Advanced Knowledge, Advanced Implications: Dissecting the Doha Strike

My family is based in a residential tower block in The Pearl – a small artificial oasis on the northern end of Doha. I had just sat down to lunch at my dining room table. A few meters in front of me, in the adjoining lounge, was my dad standing in front of the TV ironing some shirts. He had the Stone Roses essentials blaring on his speaker. And yet, the noises from the blasts were still loud enough to be physically felt. 

We counted about seven or eight blasts in close succession. They had just ceased by the time I made it onto our balcony, where I photographed the picture attached below. 

I pored through X and local news sites. Within minutes, Israel had claimed responsibility for the attack. The reaction on the ground was outrage. I shared that reaction.

Neverending impunity, it seemed. But in the ensuing slurry of US-Israel-Qatar headlines and a rotating hot-seat of seething political analysts on the BBC and Al Jazeera, the calculus of the Israeli-American operation refused to compute. 

Outlined below are the facts that should lead anyone to ask: Did the US approve the strike explicitly? If so, why? And if not, were they given notice? If so, how much notice? The implications here are massively revealing of who really wears the pants in Trump and Netanyahu’s relationship.

For weeks prior to the strike, Netanyahu was sitting on his hands. A Qatari-Egyptian ceasefire proposal – one that Hamas had accepted – had mirrored a proposal that Netanyahu had also accepted only a month earlier, and Israel chose not to respond. In the days leading up to the strike, the US floated a new 100 word ceasefire “proposal”. This coincided with Trump’s “final warning” ultimatum for Hamas on Truth Social.

Following what is normal routine, Hamas met to discuss the proposal in Doha, Qatar, where they have offices from which they work out of and mediate talks with the US, Israel, Egypt, and Qatar. Doha is also home to the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest American military installation in the entire ME region, the very presence of which frames the idea that Washington doesn’t have a watchful eye on every square inch of Qatari airspace as an absolute fantasy. 

On 9 September, Israel launched air strikes on a residential area in the Qatari capital. It was a botched job. Among those targeted – and who survived – are Hamas grandees, including Khalil al-Hayya, their chief negotiator. 

The emerging reports after the strikes, summarised on this timeline, are where the dubious narrative of who knew what and when begins. 

• Regional US military officials were reportedly not made aware of the Israeli strike.

• Only after the missile strikes began to occur did the US embassy in Doha issue a shelter-in-place order for staff.  

• Just under an hour later, Netanyahu’s office took credit for the “wholly independent Israeli operation.”

• White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s choice of words for her statement was that the “Trump Administration was notified by the United States military that Israel was attacking Hamas,” and that Trump “immediately directed special envoy Steve Witkoff to notify the Qataris of the impending attack.”

• Qatar immediately issued a statement denying that the Americans gave them advance notice. The call came in too late. Trump later confirmed as much on social media, backtracking on Leavitt’s statement.

• The following day, Trump, in a “heated phone call”, told Netanyahu that his decision to target Hamas in Qatar wasn’t wise, according to a WSJ report. He also posted this on Truth Social:

  
  

  

  
  

• Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, said on radio on 10 September that “we don’t always act in the interests of the United States. We are coordinated – they give us incredible support, we appreciate that – but sometimes we make decisions and inform the United States.”

Speaking to senior Israeli officials via Axios, Barak Ravid – a reporter with questionable ties to Israeli politicians and the IDF – outlines this fascinating “friction point”, which centers on whether Trump was feasibly able, or willing, to act on the information of the impending attack. Officials claim that Trump knew well in advance “on a political level,” that Trump and Netanyahu had spoken before the missiles had been fired, and that Israel would have called off the strike if Trump objected. Unclear still is whether this call was merely notifying Trump of the plans or an explicit request for permission. 

The plot thickens when a further four Israeli officials concurred that the White House denied prior knowledge of the attack in an effort to politically position themselves and distance themselves from an attack on a key US ally.

So, what do we believe now?

Indeed, it is utterly fanciful to suggest America is not only working out of lock-step with the Israeli imperial mission but that it also has zero working control over the airspace over their biggest military installation in the region. Yet, Occam’s razor leaves no other choice. Because the only other idea is more fanciful: that a government as inconsistent, news-obsessed, capricious, and disorganised as Trump’s has been able to systematically disseminate a lie at every level of the White House and US military about not having advanced knowledge of this military operation – an operation conducted within a US-allied state and one that comes at the expense of a) American diplomatic capital, b) the safety of American diplomats, c) any prospects for Donald “I make deals” Trump to claim victory on further ceasefire agreements, and d) Trump’s ability to save America’s face or maintain any control of the narrative – all in exchange for the potential death of key negotiators and an opportunity for Israel to continue its destruction of Gaza City.  

There are just not many ways that can realistically work. A man like Trump, who is often without a plan, would only take such a deal if he is being wholly manipulated (which, with Trump, is ostensibly easy to do) into seeing a fleeting opportunity to take credit for a potential win or squeezed by the Israeli state insofar as they know that America will back them whatever they choose to do.

Taking that ‘deal’ also necessitates that systematic lie’s success – and the best lies are always partly true: Trump ‘knew beforehand’ insofar as Netanyahu told him his fighter jets were taking off and minutes out from eliminating Hamas leadership. The Americans would not shoot them down. Upon news of the failed strike, the US distanced themselves – easy to do given their little notice – and the Israeli’s lean on the technically-true narrative that the US were indeed notified. 

Conflicting evidence abounds. Questions remain. But no evidence exists so as to allow one to reasonably assume this was a joint Trump-Netanyahu operation. Netanyahu deals, and it seems Trump – however much notice he is given – is left to fumble with his hand.

Image: Sebastian Smith

Licence.