Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO and founder of Gulf State Analytics, a Washington-based geopolitical risk consultancy.
On Sep. 9, Israel did the unthinkable when it launched a military strike targeting Hamas officials on Qatari soil. This attack marked Tel Aviv's first assault on a U.S.-allied Gulf Cooperation Council member. More than a military maneuver, the operation was a brazen challenge to the norms of international law, a direct affront to another Arab country's national sovereignty and a troubling sign that Israel is expanding its targets across the Middle East roughly two years into the Gaza genocide.
This unprecedented act of aggression, dubbed "Operation Summit of Fire," claimed the lives of five lower-ranking Hamas members and a Qatari security agent. However, it failed to eliminate the group's senior leadership, raising urgent questions about the possibility of Tel Aviv carrying out similar operations against Doha down the line.
Targeting Mediation: Undermining Qatar's Diplomatic Bridge-Building
Widely condemned by much of the international community—including a host of Israel's Western backers—this operation was about more than eliminating Hamas negotiators. The broader objective appears to have been the dismantling of diplomacy itself.
By targeting Qatar—a nation that has acted as a vital diplomatic bridge between Hamas and the American-Israeli alliance since Hamas's political bureau relocated to Doha from Damascus in 2012—Israel struck at the heart of regional mediation efforts. Beyond a mere airstrike on a residential neighborhood in the Qatari capital, it was a direct attack on the infrastructure of diplomacy.
At this stage, it is increasingly unrealistic to expect the Israeli government—now widely seen as a destabilizing force in the region—to observe any meaningful constraints.
- Giorgio Cafiero
At this stage, it is increasingly unrealistic to expect the Israeli government—now widely seen as a destabilizing force in the region—to observe any meaningful constraints. Instead, Israel appears determined to assert dominance across the Middle East through a strategy of provocation, coercion and force. Its message is unambiguous: Any movement toward peace will be met not with negotiation, but with escalation. Those who attempt to mediate will face consequences.
Far from simply ignoring calls for de-escalation, Israel is actively undermining them, demonstrating not only disregard but outright contempt for the principles of diplomacy, multilateralism and international law.
"I think the big takeaway from this recent international crisis is that Israel, backed by the United States, wants to establish itself as the regional hegemon and it will observe no red lines or limits in achieving that goal," said Dr. Nader Hashemi, director of Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding and a Non-Resident Fellow at DAWN, in an interview with Democracy in Exile.
In his view, Western governments' condemnations will do little in practice. "The criticism that you hear from Trump and the Europeans are just words," explained Dr. Hashemi.
These remarks reflect a growing consensus among Middle East scholars that without consequences, Western criticism of Israel's behavior amounts to little more than performative outrage. Reining in Israel means more than rhetorical finger-wagging that fails to attach real material ramifications to the country's increasingly rogue actions.
Diplomatic Fallout: Allies and Partners on Edge
Israel's decision to strike a neutral Gulf state has reverberated across the region, prompting other U.S. allies and partners to question whether they, too, could be targeted under similar pretexts. Such concerns are not abstract. For instance, Oman, which has spent many years hosting Houthi Movement (Ansar Allah) representatives for diplomatic talks, could find itself wondering if Israel might one day launch a strike against Ansar Allah figures on Omani soil.
Israel's "Operation Summit of Fire" may reshape how regional and international actors approach mediation, especially in conflicts involving non-state groups.
- Giorgio Cafiero
"To conduct strikes on a neutral country [presiding] over mediation efforts not only violates international law, but also punishes countries seeking diplomatic solutions," Arwa Mokdad, a Yemen expert at the University of Oxford, said in an interview.
"Moving forward, countries will think twice before engaging in diplomacy, which will impact peace processes across the world. This marks a grave crack in international norms which will result in less global cooperation," she warned.
Indeed, Israel's "Operation Summit of Fire" may reshape how regional and international actors approach mediation, especially in conflicts involving non-state groups. States may grow more reluctant to host or engage such actors, fearing retaliation—despite the fact that mediation often serves their national interests and enhances security.
Within this context, Dr. Rory Miller, a professor of International Politics at Georgetown University Qatar, told Democracy in Exile that Israel's unprecedented attack on Qatar earlier this month will "certainly influence thinking about whether voluntarily getting involved in such endeavors actually serves these goals."
Yet, he caveated this point by noting that actors engage in mediation either because they possess a unique suitability to the specific context—such as close ties, deep knowledge of the parties involved or meaningful leverage—or because mediation presents a strategic opportunity to elevate their regional or global standing, offering influence that might otherwise remain out of reach.
"The risks in a particular case would have to be so high as to influence states to abandon this when it seems beneficial to their interests or capabilities," explained Dr. Miller.
"Moreover, for many countries who mediate, their mediation efforts are institutionalized, not only in terms of the frameworks and mechanisms they have established at a national level to contribute, but also on a more intangible level. Mediation is an important part of who they are as nations and actors in international affairs," he added.
The Cost of Letting Diplomacy Die in Doha
The reality in the region today, however, does not lend serious benefits to these states. Israel appears determined to carry on with its genocidal war in Gaza and intensified ethnic cleansing campaign in the West Bank. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's extremist government is far more interested in its increasingly maximalist goals in the region than in advancing the cause of better relations with Arab states and the broader international community.
Thus, on Sep. 9, Israel further exposed itself as a rogue actor by bombing a neutral state known for its commitment to peaceful conflict resolution through dialogue. The message was chilling: Even neutral mediators are no longer off-limits. As the Arab region absorbs the shock of this escalation, the global community must reckon with the precedent set by punishing diplomacy while rewarding force.
If this becomes the norm, the costs would not just be regional. They would be global.
