Israel’s Doha Attack Shakes U.S. Credibility in the Gulf

Israel’s Doha air strikes two days ago were in fact a blow to US Gulf security architecture–a security architecture under which most of the oil-rich Gulf Sheikdoms lead a life of calm, security, peace and prosperity. The question that boggles the mind of international security experts is whether this security architecture will survive or will it come crumbling down along with US credibility among the rulers of Arab Sheikdoms. Since little after the Second World War the oil-rich Arab Sheikdoms have lived under the security umbrella of the United States’ military and security apparatus. Washington identifies the continuous flow of oil from Gulf states to the industrial west as its core security interests. The Arab states in the Persian Gulf are generally considered military non-entities despite the fact that they purchase state of the art weapon systems from the United States, France and England on an annual basis. They have been living under the illusion that Americans will fight for them. In fact the Americans did fight for one of them, Kuwait in the 1990s when another Aran country , Iraq captured Kuwait in an overnight military onslaught. But when it came to Israeli air strikes on Doha, the capital of Qatar where Americans have military bases, Americans remained dead silent.

Reports in the western media suggest that Israelis did inform White House about the impending attack on Doha, which in turn notified Doha in advance. The US President did talk to the Israeli Prime Minister and Qatari Emir after the air strikes. The White House spokesperson had a brief for the media about the air strikes.  Responding to a question about whether the US was alerted in advance and whether Trump had supported it, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “This morning, the Trump administration was notified by the US military that Israel was attacking Hamas, which, very unfortunately, was located in a section of Doha, the capital of Qatar.“Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the US, that is working very hard in bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals. However, eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal. President Trump immediately directed special envoy Witkoff to inform the Qataris of the impending attack, which he did. “The president views Qatar as a strong ally and friend of the US and feels very badly about the location of the attack. President Trump wants all of the hostages in Gaza and the bodies of the dead released and this war to end now.” She said Trump also talked to the Israeli prime minister after the attack, who said he quickly wanted peace. She said Trump believed the “unfortunate incident” could serve as an opportunity for peace, adding that the US president also talked with the Qatari emir and prime minister and thanked them for “their support and friendship to our country”. Leavitt added that Trump “assured them that such a thing will not happen again on their soil”.

Now this is almost confirmed that it was an air strike carried out by Israeli jet fighters. The question is which route Israeli jet fighters took to rich Qatar. During the Israel-Iran war the Israeli jets used to fly over Syria and Iraq to reach Iran. According to Saudi commentators Israel used this path repeatedly in 2025 to target Iranian assets and in this way it avoided the airspace of U.S. allies and Gulf partners, “Syria and Iraq lack functional long-range air defense systems” said one Arab analyst. The strike can be executed from international waters using stand-off missiles without entering Saudi or Qatar skies. There are widespread rumors in the Arab world that Israeli jets used Saudi Air space to strike Doha, which are not correct.

There are several questions which arise about the dangerous Israeli move. Can Arab Sheikdoms now trust US President assurance that this won’t be repeated on their soil? While the Israelis were bombing Gaza and Iran there were commentators who used to predict that the flames of war would spread to other parts of the region. Israeli air strikes will shatter the atmosphere of calm, peace and prosperity in the Persian Gulf area. Americans showed these Gulf sheikdoms the threat of rising Iranian Shia military power in the region to coax these tiny states into entering a peace deal with Israel. The American strategy will surely not work now. Whether the US security establishment will be able to retain the security architecture under which these Gulf States lead their lives will be something to watch in the days and months ahead.

Israelis claimed they were targeting Hamas leadership in Doha. The point is that every Gulf state hosts a small population of Palestinian in their midst. This Palestinian factor could potentially make every Gulf State a potential target of Israeli strikes.

Since 9/11, the United States has imposed two major wars on the world order. In the 9/11 attacks, around 4,000 to 6,000 people were killed. In retribution, American forces killed over 90,000 Afghans over the course of a 20-year occupation. Let’s consider another self-proclaimed liberal democracy—Israel. In the Hamas attack on Israeli border towns on 7 October, around 1,300 people were killed. In retaliation, Israel has killed more than 50,000 people in Gaza. Over the past year, two liberal democracies—Israel and India—have launched military actions against Iran and Pakistan, respectively. The decision-making processes surrounding war cannot be separated from the day-to-day workings of democratic systems. In these so-called liberal democracies, war and violence are systemically embedded. Peace at home must be maintained at all costs—even if it means immense suffering abroad.

Using overwhelming military power against weaker states or non-military actors cannot be morally justified on the basis of imagined threats.States that claim to be liberal democracies while embracing war-making as their primary international posture pose a profound ideological and political problem. After 9/11, the United States manipulated the global order to craft a justification for military interventions. Now, every Tom, Dick, and Harry seeks to invoke similar justifications to unilaterally strike opponents. This trend is rapidly eroding the credibility and viability of the international system.All these adventurist states are self-proclaimed liberal democracies—closely allied, in most cases, with the original architect of post-9/11 militarism: the United States. Liberal democracy, in theory, was the culmination of centuries of Western thought—rooted in questioning religious and feudal authority, and based on the Christian idea that every human possesses inherent moral worth and rights bestowed by God. This vision reaches maturity only within a democratic framework that enables individuals to realise their full creative and civic potential. But this noble philosophy doesn’t align with the post-Cold War belligerence of liberal democracies. Within the US, thinkers such as John Mearsheimer—founder of the “offensive realism” school—argue that America’s liberal internationalist foreign policy since Bill Clinton has only produced war and instability. Mearsheimer warns that this foreign policy orientation will ultimately undermine liberalism at home.He has a point. Since 9/11, the US has failed to remake a single invaded society in its image. Meanwhile, liberal political resolve at home is fraying. The alternative emerging in American society seems deeply anti-war. In the past three months, President Trump—an archetypal anti-liberal—has helped broker two ceasefires: one between India and Pakistan, another between Iran and Israel. He is reportedly pursuing a third ceasefire in Gaza.