Israel's attack against Hamas in Qatar was successful.

In warfare, creating fear and hesitation in your enemy can be as valuable as eliminating them outright.

An Israeli Air Force jet prepares for takeoff. (photo: IDF/X)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

On Tuesday, Israel carried out an unprecedented airstrike in the Qatari capital of Doha, targeting what intelligence suggested was a high-level Hamas meeting. The strike reportedly aimed to eliminate Hamas chief Khalil al-Hayya and other senior Hamas leaders as they discussed a U.S.-backed proposal for a hostages-for-ceasefire agreement.

According to Hamas, none of the top leaders were killed, though Israel has not confirmed the extent of casualties. Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani vowed retaliation, declaring that the strike “killed any hope” for the Israeli hostages, and threatened to pursue legal action against Israel, while condemning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At first glance, Israel’s strike appears inconclusive, even unsuccessful. At least two of Hamas’ senior leaders remain alive; they were pictured at a funeral in Qatar today. The Qataris are publicly outraged, and the hostages-for-ceasefire negotiations seem more uncertain than ever.

But success in warfare cannot be judged by headlines alone. A deeper analysis suggests that the attack served significant strategic purposes, despite its immediate limitations.

Qatar’s prime minister insists that the strike destroyed the chances of a hostage deal. This is largely political theater. Hamas will not suddenly execute or abandon the Israeli hostages it holds, because those hostages are its last and only meaningful leverage. Without them, Hamas becomes little more than a hunted terror organization with no bargaining chip to extract concessions.

Far from “killing any hope,” the strike likely reinforced to Hamas that their best — and only — move is to preserve hostages as negotiating currency. In that sense, Doha’s outrage is performative, meant to protect its role as “mediator” while ignoring its long-standing patronage of Hamas.

Even if Israel failed to kill all the senior Hamas figures present, the strike carried another form of success: psychological pressure. Hamas operatives now know they are not safe even in the gilded hotels and offices of Doha. Israel’s reach is global, and that reminder alone will force Hamas leaders to reevaluate their movements, tighten security, and operate more cautiously. This slows their planning, sows paranoia, and drains energy that could otherwise be directed toward strategy or propaganda.

In warfare, creating fear and hesitation in your enemy can be as valuable as eliminating them outright.

Ironically, Hamas leaders are now more likely to cling to Doha. They know the risk of a second Israeli strike inside Qatar is extremely low, given the diplomatic fallout from the first. Qatar provides them with protection, resources, and political cover. In other words, the strike may have frozen Hamas leaders in place, effectively pinning them down where the world can see them. While this means they may feel more secure against another attack, it also limits their ability to move freely, hide in obscurity, or coordinate secretly across multiple countries.

This operation also exposed Qatar’s duplicity. For years, Doha has styled itself as a neutral mediator while simultaneously hosting Hamas’ leadership in luxury. By striking in Qatar, Israel forced the world to confront the obvious contradiction: Qatar cannot be both a broker of peace and a patron of terror.

The outrage expressed by Qatar’s prime minister rings hollow; his government knew full well whom it was sheltering. Israel’s message was clear: No sanctuary is permanent when it comes to those responsible for the murder of its citizens.

And, in striking in Doha, Israel also calculated the cost-benefit balance of such a move. It risked friction with Washington and Europe, but the benefits may outweigh the costs. Crossing this red line demonstrates resolve and unpredictability, both of which are crucial in deterring enemies who have long assumed Israel would limit its reach to Gaza, Syria, or Lebanon.

Qatar, meanwhile, has scrambled to show it is responding. It announced it will host an emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Doha on Sunday and Monday to discuss the Israeli attack. This too is largely performative. Qatar has no military response in its pocket, and it needs to show its people — and the broader Arab and Muslim streets — that it is taking the strike seriously. Convening a summit allows Qatar to posture as the victim of aggression, while avoiding the reality that it has little meaningful recourse beyond rhetoric and symbolic gestures.

The strike also complicates U.S. diplomacy. Washington has relied on Qatar as a go-between with Hamas, outsourcing the delicate task of mediation to a state that openly shelters the very actors obstructing peace. By hitting Hamas in Doha, Israel exposed the contradictions in the American strategy and put pressure on the U.S. to reassess whether Doha can truly be trusted as an honest broker. Qatar’s diplomatic theater in response may soothe Western diplomats for now, but the reputational damage lingers.

Beyond the geopolitical chessboard, there is also the battle for narrative. Hamas will portray the strike as an Israeli failure, Qatar will cast itself as a victim of aggression, and international media will amplify both.

But public relations are not the same as battlefield reality. Privately, Hamas leaders will not feel victorious; they will feel hunted. In this sense, the Doha strike resembles past Israeli operations abroad — such as the pursuit of the Munich Olympic assassins or the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists — that rarely ended in one decisive blow, but cumulatively weakened networks, instilled fear, and reminded Israel’s enemies that they can run but never hide.

The strike also has potential consequences inside Hamas itself. The organization is not a monolith; its military commanders in Gaza, its political leaders abroad, and its financial patrons all have different agendas. A high-profile strike on the leaders living in safety and comfort in Doha may deepen tensions with those on the ground in Gaza who bear the brunt of the war. Such resentment could widen cracks within Hamas, further eroding its cohesion and effectiveness.

Meanwhile, Qatar must also weigh its own risks. Protecting Hamas leadership was always a calculated gamble, allowing Doha to maintain influence in regional politics while winning Western praise for “mediation.” But now that Hamas has been directly targeted on its soil, Qatar finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being exposed as a protector of terrorists rather than a peacemaker. This reputational cost is not trivial, especially in Washington, London, and Brussels, where patience for double-dealing is wearing thin. Qatar must now decide whether sheltering Hamas is worth the increased scrutiny and diplomatic liability.

Ultimately, even if the strike did not decapitate Hamas’ leadership in one blow, Israel may see it as one step in a longer campaign of strategic patience. Warfare is rarely about a single decisive moment; it is about wearing down the enemy over time, forcing them into hiding, disrupting their operations, creating mistrust within their ranks, and exhausting their options. Success can be incremental, and the Doha strike fits within that broader pattern. Israel has always played the long game with its enemies, and this strike is less an isolated gamble than another move in a sustained campaign of pressure.

So, was Israel’s attack against Hamas in Qatar a success? If success is measured by the immediate elimination of Hamas’ senior leadership, the answer is likely no. But if success is measured in broader strategic terms — instilling fear, exposing Qatar’s duplicity, complicating U.S. diplomacy, straining Hamas’ internal unity, and demonstrating Israel’s global reach — then the strike was far from a failure.

Hamas remains cornered, its hostage leverage intact but fragile, its leadership shaken, and its patrons embarrassed. Israel’s enemies will continue to shout “failure,” but they do so from a place of fear.

In war, victories are rarely absolute. Sometimes success lies in the ripples, not the explosion.

---