The White House issued a rare public rebuke of Israel for its strikes on Hamas leaders in Qatar, putting Washington in an awkward position between two key allies.
The Trump administration almost never breaks publicly with Israel on military campaigns. But analysts say the deeper question is how much the U.S. knew in advance — and whether it quietly offered its blessing.
Hamas said the strike killed five of its members but failed to assassinate the group’s negotiating delegation. A Qatari security official also died, underscoring the risk of escalation when Israeli operations spill into the territory of U.S. partners.
‘There’s a lot of opaqueness when it comes to exactly what the United States knew and when,’ said Daniel Benaim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. ‘But the President has been pretty clear that he was unhappy with the substance and the process of what happened yesterday. This kind of public statement by a U.S. president in the wake of a strike like this is already very notable in its own right.’
Just days before the strike, Trump issued what he called a ‘last warning’ to Hamas, urging the group to accept a U.S.-backed proposal to release hostages from Gaza. The timing has fueled speculation about whether the strike was connected to Washington’s frustration with Hamas and whether Israel acted with at least tacit U.S. approval.
‘It just seems like the Israelis wouldn’t have done this without him knowing,’ said Michael Makovsky, CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
‘They’ve got a U.S. base right in that country with everything going on with the hostage talks. I got a sense that he knew, and it’s hard to understand exactly what happened — that if he knew, he sat on it, and then he told the Qataris only when the missiles were flying.’
But Trump on Tuesday had harsh words about the strike, writing on Truth Social that it ‘does not advance Israel or America’s goals.’
The White House claimed it learned from the U.S. military that missiles were on the move, and gave warning to the Qataris. Qatar has denied getting any sort of advanced warning.
If Washington knew in advance, why issue the rebuke? If it didn’t, how could Israel act so freely in airspace dominated by the U.S. military? Either option raises uncomfortable questions about America’s leverage.
‘Israel would not do what it did without some sort of an approval by the U.S.,’ said Dr. Yoel Guzansky, senior researcher and head of the Gulf program at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. ‘The Trump administration wants to distance itself, and it’s understandable, because it has good relations with the Qataris.’
That relationship is anchored in hard power. The U.S.’s biggest overseas air base, Al Udeid, sits on Qatari soil and hosts more than 10,000 American troops. Qatar is a top buyer of U.S. weapons and recently gifted the administration with a new Air Force One jet. Yet none of that deterred Israel’s strike. ‘If indeed the U.S. wasn’t aware, then we have a big problem, because Israel surprised the U.S., and it might cause damage to U.S.-Qatari relations,’ Guzansky said.
Others argue the U.S. may have been more aligned with the operation than its rhetoric suggests. ‘The fact that U.S. defenses at Al Udeid were not used against Israeli jets is a great indicator that Washington was not opposed to the strike,’ Ahmad Sharawi, a researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
But Qatar’s international Media Office called claims that Qatar was re-evaluating its security partnership with the U.S. ‘categorically false.’
‘It is a clear and failed attempt to drive a wedge between Qatar and the U.S.’
Strains on Gulf relationships
The reverberations extend beyond Washington and Doha. The strikes risk unsettling the delicate outreach between Israel, the U.S., and Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, which has been under quiet but sustained pressure to join the Abraham Accords — the U.S.-brokered normalization deals between Israel and Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates.
‘Regional power dynamics are shifting,’ said Benaim. ‘Gulf states are a bit less concerned about the threat from Iran, which was pushing them closer to Israel, and they’re seeing that Israel is engaged in activities across the region, whether it’s Syria or inside Iran or now inside Doha.’
The divergence is stark. Gulf leaders want de-escalation and stability to rebrand their states as hubs of investment, tourism, and economic recovery. Israel, meanwhile, is pursuing a strategy of direct confrontation with Iran across multiple fronts.
‘Gulf states that are really focused on their own economic recovery don’t like the image of smoldering, smoking Gulf cities subject to bombs because they’re trying to attract investment and create an image of common stability,’ Benaim said.
That mismatch could slow normalization, even if it doesn’t derail it. ‘Israel is probably underestimating the power of Gulf solidarity and the barrier being crossed when you see Israel striking inside of a GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] state,’ one former senior State Department official added. ‘I don’t think that means their relationships are going to fall apart or unravel, but these things cast a long shadow.’
Sharawi counters that Gulf outrage may be less about Israel itself than about the precedent of a strike on GCC soil. ‘It was an Israeli action against a fellow GCC partner, despite the hostile relationship that countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE had with Qatar in the past,’ he said. ‘But Gulf leaders are also deeply critical of Qatar for hosting Hamas. Privately, many will understand why Israel acted, even if publicly they condemn it.’
Qatar’s balancing act
For Qatar, the strikes open up both a vulnerability and an opportunity. On the one hand, it cannot allow itself to appear passive in the face of foreign attacks on its soil. Analysts expect Doha to respond through diplomatic channels, critical media coverage, and perhaps limited economic measures against Israel.
But Qatar also has a long history of turning crisis into relevance. ‘Qataris want to be again the mediator, because they earn a lot of points internationally — especially from the U.S.,’ said Guzansky. ‘It’s in their DNA.’
That means Qatar’s public outrage may coexist with a return to shuttle diplomacy, positioning itself once more as indispensable to ceasefire negotiations.
Sharawi argues that Qatar’s victim narrative also obscures its complicity. ‘The leadership of a terrorist organization has failed to bring in a sustainable ceasefire, and Qatar has empowered Hamas by hosting them,’ he said. ‘Even though Gulf leaders won’t say it publicly, they are very anti-Hamas. That context matters for how normalization prospects are viewed after this strike.’
Earlier this week Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade told a Qatari spokesperson it sounded more like the nation was ‘taking Hamas’ side’ than playing mediator.
‘When one of the parties decides to attack our sovereignty in a residential neighborhood where my countrymen, the residents of Qatar, live in schools and nurseries right next door. Believe me, it’s very difficult to maintain a very calm voice,’ foreign ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari said.
A different reaction than Iran
The Doha strikes also highlight an asymmetry in Gulf reactions. When Iran struck Al Udeid Air Base earlier this year, Gulf solidarity with Qatar was muted. This time, condemnations poured in minute by minute.
‘You didn’t see Gulf leaders coming and hugging the Qataris after Iran’s strike,’ Guzansky noted. ‘But with Israel, the reaction was much louder, with strong rhetoric across the Arab world.’
Sharawi agrees but frames it differently: ‘They were overly critical of Israel compared to Iran. The Jordanian king even said Qatar’s security is Jordan’s security — a very strong statement. The Arabs don’t hesitate to latch onto anything that criticizes Israel, and that showed yesterday, even in comparison with Iran.’
The contrast underscores a regional reality: Gulf leaders fear escalation with Tehran, but criticizing Israel carries little risk. For Qatar, the difference offers a chance to rally sympathy and spotlight its sovereignty — even as its neighbors quietly question its choice to host Hamas.
A shadow over normalization
Israel’s military reach is undeniable. But by striking inside Doha, it may have paid a hidden diplomatic price — reinforcing perceptions of Israel as a destabilizing actor at a time when Gulf states seek calm.
The fact that Hamas leaders survived while a Qatari security official was killed may further complicate fallout, heightening anger in Doha while leaving Israel’s core objective incomplete.
Israel’s defense minister Israel Katz has promised to strike ‘enemies everywhere.’
‘There is no place where they can hide,’ Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a post on X, raising questions about whether a sovereign nation like Turkey, a NATO ally, which houses Hamas senior leaders, may be next.