Israel’s strike yesterday in Doha, the capital of Qatar, targeting Hamas’s political leadership, has become a development that could change the course of the war. Because this attack not only failed to eliminate Hamas’s top leadership but also blew up what was left of the most important diplomatic channel for ending the war.
As is well known, Qatar has long been one of the rare actors accepted by both Washington and Israel as a “mediator.” Yet when Israeli missiles exploded in Doha, Hamas leaders had gathered to discuss the “final offer” peace plan presented by the Trump administration. That plan envisioned a mutual exchange of hostages and prisoners, Israel’s gradual withdrawal from Gaza, and a subsequent political transition process overseen personally by Trump.
So while it wasn’t ideal, there was a real possibility of a solution on the table.
But Netanyahu’s obsession with “total victory” destroyed that table. Much like Captain Ahab in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick—who sacrificed his ship and crew in his single-minded quest to kill the White Whale—Netanyahu seems to have abandoned reason and balance in his drive to annihilate Hamas. This attack eliminated any chance of diplomacy and pushed Israel into a corner. Now, the only remaining path is virtually reoccupation.
Qatar’s Shock, the West’s Reaction, Trump’s Anger
The Qatari government had received assurances from both Israel and Washington that Hamas officials would not be targeted on its soil. But those assurances proved worthless. Doha feels “betrayed” and has expressed outrage. Even the U.S. issued harsh criticism, and European capitals openly condemned Netanyahu. Israel has weakened its position not only in the Arab world but also in the West.
U.S. President Donald Trump revealed that he first learned of Israel’s strike in Qatar from the U.S. military—not from Netanyahu. Trump said he was “very upset” by the attack and gave Qatar assurances that nothing like it would happen again. On social media, he criticized Netanyahu while still insisting that targeting Hamas was “the right goal.”
Experts describe Trump’s approach as unconventional and unpredictable by diplomatic standards. Typically, Trump reacts with complaints to Netanyahu’s unilateral military moves but then lets them slide without real consequences; his responses are personal and inconsistent. So while Washington’s lack of prior knowledge about such risky operations is controversial, Trump’s style has become a familiar pattern: “Bibi, do what you want.”
At the same time, the U.S. is worried about the destruction of diplomatic channels caused by the strike in Qatar. Some analysts believe Israel coordinated the operation partly to give the U.S. “plausible deniability.” Still, Trump’s stated priority remains securing the release of hostages and ending the war.
An Opportunity for Erdoğan to Return to the Table?
This development could create a striking opportunity for Ankara. Erdoğan has long tried to maintain the role of “protector of Hamas.” With Qatar sidelined, Erdoğan might use this moment to showcase his influence over Hamas once more. For Erdoğan, who often exploits the Palestinian issue as domestic political capital, this could be a golden opportunity.
But the picture is more complicated. Erdoğan wants to sustain economic and security cooperation with Tel Aviv. In the Eastern Mediterranean energy equation, in defense industry ties, and in opening doors to the West through Israel, Erdoğan’s hands are tied. In other words, while he plays the “protector of Hamas” role for domestic audiences, behind the scenes he cannot afford to break ties with Netanyahu.
With Doha out of the game, Erdoğan’s direct communication line with Hamas may gain prominence. Yet this would strengthen the perception in Washington and Europe that “Turkey is feeding Hamas.”
Will Erdoğan take that risk? Domestically, he needs it; internationally, such a move could isolate him further.
Conclusion
Ultimately, with his strike on Qatar, Netanyahu narrowed the path of diplomacy. But this vacuum could expand Erdoğan’s playing field. The critical question now is this: Will Erdoğan use the opportunity to appear as Hamas’s patron, or will he quietly let it pass in order to preserve relations with Israel?
Either way, Netanyahu’s obsession with “absolute victory” has created new fault lines not only in Gaza but also across regional balances. Turkey, too, will be forced to choose its direction along this fault line.
