Introduction

The reported Israeli airstrikes in Doha mark a dramatic expansion of conflict into the Gulf, far beyond Israel’s usual theatres of engagement in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria. Qatar, a small but influential state, has long balanced its role as a U.S. ally and mediator while hosting groups opposed to Israel. This incident therefore raises pressing questions: does it signal a new phase of regional instability, where Gulf capitals are no longer shielded from confrontation? More broadly, what does it reveal about shifting power, hegemony, and disorder in the international system? This article examines the wider implications of the strikes, focusing on how they reshape Middle Eastern power dynamics and regional stability.

Historical Context

Qatar’s position in regional politics has always been precarious. It hosts the US Al Udeid Air Base, the largest American military facility in the Middle East, which cements its status as a critical US ally. Yet it has also cultivated relationships with actors like Hamas, supported Islamist movements and maintained open channels with Iran and Türkiye. This strategy reflects what Antonio Gramsci described as the politics of hegemony, a balancing act between coercion and consent, where power is exercised not only militarily but also ideologically and diplomatically. Israel has long viewed Qatar’s approach with suspicion, particularly its financial support to Gaza and its refusal to normalize ties despite the Abraham Accords. The strike on Doha must therefore be read as both a tactical operation and a symbolic challenge to Qatar’s independent foreign policy posture.

Airstrikes as Strategic Signaling

Military strikes in international politics are rarely reducible to battlefield considerations. Following Thomas Schelling’s (1966) logic of coercion, they serve as messages. Israel’s actions in Doha can be understood as strategic signaling aimed at multiple audiences. For Qatar, the strike undermines its credibility as a safe diplomatic hub and demonstrates the risks of hosting actor’s hostile to Israel. For the wider Gulf, it communicates that Israeli deterrence is not geographically constrained.

The operation also reflects Israel’s enduring reliance on air supremacy as a cornerstone of its security doctrine. During the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1960s, particularly the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force established decisive control of the skies by neutralizing enemy aircraft on the ground. That precedent shaped Israel’s doctrine of preemptive and preventive strikes, later embodied in the Begin Doctrine. The Doha airstrikes can be read as a continuation of this tradition: airpower is deployed not only to achieve tactical objectives but also to project dominance across the region. The difference lies in function, whereas in the 1960’s air supremacy was existential, aimed at defeating conventional armies, today it operates as a form of hegemonic signaling, reinforcing Israel’s status as the Middle East’s preeminent military actor.

Crucially, this escalation also interrupts ongoing negotiation processes between Hamas and Israel, many of which have relied on Qatar as a mediator. By striking Doha, Israel undermines a key channel for dialogue. The likely outcome is prolongation of the conflict in Gaza and beyond, with fewer diplomatic off-ramps available. The immediate costs are borne in humanitarian terms, but the wider effect is the erosion of regional stability.

Theoretical Lens: Balance of Power and Regional Anarchy

Balance of Power

For Kenneth Waltz, the absence of central authority in the international system creates an anarchic environment where states must rely on self-help. Hans Morgenthau similarly argued that the struggle for power is an enduring feature of international politics. The Doha strikes are likely to trigger classic balancing and bandwagoning behaviors. Qatar may deepen its ties with Iran and Türkiye to resist Israeli coercion, while the UAE and Bahrain, already normalized with Israel under the Abraham Accords, may bandwagon further, calculating that alignment provides more security than resistance. The Gulf states will evaluate not just Israel’s capabilities but also its intentions when calibrating responses.

Imperialism

Lenin’s (1917) analysis of imperialism situates such actions within the global hierarchy of capitalist competition. In this reading, the Gulf becomes an arena where smaller states are exposed to coercion as larger powers – Israel, the United States, and Iran, struggle for dominance. The Doha strike is thus emblematic of global anarchy as theorized by structural realists, but also of the imperial logic whereby smaller states remain structurally subordinated within a capitalist world system.

Critical Perspectives on Power

Noam Chomsky has long argued that US foreign policy in the Middle East privileges strategic dominance and Israeli security over regional justice or stability. The Doha strike underscores this logic, US protection of allies like Qatar is ultimately subordinated to the imperative of maintaining Israeli superiority. In this sense, the strike reflects both the realist logic of power maximization and the critical perspective that sees international order as structured by systemic inequality and hegemonic interests.

Implications for Regional Stability

The strike’s consequences are immediate and far-reaching. In the short term, Qatar’s relations with Israel are further strained, while Iran positions itself as Doha’s natural partner in resisting Israeli coercion. In the medium term, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) faces intensified divisions, as Qatar’s vulnerability clashes with the UAE and Bahrain’s deepening alignment with Israel. In the long term, the regional security architecture may fragment further, producing an environment of heightened insecurity where balancing and bandwagoning perpetuate cycles of escalation. Lenin’s insight into imperial competition resonates here: regional instability is not accidental but symptomatic of deeper structural rivalries in the international system. The collapse or suspension of mediation efforts between Hamas and Israel further compounds this instability. Without Qatar’s active role as an intermediary, negotiations over ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, or humanitarian access are likely to stall, prolonging the conflict and making de-escalation far more elusive.

Global Reactions and Israeli Domestic Politics

For the US, the strikes generate a profound strategic dilemma. Washington relies on Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base while remaining Israel’s closest ally. This tension raises questions about the credibility of American security guarantees. US policy has historically placed strategic dominance and the protection of Israeli interests above the security concerns of other regional partners. In this sense, the Doha strike highlights the contradictions of American hegemony: the very alliance network designed to stabilize the Gulf risks producing insecurity when subordinated to Israeli priorities.

At the same time, the strikes must be understood in the context of Israeli domestic politics under Benjamin Netanyahu. Facing mounting criticism at home for his handling of the Gaza war and corruption allegations, Netanyahu may see regional escalation to consolidate domestic support by projecting strength. Yet this strategy risks international isolation while deepening regional instability. In this way, domestic political survival and regional disorder become mutually reinforcing. Meanwhile, Russia and China may exploit these fissures, presenting themselves as alternative partners to anxious Gulf states a development that underscores Lenin’s view of imperial rivalry as a persistent driver of instability.

Conclusion

The Israeli airstrikes in Doha are not merely tactical maneuvers; they are emblematic of broader structural dynamics. Realist theory highlights the balance of power calculations they provoke, while Lenin’s imperialism and Chomsky’s critique of US policy expose the deeper inequalities and hierarchies that sustain regional disorder. The strikes have also disrupted critical negotiations between Hamas and Israel, ensuring that the conflict will likely be prolonged and that regional de-escalation will remain elusive.

Doha thus emerges as a symbol of the shifting Middle East, a space where balance of power politics intersects with hegemonic domination, where small states remain vulnerable within global capitalist rivalry and where domestic political calculations in Israel feed back into regional instability. Above all, the episode highlights Israel’s continued reliance on air supremacy as the foundation of its security doctrine. Just as the Six- Day War of 1967 established Israel as the dominant aerial power in the region, the Doha strikes remind both adversaries and allies that control of the skies remains the ultimate expression of Israeli deterrence and hegemonic status in the Middle East.

Bibliographies

Biddle., T. D. (2020). Coercion Theory: A Basic Introduction for Practitioners Texas National Security Review: Volume 3, Issue 2 (Spring 2020). Retreived on September 30^th from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a3b50629-ed23-48d2-90ec-e95a48cbffcd/content

Cafiero., G. (September 19^th, 2025). “How Israel’s strike on Doha is forcing a Gulf security reckoning”. Atlantic Council. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/how-israels-strike-on-doha-is-forcing-a-gulf-security-reckoning/

Chambers., G. (2008). Critical Perspectives on Hans Morgenthau’s Approach to International Relations. Marmara University. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/3643

Cohen, E. A., Eisenstadt, M., & Bacevich, A. J. (1998). ‘Knives, Tanks, and Missiles’: Israel’s Security Revolution. Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/knives-tanks-and-missiles-israels-security-revolution

Cook., S. A. (September 9^th, 2025). “Israel Risks a Gaza Ceasefire in Strike on Qatar—and Hamas”. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved on October 3^rd, 2025 from https://www.cfr.org/article/israel-risks-gaza-ceasefire-strike-qatar-and-hamas

Emile Hokayem. (September 13^th, 2025). The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). “Israel’s attack on Qatar has shaken the Gulf”. Retrieved on October 4^th, 2025 from https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/commentary/2025/09/israels-attack-on-qatar-has-shaken-the-gulf/

Laffey., M. (2003). Discerning the Patterns of World Order: Noam Chomsky and International Theory after the Cold War. Review of International Studies (2003), 29, 587–604. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/18294338.pdf

Marks., J. (September 17^th, 2025). “Israel’s Strike on Doha: A Crisis for U.S. Credibility?”. Just Security. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://www.justsecurity.org/120470/israel-strike-doha-us-credibility/

Nadav Eyal. (October 3^rd, 2025). “2 years into Gaza war, most Israelis more concerned about internal tensions than security threats”. Ynet News. Retrieved on October 4^th, 2025 from https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/skj7hj2hxg

Rodman., D. (NA). The Role of the Israel Air Force in the Operational Doctrine of the IDF. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Chronicles/rodman.pdf

Tapash Pujari. (March 2022). Imperialism as highest stage of Capitalism: A case study of Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest of Capitalism. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), Volume 27, Issue 3, Series 1 (March. 2022), page 1-3. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.27-Issue3/Ser-1/A2703010103.pdf

Waltz., K. N. (NA). Structural Realism After the Cold War. Retrieved on September 30^th, 2025 from https://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/U6800/readings-sm/Waltz_Structural%20Realism.pdf

Disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of MEPEI. Any content provided by our author is of her opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything.

About the author

Mr. Muhammad Shafiy bin Mazlan

Mr. Muhammad Shafiy bin Mazlan is an independence researcher in Turkiye Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Foreign Policy Analysis and the Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Foreign Policy. He earned International Master in Regional Integration from Asia-Europe Institute (AI), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.