Two perspectives shape the debate over Israel’s role in the Middle East: that of a hegemonic power and that of a revisionist power. The first sees Israel as a dominant regional actor with unrivaled military superiority. The second views it as a revisionist force, actively seeking to reshape the region to fit its own strategic and political vision.
Israel’s strike on Qatar on September 9 illustrates the tension between these two roles. Far from consolidating Israel’s claim to hegemony, the attack exposed the fragility of that position. At the same time, it underscored Israel’s identity as a revisionist power bent on redrawing the region’s security map.
Hegemony in Question
A hegemonic power is defined as the uncontested leader of a region, facing no serious military challengers and enjoying broad acceptance—even grudging—by neighboring states. Sustainable hegemony, however, requires not only overwhelming force but also a measure of legitimacy and regional consent.
At first glance, the strike on Doha appeared to reinforce Israel’s hegemonic standing. Officials in Jerusalem, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, justified the operation as part of a campaign to pursue Hamas leaders “wherever they are.” Domestically, the attack was framed as proof of Israel’s military and intelligence superiority, with some commentators claiming it restored Israel’s deterrent power.
Yet the outcome told a different story. Reports indicated that senior Hamas leaders, the primary targets, survived. The failure to achieve its declared objectives turned the “Doha strike” into a symbol of Israel’s limits, shattering the illusion that it can act anywhere, anytime, without consequence.
Even more damaging was the regional and international backlash. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Arab states issued sharp condemnations, joined by the UN Security Council. Far from acceptance, Israel encountered widespread anger. The very foundation of regional hegemony—neighborly acquiescence—was eroded.
Revisionist Power on Display
If the strike weakened Israel’s hegemonic credentials, it simultaneously highlighted its revisionist character. A revisionist power seeks to overturn the existing order, expand its influence, and secure its interests through unilateral and aggressive action. Israel’s behavior fits this mold.
The Doha strike was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern that includes operations in Lebanon, Iran, Syria, and Yemen. Collectively, these moves signal Israel’s new “offensive security posture” and growing willingness to accept risks in pursuit of regional transformation.
The timing was especially telling: the targets were Hamas negotiators engaged in talks over a U.S.-backed ceasefire. By striking during mediation, Israel demonstrated a preference for total military victory over political compromise. The message was clear—Israel seeks not negotiation, but capitulation.
Worse, the attack on Qatari soil—a sovereign U.S. ally—was an extraordinary breach of sovereignty. It showed Israel’s readiness to disregard international law and undermine even its closest partners if doing so serves its objectives. This is the hallmark of a revisionist state operating outside established frameworks.
Fallout for the United States and the Gulf
The strike carried profound consequences for Washington. Qatar hosts the massive U.S. Al-Udeid airbase, and its mediation efforts had been backed by the White House. The killing of a Qatari security officer, despite prior assurances that no such attack would occur, shattered trust. President Donald Trump’s mixed response—expressing dismay yet praising the pursuit of Hamas—only deepened the confusion.
For Gulf states, the strike raised fundamental doubts about American security guarantees. If the U.S. cannot restrain Israel, can it be relied upon as the region’s ultimate protector? The episode intensified calls to diversify alliances, with some voices urging stronger military cooperation with Turkey, Pakistan, or even seeking new guarantees from Russia and China.
The Gulf’s collective reaction was striking. All states condemned the attack, framing it as a violation of international law and Qatari sovereignty. In a rare show of unity, UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed visited Doha immediately, with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman expected to follow. The strike thus achieved the opposite of what Israel might have intended: it strengthened Gulf solidarity against it.
Risks to Normalization
The attack also placed normalization efforts in jeopardy. The Abraham Accords were meant to integrate Israel into a regional security framework. Instead, the Doha strike destabilized these arrangements, proving that normalization does not restrain Israeli aggression.
Popular Arab opposition to normalization, already strong, has only deepened. For leaders, the political cost of partnership with Israel has risen sharply, narrowing the space for further integration.
Broader Regional Implications
Beyond the Gulf, the strike reverberated in Ankara and Cairo, where Hamas leaders also reside. Both Turkey and Egypt now face the prospect of Israeli operations extending into their territory—an escalation that could spark regional conflict with global consequences, destabilizing NATO in Turkey and the peace treaty with Egypt.
The attack is part of Israel’s broader confrontation with Iran and Hezbollah. By extending its military reach, Israel risks further entanglement in regional conflicts, complicating U.S. policy and fueling instability.
A Turning Point
The strike not only derailed crucial ceasefire and hostage negotiations but also reshaped the regional landscape. It eroded trust in both Israel and the United States, bolstered Gulf unity, and heightened the sense that the Middle East is entering a new, more dangerous phase of insecurity and realignment.
The Arab-Islamic summit scheduled for September 14–15 in Doha may mark a decisive moment. Leaders are expected to debate legal action against Israel, economic sanctions, new military partnerships, and recalibrated relations with global powers such as China and Russia.
Ultimately, the attack revealed that the war is not merely between Hamas and Israel, as some have framed it. Rather, it is part of a broader Israeli drive to impose a new regional order through aggression. The “Flood” of two years ago did not create this dynamic—it merely exposed the extent of Israel’s revisionist ambition. The strike on Doha, it seems, will not be its last chapter.
Support Dawat Media Center
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320
Support Dawat Media Center
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320
Comments are closed.