In Operation Summit of Fire, Israel advanced its strategy of decapitating the leadership of the Iran-led axis of resistance. The airstrike on Hamas headquarters in Doha, Qatar, was likely designed to achieve two main goals.
The first was to remove Khalil al-Hayya, and possibly Zaher Jabarin, from Hamas’ negotiating team. Both have consistently represented a hardline, uncompromising stance in the group’s demands during talks.
The moment of the attack in Qatar
According to recent reports, tensions had emerged between al-Hayya — who belongs to the Gaza leadership and was among the planners of the October 7 massacre — and Gaza City brigade commander Izz al-Din al-Haddad, one of the highest-ranking figures inside the enclave. Al-Haddad was reportedly prepared to compromise on several issues and leaned toward accepting the latest U.S. proposal, while al-Hayya and Jabarin opposed it and presented rigid demands.
This raises the possibility that Israel may now negotiate directly with al-Haddad, similar to the 1982 Beirut siege, when talks were conducted (through mediators) with Yasser Arafat himself, leading to his agreement under U.S. mediation to evacuate.
Why would Israel prefer to negotiate directly with al-Haddad? He is now Hamas’ top commander in Gaza, feeling the intensifying military pressure firsthand and sensitive to the suffering of civilians displaced and harmed by strikes. This contrasts with Hamas leaders in Doha, who sit comfortably in hotels, insulated from the fighting.
The second goal of the unprecedented strike was to send a clear message from Israel’s political and security leadership: that it will not relent in its demands for the release of hostages, nor in its determination to dismantle Hamas’ military and civilian rule in Gaza. The aim was to prove that Israel will hunt Hamas officials anywhere in the world, even at the risk of tensions with allies such as the United States, or with Qatar, which maintains close ties with Washington, in order to achieve its objectives.
It is reasonable to assume the strike was coordinated with the White House. Otherwise, U.S. forces stationed at the U.S. base in Qatar would likely have responded. In addition, Trump administration officials are believed to have coordinated the attack with Qatar.
The Qataris have a history of permitting strikes on their territory — most recently at the end of Operation Rising Lion, when U.S. aircraft bombed Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility. Qatar agreed to allow Iran to retaliate by striking the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East on its soil, warning Washington in advance. The base was evacuated of planes and personnel before the strike, preventing casualties and limiting damage. A similar scenario may have unfolded this time.
For now, Qatar has issued a condemnation, citing a violation of international law, and announced the launch of an investigation. It is likely to freeze ties with Israel and suspend its mediation role, but relations may gradually be restored later.
Reports suggest the strike occurred as Hamas leaders gathered to discuss the U.S. proposal for a hostage deal and an end to the war, but this may have been psychological warfare. The real target appears to have been the organization’s hardest-line leaders. Hamas is expected to suspend negotiations temporarily.
In addition to Qatari outrage, the United States may publicly express displeasure with the strike — or even deny coordination. Still, talks are likely to resume later, potentially led by less uncompromising figures in Hamas’ leadership — whether al-Haddad in Gaza, or second- and third-tier officials based permanently in Turkey.