Israel's unprecedented airstrikes on Doha on Tuesday represented a dramatic escalation in the country's military doctrine, signalling a willingness to operate far beyond its borders with open disregard for international norms.
The attack, which penetrated Qatari airspace to target Hamas’s leadership in residential compounds, has raised fundamental questions about Israel's evolving role in regional security and its relationship with international law.
The strike killed the son of senior Hamas official Khalil Al-Hayya and three others, according to َQatari Interior Ministry statements, including a Qatari security personnel and injured several others.
Most significantly, it occurred while Qatar was actively mediating ceasefire negotiations between Hamas and Israel, effectively targeting the very diplomatic process designed to end hostilities.
The operation marks what analysts describe as Israel's transformation into a “policeman without borders,” according to several regional experts, exercising military force across any airspace without apparent accountability mechanisms.
Israel's strategic calculations
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued an unequivocal statement taking “full responsibility” for the operation.
“Israel initiated the operation, executed it, and bears full responsibility for it,” Netanyahu declared, signalling a new level of boldness in claiming responsibility for extraterritorial operations.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz framed the attack as an “operational opportunity to target Hamas leadership,” executed after “careful consultations between security officials”.
The timing was presented as retaliation for attacks on 8 September, which killed six Israeli settlers and injured 30 others in a bus shooting in Jerusalem, which Hamas’s military wing claimed responsibility for, plus four Israeli soldiers killed by an explosive device north of Gaza.
This represents a significant shift in Israeli operational doctrine, moving from covert to overt acknowledgement of strikes on foreign soil.
Palestinian-Israeli affairs expert Aziz al-Masri told The New Arab that Israel sent out multifaceted messaging through the Doha strike.
“Israel alone determines the course of the war, and any potential settlement, including the latest American proposal, is implemented according to conditions that meet Tel Aviv's objectives,” he explained, citing Israeli demands for disarming Hamas and Gaza, forming a non-hostile civilian government, removing Hamas leaders from Gaza, and releasing hostages.
The operation sends “a threat to Hamas leaders that there is no safe place for them anywhere in the world,” al-Masri noted, while targeting Qatar specifically as “an option that reduces repercussions compared to other countries like Turkey or Egypt”.
Operational implementation of 'no limits' policy
The strike's execution, according to experts, penetrating a Gulf state's airspace to target residential compounds while that country mediated ceasefire negotiations, demonstrates how Israel's “no limits, no borders” doctrine operates in practice.
The operation effectively targeted the diplomatic process itself, sending a clear message that Israel recognises no neutral ground or diplomatic immunity.
Strategic expert Major General Samir Faraj linked this unlimited authority doctrine directly to Netanyahu's domestic political calculations and broader regional strategy.
The Israeli leader “seeks to prolong the war and obstruct any path to a ceasefire to preserve his political survival,” Faraj observed, describing Israeli actions as part of a pattern enabled by “unconditional American support" that allows continued violations of international resolutions.
“Since Israel's attacks on Gaza began and extended to southern Lebanon, Syria, and even Iran, this represents an attempt to ignite Arab national security and destabilise Middle East stability,” Faraj told The New Arab.
This assessment suggests Netanyahu views regional escalation as politically beneficial, keeping Israel in a state of heightened security that justifies his continued leadership despite domestic challenges.
Israel's 'new Middle East' vision
According to al-Masri, the Doha strike serves Israel's broader regional ambitions.
Netanyahu seeks through this operation to declare what he called the “New Israeli Middle East”, where “any party or state that poses a threat to Israel will be subject to targeting, without any consideration for international rejection," he explained.
This vision appears to position Israel as the dominant regional power capable of unilateral military action across sovereign borders, effectively establishing a new regional order based on Israeli military supremacy rather than diplomatic consensus or international law.
The operation demonstrates what analysts describe as “Israeli surplus power and the absence of any deterrent”, suggesting Israel perceives no meaningful constraints on its military operations across the region.
International enablement and constraints
US President Donald Trump expressed displeasure and denied prior knowledge of Israel’s strike on Doha, telling Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in a phone call that "such behaviour would not be repeated on Qatari soil".
This contradiction highlights potential tensions in US-Israel coordination, particularly given Qatar's hosting of Al Udeid Air Base, one of the largest US military installations in the Middle East.
Former Egyptian Intelligence Deputy Director Major General Mohammed Rashad suggested to The New Arab that the incident could strain Israeli-American relations if collusion between US forces and Israeli aircraft is proven, given that Israeli jets entered Qatari airspace without apparent detection by American radar systems.
Testing regional response mechanisms
The strike also appears designed to test regional response capabilities and resolve, according to Yemeni political analyst Yassin Al Tamimi, who noted that Israel's action “reveals a dangerous escalation in Tel Aviv's policies and direct US involvement in supporting its operations, reflecting a decline in international credibility”.
Al-Tamimi pointed to “continued absence of effective Arab reaction” as enabling “Israel to continue its expansionist policies, including continuous bombing of Gaza, threatening the West Bank, striking Syrian capabilities, and interfering in other countries' affairs”.
Qatar's measured response, condemning the attack as a “flagrant violation of sovereignty” while promising “legal and diplomatic measures”, suggests regional powers remain constrained in their ability to respond to Israeli operations.
Regional security researcher Ahmed Sultan says that Israel's Doha operation reflects “Israeli recklessness towards all international laws and norms based on military power and hegemonic arrogance, without relying on negotiation logic or diplomacy”.
The aggression against Qatar “clarifies that there is an excessive force that does not accept peace or coexistence, and targets even mediating countries that were working to conclude a ceasefire agreement,” Sultan explained, suggesting Israel views diplomatic mediation itself as a threat to its strategic objectives.
Sultan predicted the incident would lead to “profound changes in the structure of regional alliances and in the international system as a whole, while media discourse will become bolder in confronting Israel, focusing on exposing its crimes and confronting the official narrative it imposes”.
Long-term strategic implications
Dr Heba Al Bashbishy of Cairo University, who specialises in political affairs, told The New Arab that the Doha attack reflects coordinated planning rather than impulsive action.
She warned that Israel's approach, combined with Hamas's response patterns, creates a cycle where “the optimal solution for regional stability lies in changing the leadership of both Netanyahu and Hamas, to be replaced by leaders who possess a clear vision for coexistence and peace, away from the aggression currently controlling both sides”.
The Doha strike ultimately represents Israel's bet that military dominance can reshape the regional order more effectively than diplomatic engagement.
Whether this calculation proves correct may determine the trajectory of Middle East politics for years to come.
This article is published in collaboration with Egab