Trump Appears Sidelined as Israel’s Unprecedented Strikes Hit Qatar

Published: 10 September 2025 | The English Chronicle Desk

The United States appeared caught off guard on Tuesday after Israeli warplanes launched an unprecedented strike in the heart of Qatar’s capital, Doha, targeting senior Hamas negotiators and abruptly derailing peace efforts long hosted by the Gulf state.

The attack, which Israeli officials described as a decisive blow against Hamas leadership, came just days after former President Donald Trump had publicly claimed he was close to brokering a ceasefire deal. Yet, as details of the diplomatic scramble before the strikes emerged, it became clear that the White House had little influence over Israel’s decision to expand its war beyond Gaza.

Officials within the administration admitted that warnings of the strikes reached Washington so late that U.S. envoys could do little to intervene. According to Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, the U.S. only informed Doha of the bombardment ten minutes after the first missiles had already struck.

“I immediately directed Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to inform the Qataris of the impending attack, which he did, however, unfortunately, too late to stop the attack,” Trump said in a statement attempting to clarify Washington’s role.

The situation has once again highlighted the administration’s precarious balancing act—seeking to stand firmly behind Israel’s war against Hamas while also maintaining relations with Qatar, a critical U.S. ally and host of American military bases in the Gulf.

That contradiction was evident in the White House’s official response. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt condemned Israel’s decision to bomb within the territory of “a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States,” warning that such actions “do not advance Israel or America’s goals.” Yet, in the same breath, she justified the operation, saying that “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”

The strike has thrown ongoing ceasefire negotiations into disarray. For nearly two years, Qatar has hosted talks between Israel and Hamas, often under intense international scrutiny. But following the air raid, Sheikh Mohammed admitted that the immediate prospects for dialogue were grim: “For current talks, I do not think there’s something valid right now after what we saw from today’s attack.”

Regional analysts agree that the blow to Qatar’s mediation role could be decisive. Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations noted that Doha had “exerted considerable effort to release Israeli hostages only to be repaid with an airstrike on their country.” He suggested that Egypt might attempt to step in as mediator, but described the task as “thankless” given the apparent lack of appetite for compromise on either side.

Rachel Brandenburg of the Israel Policy Forum questioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s motives, arguing that targeting negotiators “calls into question whether he is serious about ending the war at all.” Without a trusted mediator, she warned, the already fragile process risks collapsing entirely.

This is not the first time Qatar has found itself caught in the middle of wider regional hostilities. In June, after a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Tehran retaliated with missiles against a U.S. base in Qatar, though the barrage was intercepted by American defenses. Tuesday’s events, however, strike much closer to Qatar’s sovereignty and its credibility as a diplomatic broker.

Trump, seeking to reassure Doha, said he had personally told Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed and Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani that “such a thing will not happen again on their soil.” But Israel’s stance appears uncompromising. In New York, at an emergency session of the UN Security Council called by Algeria, Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon declared: “There will be no immunity for terrorists—not in Gaza, Lebanon, or in Qatar.”

With the dust still settling in Doha, questions remain not only about the future of peace talks but also about the United States’ ability to shape events in a conflict it insists only it can resolve.