaders were vulnerable even in the heart of a wealthy Gulf capital, Israel restored the element of personal risk that constrains extremist behavior. The message was unambiguous: choose terror, and you choose to live as a target, regardless of which government provides your refuge.
The fiction that Qatar served as a neutral mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dissolved entirely after October 7. The evidence of Doha’s transformation from diplomatic facilitator to active terrorism enabler is overwhelming and damning.
Begin with the financial dimension. Since 2012, Qatar has transferred approximately $1.8 billion to Gaza, with monthly cash payments of $30 million continuing until the eve of October 7. Qatari officials insisted these funds served humanitarian purposes—paying civil servant salaries, providing aid to impoverished families, purchasing fuel for power generation. Yet Israeli intelligence documented systematic diversion of these funds to Hamas’s military wing, with Shin Bet assessments indicating that millions went directly to the Qassam Brigades for weapons procurement and tunnel construction.
The arrangement operated with breathtaking cynicism. Literal suitcases of cash would arrive at the Erez and Kerem Shalom crossings, where Israeli officials would inspect them before allowing their transfer to Gaza. This kabuki theater—where Israel facilitated the funding of its own enemies to maintain a strategic division between Gaza and the West Bank—represented a catastrophic intelligence failure that October 7 exposed in blood.
But Qatar’s support extended far beyond mere financing. The emirate provided Hamas with sophisticated technological infrastructure that enhanced its military capabilities. Israeli cyber-security experts documented Qatari investment in encrypted communication systems used in Hamas’s tunnel networks, enabling command-and-control operations that would be impossible under blockade conditions. Hamas used Qatar’s banking system to launder funds through cryptocurrency transactions, its airports to coordinate with Iranian weapons suppliers, and its hotels to conduct recruitment and fundraising from sympathetic donors worldwide.
Most perniciously, Qatar’s Al Jazeera network served as Hamas’s global propaganda arm. Documents seized by Israeli forces revealed direct communication between Hamas commanders and Al Jazeera producers, with the network employing multiple Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives as “journalists.” During October 7 and its aftermath, Al Jazeera Arabic glorified the attacks as “resistance,” referred to murdered civilians as “settlers,” and systematically suppressed footage of Hamas atrocities while amplifying claims of Israeli violations. This media infrastructure proved invaluable in shaping international opinion, particularly in the Arab world, where Al Jazeera’s reach exceeds any Western outlet.
The Qatari government’s response to October 7 revealed its true allegiances. While the world watched footage of Hamas terrorists hunting down families at the Nova music festival, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry blamed Israel for the escalation. Spokesman Majed Al-Ansari praised Hamas’s “launching of 3,000 rockets in 10 days” and described Gaza as “the first Palestinian territory liberated from the occupier.” Even as evidence mounted of Hamas’s systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, of children burned alive in their beds, of Holocaust survivors executed in their homes, Qatar refused to condemn the attacks or consider expelling Hamas leaders.
This was not neutrality. This was complicity.
The operational details of the September 9 strike remain classified, but informed analysis suggests a masterpiece of intelligence coordination and tactical execution. The challenge was formidable: eliminate high-value targets in the center of a hostile capital, protected by state security services, without creating a broader diplomatic crisis or civilian casualties that would undermine the operation’s legitimacy.
The intelligence foundation likely took months to construct. Mossad’s human intelligence networks would have recruited assets within Qatar’s Palestinian expatriate community, service industries that support Hamas leaders, and potentially within the Qatari security apparatus itself. Every movement pattern, security protocol, and meeting schedule would be mapped with painstaking precision.
Technical intelligence gathering would complement human sources. Signal intercepts from Hamas leaders’ communications, despite Qatari-provided encryption, would reveal gathering plans. Satellite surveillance would track vehicles and identify gathering locations. Cyber operations might have penetrated scheduling systems or communications networks to confirm the presence of targets at specific locations and times.
The strike itself appears to have employed Israel’s doctrine of “focused prevention”—surgical elimination of terrorist leadership with minimal collateral damage. The weapons systems used—likely precision-guided munitions delivered by stealth aircraft or naval platforms in the Gulf—would be selected for their ability to neutralize targets within urban environments while limiting blast radius. The timing, mid-afternoon in the Katara District, suggests deliberate effort to minimize civilian presence.
But the true sophistication lay not in the kinetic operation but in the strategic preparation. Israel would have anticipated Qatar’s response, international condemnation, and potential Iranian retaliation. Diplomatic groundwork with sympathetic Arab states, particularly those that view Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups like Hamas as existential threats, would ensure regional support or at least acquiescence. Legal justifications under international law’s principle of self-defense would be prepared and disseminated. Most critically, the timing—after nearly two years of failed negotiations and continued Hamas intransigence—created political space for action that would have been impossible immediately after October 7.
The operation’s success sends a crucial message to Iran and its proxy network: the age of untouchable terrorist leadership is over. Just as Israel eliminated Hezbollah’s command structure in Lebanon and Iran’s nuclear scientists in Tehran, it has now demonstrated the capability and will to strike Hamas wherever its leaders gather.
The Doha strike accelerates fundamental realignments already underway in the Middle East since October 7. The most significant is the collapse of Qatar’s carefully constructed position as the region’s indispensable mediator. For over a decade, Doha leveraged its Hamas relationship to insert itself into every crisis, positioning itself as the only actor capable of delivering all parties to the negotiating table. This monopoly on mediation created a perverse incentive structure: the more Hamas provoked conflict, the more essential Qatar became to its resolution.
The strike shatters this dynamic. By demonstrating that hosting Hamas carries unacceptable costs, Israel has forced regional actors to reconsider their relationships with terrorist organizations. Already, we see signs of this recalculation. Turkey, which had positioned itself as an alternative haven for Hamas leadership, now understands that providing sanctuary means accepting vulnerability. Iran, watching its proxy architecture systematically dismantled from Lebanon to Syria to Gaza, must reassess whether Palestinian rejectionism remains worth the investment.
Most significantly, the strike strengthens the hand of Arab states that have chosen normalization over nihilism. The Abraham Accords countries—the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—see their strategic bet validated. Saudi Arabia, still calibrating its approach to Israel, receives confirmation that Palestinian maximalism need not dictate regional diplomacy. Egypt and Jordan, exhausted by decades of Palestinian rejectionism, gain leverage to demand Hamas’s complete capitulation as a prerequisite for reconstruction.
The Palestinian Authority, paradoxically, emerges strengthened. For years, Hamas’s external leadership undermined PA attempts at pragmatic diplomacy by offering a rejectionist alternative backed by Qatari wealth and Iranian weapons. With Hamas’s command structure decimated and its safe havens eliminated, the PA becomes the only viable Palestinian interlocutor, forcing a long-overdue consolidation of Palestinian representation.
Within Gaza itself, Hamas’s grip weakens daily. The organization’s promise—that steadfastness and resistance would ultimately yield victory—lies buried beneath the rubble of a devastated territory. With its external leadership eliminated or scattered, its tunnel networks destroyed, its weapons depleted, and its popular support eroding under the weight of catastrophic losses, Hamas confronts the reality that its war of extinction against Israel has become a path to its own elimination.
Critics will inevitably ask: why now? Why not immediately after October 7, when international sympathy for Israel was at its peak? Or why not wait for a negotiated resolution that might have secured hostage releases? The answer reveals the strategic patience that has always characterized Israel’s most successful operations.
Immediate retaliation after October 7 would have appeared emotional, potentially undermining the legitimacy of Israel’s response. The world needed time to digest the full scope of Hamas’s atrocities, to understand that this was not another round of limited conflict but an attempted genocide. Israel needed time to present its case, to demonstrate good faith through accepting humanitarian pauses and negotiation attempts, to prove that military action was not its first choice but its last resort.
The two years since October 7 provided crucial intelligence development time. Hamas leaders, initially cautious, gradually resumed normal patterns of movement and meeting. Complacency set in. Security protocols relaxed. The belief that Qatar’s protection was inviolate created vulnerabilities that patient intelligence work could exploit.
Most importantly, Hamas’s own intransigence created the political space for action. Every rejected ceasefire proposal, every impossible demand for complete Israeli withdrawal, every propaganda video of hostages in captivity strengthened the case that negotiation was futile. Even Hamas’s ostensible supporters grew exhausted with its maximalism. When the Arab League issued its unprecedented July 2025 statement calling for Hamas to disarm and relinquish power—signed by Qatar itself—the organization’s isolation was complete.
The timing also reflects broader regional dynamics. With Iran weakened by Israeli strikes on its nuclear program, Hezbollah’s leadership decimated, and Syria’s Assad overthrown, Hamas lost its strategic depth. The “axis of resistance” that might have retaliated for the Doha strike no longer exists as a coherent force. Russia, preoccupied with Ukraine, cannot provide diplomatic protection. China, focused on Taiwan, will not expend capital defending Palestinian rejectionism.
In this context, September 9, 2025, was not just acceptable timing—it was optimal.
The Doha strike forces a long-overdue conversation about sovereignty in the age of terrorism. The Westphalian principle of absolute sovereignty within borders assumes that states will not use their territory to wage war against other states. When a nation provides headquarters, financing, and protection to an organization dedicated to destroying another nation, it forfeits its claim to inviolability.
Qatar wants to have it both ways: to host the largest American military base in the Middle East while simultaneously harboring those who would destroy America’s allies; to participate in international institutions while facilitating those who reject international law; and to claim diplomatic immunity while enabling those who target diplomats. This schizophrenic approach to sovereignty—where protection is absolute when convenient and permeable when profitable—cannot stand.
International law recognizes this principle. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, binding on all member states including Qatar, requires countries to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts.” The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism obligates states to prevent their territory from being used for terrorist purposes. By any reasonable interpretation of these obligations, Qatar’s hosting of Hamas constituted a material breach requiring enforcement action.
The United States, which maintains 11,000 troops at Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, faces particular moral hazard. American forces provide security for a regime that hosts those who murder American citizens—for six Americans died on October 7, and others remain hostage. This arrangement is not merely hypocritical; it is strategically incoherent. No amount of natural gas wealth or regional positioning justifies such a fundamental compromise of principles.
The Doha strike clarifies these contradictions. States must choose: they can be members of the international community or sponsors of terrorism, but not both. They can host American bases or Hamas headquarters, but not both. They can claim sovereign protection or enable attacks on other sovereigns, but not both.
For too long, the Middle East has operated under the assumption that terrorism pays—that violence yields concessions, that maximalism attracts mediation, that rejectionism brings rewards. Hamas’s leadership, ensconced in Qatari luxury, embodied this perverse incentive structure. They could order atrocities without experiencing consequences, negotiate in bad faith without personal risk, and maintain their grip on Gaza from the comfort of Doha’s Four Seasons Hotel.
The September 9 strike ends this age of impunity. It restores the principle that choices have consequences, that declaring war means accepting its risks, that targeting civilians forfeits any claim to protection. This is not escalation but restoration—of deterrence, of accountability, of the basic principle that those who plan genocide cannot claim sanctuary.
Hamas is learning what Hezbollah learned in Lebanon, what Palestinian Islamic Jihad learned in Damascus, what the PLO learned in Tunis: Israel’s arm is long, its memory is longer, and its commitment to protecting its citizens is absolute. There are no safe havens for those who choose terror. No diplomatic immunity for those who orchestrate massacres. No sanctuary for those who hold innocents hostage.
The path forward is clear. Hamas must surrender unconditionally, release all hostages immediately, and accept the dissolution of its military apparatus. Its leadership, scattered and vulnerable, must choose between capitulation and elimination. Qatar must expel all remaining Hamas operatives and cease all financial support, or accept its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism with all accompanying consequences. The international community must enforce existing counterterrorism obligations rather than sacrificing them for convenient fictions about mediation and dialogue.
Some will condemn Israel’s action as a violation of sovereignty, an escalation of violence, an obstacle to peace. These critics should be asked a simple question: what peace is possible with those who seek your annihilation? What sovereignty protects those who wage genocidal war? What escalation exceeds burning families alive in their homes?
The explosions in Doha were not the sound of war expanding but of justice being served.
They were not an obstacle to peace but a prerequisite for it. For genuine peace requires the defeat of those who reject it, the elimination of those who make it impossible, and the demonstration that choosing violence brings not victory but destruction.
Israel has sent that message with crystalline clarity. The age of consequence-free terrorism is over. The sanctuary of Doha is shattered. Hamas’s leaders, wherever they hide, now understand a fundamental truth: you can run, but you cannot hide forever. And when justice finds you, whether in a Gaza tunnel or a Qatari hotel, the result will be the same.
This was not merely the right move. It was the only move. And it should have happened long ago.
Gregg Roman is the executive director of the Middle East Forum, previously directing the Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. In 2014, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency named him one of the “ten most inspiring global Jewish leaders,” and he previously served as the political advisor to the deputy foreign minister of Israel and worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense. A frequent speaker on Middle East affairs, Mr. Roman appears on international news channels such as Fox News, i24NEWS, Al-Jazeera, BBC World News, and Israel’s Channels 12 and 13. He studied national security and political communications at American University and the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, and has contributed to The Hill, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald, and the Jerusalem Post.
